Pro Cameras
I want to say something quickly about Pro Cameras. I realize all these kids nowadays want to get themselves a Canon 1Ds Mark III, or a 1D Mark III, or a Nikon D3, or the forthcoming D3x. Forums and blog comments and reviewers will argue the benefits or shortfalls of every of these cameras to the utmost degree, and these discussions are largely fueled by hordes of people who either cannot ever afford one of these cameras (except in several years, on the used market, at which time they won’t buy it anyway because it isn’t the latest and greatest, and also for another reason that is the thrust of this post), and also by wealthy amateurs who can afford to buy the latest equipment, but have the option to use it at their leisure.
The question that I really want answered though, is why are these cameras considered to be the pinnacle of our photographic technology. Nikon sent me and ad for the recent D3… It was a roughly 20×30″ print of a motorcyle race taken at ISO 6400… Yes, the image quality was amazing, and didn’t seemed to be touched up so much in post as to hide its flaws. It was a great looking photo. Likely the best looking ISO 6400 photo I’ve ever seen. I’ve seen images from the 1Ds series and the 1D series and been quite impressed there also, at a variety of ISO speeds. The image quality is always impressive to me. But I’ve read and heard a thousand times over that image quality is not necessarily the single most important feature of a camera. It is not typically amateurs of any variety making this case, but the professionals. They almost all say that you can make a great image on any system, whether small format, medium, or large format. The most important thing is how a camera falls to hand, as they say. Does it hold well? Are the functions you need quickly accessible?
And I agree with this thinking wholeheartedly. But I’ve held Pro camera bodies before. I’ve talked to other professionals, and they almost unanimously agree that they don’t like holding their expensive Pro-level SLRs. In fact, almost all of them own smaller bodies by the same company (or sometimes Leica’s) that they take with them for personal shooting. In fact, most of them disdain carrying and holding the 15-pound monstrosities that they use on a daily basis. But it didn’t always used to be this way. The most comfortable camera I personally have ever held was a Canon 1n. It was a pro body, but from probably 10 years ago, and it’s a film body. The grip is shaped well, and it’s got enough bulk to feel solid but not so much to feel like a burden. The camera fits me well. The only contemporary body offered by Canon that seems to fit that well is the 5D. Certainly a camera capable of professional results, but not a “pro camera” by Canon’s measure. A very large number of Canon-using professionals are using 5D bodies, in spite of their ability to afford a 1-series tank. The blogs and forums and comments almost all herald that this is a result of lower cost, but virtually no one seems to consider the possibility that perhaps working with a small camera really is more comfortable. The 1n, and the more recent film camera, the 1v both had removable grips, and were weighty, but manageable. The digital professional cameras have grips always attached, and are almost always left at home whenever possible.
So what I’d like to see is found in two parts. One for photographers, and one for manufacturers.
Photographers, don’t let the camera companies tell you what you need to buy. If you like working with a smaller camera, and find it more comfortable, then don’t buy the massive bodies just because they tell you they’re pro cameras. I’ve seen editorial and fine art done with a Canon 20D’s and Nikon D200′s. (Or Olympus or Pentax and so on). The big news is that most clients won’t see an appreciable difference in image quality between a 5D and a 1Ds Mark II (I’d say the Mark III, but I haven’t had a chance to compare files in realistic settings, so I can’t speculate). Sports shooters are kind of stuck in a tough spot here because they need the extremely high rates of fire. But for the rest of us, buy smaller bodies if that’s what you’d rather hold. Start actually communicating with the companies that image quality is grand, but not as important as making a camera a pleasure to use. Swallow your pride, and use what you really want to use, and not what you feel like you have to.
And manufacturers. You made film cameras for years that were tough as nails, and (relatively) comfortable to hold. There’s no reason you can’t weather seal a 5D, and give it a tougher shell. That won’t add a stupendous weight to the camera. Most of what you’re selling us is a battery that is overpriced and overweight. We already know you can put big sensors in small cameras, so you don’t even have to sacrifice the image quality if you don’t want to. Which means you probably don’t even have to cut the price that much if you don’t want to. Your profit margin just went up. Think about it.
Well that’s all I’m going to say about this for the time being. Feel free to argue in the comments. Thanks for reading everyone. I’ll try hard to have more pictures to show soon.