Equipment

In the past, a photographer would simply buy the best equipment that he or she could afford. Things have changed a lot over the past few decades, though, and this cash-driven approach is no longer the only approach, or even the best approach. Under the old model, two things were regarded as absolutely key, both concerning lenses. First was the speed of the lens, or if it was fast enough for a correct exposure. Second was the quality of the components that made up the lens. This second factor determined the sharpness of the image. Faster and sharper lenses cost much more than the slower, slightly less sharp counterparts.

A fast lens makes it possible to work in darker conditions than would otherwise be possible, at least without a tripod or supplemental lighting. In other words, it enables photographs that would not otherwise happen. Sharpness, on the other hand, is an incremental thing. A less than perfect lens will not stop the photograph from happening; it will just make it slightly softer. It does not take a conspiracy theorist to see that the photography industry’s interests are best served by pushing the importance of speed and sharpness, because this is where the greatest profits lie.

I think the emphasis on speed is justified, but the obsession with sharpness is overdone. Just think of some of the photographs that have really affected you and try to remember whether they are tack sharp, moderately sharp, or not very sharp at all. I have my own favorite images by other photographers and cannot remember which, if any, are super sharp. The truth is that sharpness doesn’t have the same influence on emotional and art-appreciating centers of the brain as contrast does. While absolute sharpness can be achieved at a cost, contrast can be optimized using relatively cheap or even free software tools. An impression of sharpness can also be created by judicious use of contrast, especially local contrast, but that is a discussion for a later chapter.

One thing needs to be clear: I am not making an argument for buying and using only cheap equipment, but rather I am making the case for not spending a fortune that you do not need to spend. If your images are going to be used as fine art prints, 300 dots per inch (dpi) at three feet per side, then get ready to spend some money. You will need a top-quality lens, a camera body with a large sensor, and some expensive software. Not many of us are producing such large, high-quality prints, though, so a considerable amount of money can be saved by not paying for incremental improvements that will be unnoticeable in our final output. The bigger and more expensive approach may be flawed, but there is something at the other end of the scale that is just as wrongheaded. This is the recent trend toward self-imposed limits on equipment. New websites and publications are appearing all the time where the owner seeks to showcase work done with basic gear. Some of these websites show only photographs taken with point-and-shoots, while others go even further and only show work from smartphones. Artificial limits on technology encourage serious exploration of the equipment at hand, but there are times when a different type of camera really would be better suited for the task.

The type of photography you want to do should guide your choice in equipment, as opposed to the industry-approved approach of setting a budget then spending up to your limit. There are times when cheaper equipment may actually outperform a more expensive kit. If you want to take photographs to appear with blog posts or to sell products on eBay, then a budget compact camera may be more useful than a DSLR. The compact camera will give a larger depth of field, be easier to handle, and the picture quality will be sufficient for output to a computer screen.