The Entry Level Shooter Part 3

Two articles ago I described how I grew up with 35mm film SLRs. They were relatively unsophisticated devices back then but curiously, many great, legendary photographers produced many memorable images with nothing more. How many great National Geographic articles did we read, festooned with pictures of exotic people and places shot by mostly manual Nikon Fs and the like?

These cameras couldn't shoot at 7 frames per second, they didn't have face recognition. They didn't boast ultra high definition LCD screens, live view, auto focus, stabilisation, automatic ISO, movie files, wifi connection, auto-bracketing, noise reduction circuitry, red-eye correction, D-lighting blah blah blah ... and yet great pictures were made, week in and week out, by working photographers across the world.

What is more, the lenses that such photographers worked with were relatively primitive. Computer aided design technology and white hot manufacturer competition have brought us lenses, in recent years, which are far and away superior to anything which camera jockeys of the 60s and 70s ever had access to. Even today's so called "kit" lenses, (while admittedly suffering from light construction) are astonishingly good. When a token amount of skill is employed in their ACTUAL USE, it is discovered that they are often the optical equal of advanced pro models dating from, say, fifteen years ago.

How on EARTH can one explain the generations of great pictures which have adorned the pages of National Geographic, Life Magazine, Cosmopolitan, the New York Times or the Saturday Evening Post when such pictures were shot by the simple featureless cameras of bygone days. How did serious photographers ever function without the legion of features and gimmicks which modern marketing departments INSIST that we have to have? Bit of a mystery isn't it?

One can buy an "entry level" Nikon D3100 or a Canon EOS 1100D SLR for maybe $600 or so which is a quarter of the price of a D700 or an EIGHTH the price of a D3s and yet it can be argued that these humble, much despised "entry level" devices are far and away superior image capturing instruments than anything possessed by the great photographers of past eras. Somehow, however, modern entry level SLRs are not good enough for the likes of you and me. We must spend more ... presumably for the continued survival of Nikon and Canon marketing team executives! Let's be kind. After all these people have swank suburban residences and BMW dealerships to support.

Such bottom of the line SLRs offer clean resolving power which would have been envied by the owners of top pro cameras only five years ago. They offer rapid speed of operation, nice bright viewfinders, big clear viewing screens and a broad selection of the essential digital features and facilities. They are light, convenient to carry, fun and simple to use and offer total, accurate manual control. Under all but truly exceptional conditions, the ultimate image quality from such cameras is effectively equal to anything available.

"Whoa! Hold on there! Just a minute. Now you've overstepped the mark, Hobbs. Everybody knows that the pictures from a D3100 can't possibly compete with those from say a nice expensive D300s for example. After all I just shelled out for a D300s and I sure as hell don't want to have to swallow the idea that some jerk with a D3100 can get pictures just as good as mine!!"

Now this is where I have to disappoint a whole lot of people. Recently as part of their comprehenive camera review articles, DPreview.com started including a page which enabled the picture quality from ANY of the cameras which they had formerly reviewed, to be compared with the results from the model currently under examination. You can move the cursor around the display screen to make 100% enlarged comparisons using any part of a comprehensively arranged sample scene. You can vary the ISO settings. You can look at RAW results AND jpeg. Not much goes unrevealed - let me assure you. It enables me to make an outrageous statement here.

Given that 90% or more of photography is generally done using ISO settings 100 to 1600 I think it is legitimate to concentrate on comparisons made under those conditions. Accordingly, anybody who goes to the DPreview site and does the exercise can quickly see for themselves that the quality of the pictures produced by our entry-level brigade compares well with almost ANYTHING regardless of price. Most people just don't seem to understand that simple fact.

Consider the following:

Most great pictures are shot by people who use cameras. I don't care HOW good a camera you own at home in the cupboard. If you don't have it with you when the picture presents itself it might as well be a box brownie that you couldn't find film for. My Nikon D40 is light enough for me to carry almost anywhere I go - just in case. Try carrying a HEAVY camera on spec. You don't do it do you? I didn't think so

A lot of the best pictures are to be found in out-of-the-way, hard-to-get-to places. Sometimes the conditions are difficult and we are worried about damaging our expensive cameras. My entry level camera didn't cost very much. If I drop a D700 off a cliff, its gone and I shall probably have to buy another at great relative expense. I can drop FOUR entry level SLRs off FOUR cliffs before I am up for the same cost. Accordingly I can afford to take a few more risks, go to a few more dicey places and get a whole lot of great pictures I probably would NOT have got if I'd been too worried about my camera.

Expensive cameras ARE expensive, very often because they bristle with features which marketing departments tell us we MUST have. I don't know about you but 99% of the time the only features I need to know about are the auto-focus, the shutter speed and aperture controls, the exposure compensation, the ISO adjustments and the shutter release button ..... pretty much like the old film SLRs I was brought up with. Sometimes I go to try out some totally superfluous new fangled gim .. er .. feature. I learn to use it but might not have need of it for another 12 months. I have to get out the manual because I've forgotten how the feature works. Meanwhile the picture I was after goes away. What - I ask you - was the point of having the feature in the first place?

Expensive cameras are designed to take more punishment and last a lot longer than entry level cameras. Again I am led to ask what the point of that is. If you are a working professional you need for the camera not to let you down at critcal moments. That is fair enough, but as I said last time, I am addressing myself to enthusiasts who are usually able to work without abusing their equipment. My entry level camera has never let me down and I have been using it heavily for four years or more now.

I might also suggest that having an expensive camera designed to last a moderate enthusiast user for some seven years or more has little point in an environment in which technical advances make it desirable to update equipment much more frequently. Of course, if you didn't spend so much on the camera in the first place, it is much less wasteful to update more frequently. Wouldn't it be nice to always have the leatest gear without alarming the bank manager?

Wouldn't it be nice to have the right lens for every purpose? If you didn't spend too much on a needlessly expensive body, you can probably afford to do just that ... and having the right lens for the shot WILL MOST ASSUREDLY make a noticeable difference to the quality of your pictures. Once you have got the glass, you will probably never need to buy it again. Am I missing something vital in this discussion?

Look. If you are an enthusiast photographer (rather than a workaday pro) there are many many reasons why you MAY be better off using "entry level" SLRs in preference to overly expensive models. I have only mentioned a few.

Before closing this article I'd just like to address ONE last point. There is a suggestion from some quarters that the less skill and experience a photographer has, the more he/she needs an expensive camera to somehow compensate. This makes no sense to me at all. If I have learned one thing over the last forty odd years it is this. NOTHING makes a bigger difference to picture quality than one's ability to do the basic things well. Anything which makes the basic things harder will tend to HARM the quality of one's pictures - not the other way around. One reason why I DON'T use expensive, complicated cameras is that they are generally too big, too heavy and too fiddly for me to use as quickly or as well as a smaller, simpler, less demanding camera. It is as simple as that ... but it's entirely possible that all of that is a problem peculiar to me.

Anyway for right or for wrong the foregoing are the reasons why I believe that most mere enthusiast photographers, like me (and possibly you), might easily be better off using nominally "entry level" equipment in preference to so-called professional kit. Before you shoot me, it is just my personal opinion. If you have a different view, feel free to express it.