Camera-related musing
Despite all the rumors of a successor to Canon’s full-frame 5D DSLR, it appears that the new Rebel XSi/450D is all Canon’s going to give us before the next camera-foaling season this fall. The new Rebel packs 4 million more pixels onto a sensor a bit smaller than the one on my ancient 20D, ensuring larger prints and requiring more processing to make it work in low-light situations. It’s too bad that most camera companies are still promoting the myth that more megapixels=better images quality when in most situations the very opposite is true. But the Rebel’s ISO settings don’t even feature a 3200 setting, which I suppose is just as well, because it would most likely be too noisy to use.
After seeing Canon’s new crop of cameras, I’m still not seeing anything that tempts me to upgrade my current setup. The larger LCDs and live view options are nice, but not enough reason to spend the extra money on a 40D, which doesn’t seem to be that much of an improvement over the 20D. Frame rates don’t interest me in the slightest. Even the new point-and-shoots aren’t really much of an improvement over my little SD800IS, simply squeezing more megapixels onto the same, tiny sensor and trying to use processing to make up for horrible low-light performance. I can do that with software on my own, thanks; I’d rather have a decent image to start with and work from that.
The only way I’d want to upgrade would be if the price of the 5D continues to fall. At the moment it’s not much more expensive than the Nikon D300, which isn’t even a full frame camera, and it is virtually unmatched as far as low-light/high-ISO clarity goes, at least for something I consider to be a reasonable size and price. Canon makes most of its money on point-and-shoots and the Rebel line, I suspect, but I hope they continue to develop small full-frame DSLRs like the 5D in the future.
If I were to go full-frame, I’d have to give up my lovely Canon 10-22mm EF-S lens for wide shots, but I’ve been thinking that I rely overmuch on that lens anyway. I don’t know quite how to explain it, but sometimes I feel like my wide lens makes it too easy to get an interesting shot, that I’m somehow using it to replace rather than augment what I think of as “real” photography. By taking away that option, I’d be forcing myself to concentrate harder on composition at a certain focal range. I’m not really considering limiting myself to a single 35 or 50mm prime (though the idea has merit), but perhaps staying on this side of 16mm would actually help me learn to “see” better. I’ve already done this with telephoto lenses; maybe it’s time I did it with the superwides as well.
While we’re on the subject of photography, I’d like to know something: Why is it that so many photographers (i.e. photographers who are linked to around the net on places like Metafilter) use such horrible interfaces to display their work? Usually the quality of pictures themselves is unremarkable and no great loss as I figure I can find much better on flickr’s Explore, but occasionally I’ll come across a great photographer who chooses to punish viewers of his pictures in the most maddening fashion possible. It’s like drinking a succession of small glasses of vinegar laced with heroin.
Of course, flickr has its problems as well. Though having so many pictures and a good Interestingness algorithm works well most of the time, I’ve found that it’s quite pointless to join groups based on number of views, as the vast majority of pictures with thousands of views feature mostly blond women in bikinis, mostly blond women sitting at tables, and women of all hair colors lying on mostly white beds.
On a positive note, flickr does have an important lesson to teach anyone (like myself) who dwells excessively on different types of cameras: the camera finder. All you have to do is go to the list of cameras and pick any old model of crap camera, and flickr will show you a range of brilliant photography done with that very model. It’s a humbling experience, but hardly a surprise when you consider that most of the best photographers of the last century had very little to work with, equipment-wise.
There are even people who set out to “recreate” masterworks of great photographers, even making sure that the planet is in the right position when they make such attempts. I find it difficult, however, to recreate even my own photos, much less those of other people. I used to take my 20D back to the site of pictures I took with my SD800 and try to get “better” versions, but it never worked out. The emotional state of the photographer is just one of countless variables that go into making a picture, each next to impossible to replicate, so I don’t even try.
Besides, even if you did manage to get something interesting, how would you describe it in a way that doesn’t sound pathetic? “Look, here’s a picture I took that’s the same place, time, season and focal length as an Ansel Adams picture! Aren’t I creative?”
Wise words. I think good photographers will keep taking great photos while the average consumer will seek out the most bells and whistles for their buck. Hopefully some manufacturers will have the sense to produce some back-to-basics or classic models which address some of the issues you have mentioned.
Comment by David on Formosa — January 25, 2008 @ 8:42 am
They might, David, but I’m sure they’ll charge extra for it. The thing is, with the advent of cheap digital photography, everyone’s getting into it, which changes the market and the marketing, which changes the kind of cameras being produced. It’s good in that more kinds of cameras are being introduced, but it can also mean that the direction of development can also be steered in a less than optimum direction.
Comment by Poagao — January 25, 2008 @ 12:53 pm
-The emotional state of the photographer is just one of countless variables that go into making a picture, each next to impossible to replicate.
Very, very true, and something that is all too frequently overlooked.
As to the 40D, the low-light/high ISO abilities are fantastic. Quite a few tests have shown it to be as good as, if not slightly better than, the 5D in terms of noise. I’ve never used a 5D so I don’t know how true this is. The 40D has a usable ISO3200, whereas I find the 20D’s 3200 to be too noisy.
The 40D also has a 14-bit processor which gives a lot more room for rescuing things that the 20D can’t capture.
That said, the main reason I bought a 40D was because I was looking to pick up a 2nd body and the 40D was announced at the same time I started looking around. If it hadn’t been announced, I probably would have bought a used 20D or 30D.
Agree with you about the megapixels, however the average Joe believes more = better, so the camera companies keep upping the MP count in their digicams and entry-level DSLRs as it translates into lots of needless sales as people trade in their perfectly good cameras for the newest model in order to get an extra 2MP. You and I know that it’s pointless, but it equals profits to the company and I can’t see them changing anytime soon.
Comment by cfimages — January 27, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
Craig, most of the comparisons I’ve seen have the 5D ahead of the 40D in high-ISO shots. The 40D has the same size sensor as the 20D, but with more megapixels and better processing, having just been introduced. To my eye, the 5D’s low-light/high-ISO performance is still slightly superior. I’m wondering, however, if a 50D or the rumored 7D would be so far apart and if Canon is thinking of merging these two lines.
Comment by Poagao — January 27, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
Feel better soon, my friend!
Comment by Prince Roy — January 28, 2008 @ 10:36 am
I suppose the level you’re at with your photography dictates the equipment you’d buy and sometimes the tool sadly plays a major role to the beginner like myself.
I am contemplating on Prime lenses now seeing that I feel a need to understand how it will work on portraits and low light conditions. A good fisheye lens is next in line.
Maybe not everyone is able to ‘articulate’ or connect with the inner photographer therefore the equipment becomes an extension I guess. Innovation is not always revolutionary.
I am also a purist/snob – HDR is over-rated. If you really love low light pictures then you need to revisit Ilford.
Comment by Hadi — January 29, 2008 @ 11:41 pm