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?”