In recent years, manufacturers have introduced so many new features to their cameras that it begs the question: “How many features do you actually need?”
Writing for this medium for the past seven-plus years, I have spoken at length on countless topics, some better than others. One truth that became apparent early on and may not be particularly surprising: articles about gear undoubtedly attract more clicks than other topics. This is not surprising, since everyone, including me, loves to get hyped up about new technology. And although camera manufacturers are in no rush to dispel it, there is a persistent misconception that the newer the camera, the better the photos. This is nonsense, of course. You wouldn't think that the Sistine Chapel is any less of a feat just because it wasn't made using modern construction equipment or painting processes. So why do we think that the aesthetic value of photographic art is directly tied to the tools used to produce it?
That doesn't stop me from having an insatiable appetite for more and more content that suggests gear can change your career. And as someone who writes about the world of photography and film, it's part of my job to write about new toys as they come on the market. So while I personally try to avoid gear talk as much as possible and write more about building a successful business or improving my artistic craft, I still find myself writing about the latest and greatest new product releases quite frequently.
BTW, I'm not complaining. Today, cameras from various brands have amazing features that I would have thought were fan fiction back in the day. It's a real privilege to try new gear, get information about upcoming products, and share that information with my readers. So, as a photographer and tech writer, I expect manufacturers to continue to raise the specs for still photography. That can only be a good thing. But today, I want to look at things from the perspective of a buyer who wants to make the right investment for their business.
Something interesting has happened in recent years. As a professional photographer and director, and as I write for Fstoppers, I am often asked what camera I should buy. Sometimes it's from friends looking for a new hobby, or people going on vacation looking for something to photograph their spouse and kids while they travel. Other times, people are just starting their careers and looking for some serious work gear to help them run their business. But in these cases, in most cases, I advise potential buyers not to buy new products at all, but to look at the used market. Is this because I think new cameras are inferior to older ones? No. Rather, it's because it seems obvious that camera technology has long since surpassed its limits in satisfying the basic “needs” of 99% of photographers. As I will explain, there are new areas to explore, but the days when an honest photographer could say that lack of technology is what is preventing him from reaching his full artistic potential are long gone.
Yes, certain features related to certain specialties are not only useful but sometimes necessary for certain types of photography. Take burst rate for example. For example, if you are a sports or wildlife photographer, the number of frames your camera can shoot per second is an objectively important feature. And thanks to the blending of stills and video that mirrorless cameras have, modern photographers have access to 20, 30, and even 40 fps to capture every second. Of course, personally, I always wonder at what frame rate you go from capturing the decisive moment as a photographer to basically shooting video and pulling off the perfect frame in post. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with shooting at the speed of your camera. It's the right decision to objectively meet your requirements. But I wonder if we've already reached a point where most cameras that have come on the market in the past five years are fast enough for almost everyone. Even at 20 fps, you're still pretty much shooting video. Not completely, but almost. So if in the future camera manufacturers continue to push out more and more frames per second, that might be a good thing, but is it really necessary? When you're shooting 20, 30, 40 stills per second, are there really that many situations that can't be captured with a still image?
The same goes for megapixels. Again, I love megapixels as much as anyone else. I've owned cameras with as much as 100 MP and can objectively say that there is a difference in the files themselves. That being said, do 99% of photographers actually need that many megapixels? There's also the argument that most photographers don't even need 45 MP. This is not to criticize the artistic merit of the photographer, nor to make the pretentious claim that only “real photographers” need high megapixels. Rather, what I'm trying to say is that more megapixels does not mean a better photo. More megapixels means a sharper photo. A photo that can be cropped and printed larger. But it's not an inherently better work of art than something taken 15 years ago with a 12 MP sensor. Even if there's an argument that “professionals need more megapixels” (which may or may not be true depending on the type of professional), the world is becoming more and more digital. Your finished images will be seen far more times on digital devices than they will be seen in print. Even if you're producing advertising campaigns for big brands, you're definitely using digital more than outdoor advertising. That doesn't mean those jobs don't still exist – in fact, they are becoming less common, with many of the primary jobs focused on digital platforms where high-megapixel images are less useful. So while some people might want to rent a high-megapixel monster for a specific job, it's fair to say that the vast majority of people looking to buy a new camera can easily do 99% of the jobs offered to them with their existing tech.
These are just examples. And, no doubt, there are heaps of use cases that negate everything I just said. But I think you get my point. The new cameras being announced for photographers across the industry are objectively great, but for the most part, I feel like we've crossed the line of having all our needs met adequately. And many of the new improvements are more or less marginal gains rather than what you can classify as must-haves. Going back to my usual suggestion that most new photographers should look at the used market first, primarily to save money and get value for their money, we've had what we need to create beautiful images for over a decade now. The new updates try to add value by addressing some comforts that may or may not be important to my workflow but are useful for camera sales, but it's hard to use them as a basis for a solid recommendation to photographers who want to get the most for their money.
That's not to say these improvements are negative, or that there's no room for improvement. For example, I think the No. 1 thing camera manufacturers should focus on improving going forward is dynamic range. Dynamic range has remained in the same relative area for cameras for years, at about a stop difference. There have been improvements, but it hasn't developed as rapidly as areas like burst speed, for example. I would like camera manufacturers to put their heart and soul into this technology, especially since dynamic range is important to still photographers and cinematographers alike. Dynamic range is pretty good right now, but it's an area that can always be improved. And ironically, like megapixels, dynamic range is the kind of thing that can be sold with an easy-to-understand number. So, manufacturers, if you're reading this, think about the new sales potential.
I'd also like to see continued advancements in the area of flash sync speeds. As a heavy flash user, I get really excited whenever a new camera (without high-speed sync) comes out that can sync at more than 1/200th of a second. I've yet to upgrade my camera for this reason, but I'm really craving faster sync speeds so I can blot out the sun at will.
Somewhat relatedly, I'm interested to see how far the global shutter will go in the future. The move to a global shutter system could have practical implications for still photographers as well, since dealing with rolling shutter artifacts is more of an issue for videographers than still photographers. Oddly enough, this could impact both of my previous requests. With the global shutter, in theory, flash sync speeds should become a thing of the past. But from what I've read (not personally tested), the global shutter can also negatively impact dynamic range. I don't know exactly why, but it's definitely an issue that still needs to be addressed.
Now, I want to admit two things. First, I am a working professional photographer who uses cameras as a business tool. As such, I judge the value of a camera based on its price and how much of a benefit it provides that actually impacts my bottom line and productivity. It's not just about whether the camera's specs are objectively better, but also whether those specs are worth the extra cost that comes with buying it compared to the previous model. So, speaking of practicality, no modern camera can offer anything that my old Nikon D850 DSLR couldn't offer me 7 years ago. Sure, mirrorless cameras give you edge-to-edge focusing capabilities, face recognition, faster burst speeds, and video. But honestly, the progress I've made as a photographer over the past 7 years has not come from switching from DSLR to digital, but from pushing my creativity and striving to improve my craft. I could have just as easily done with the D850. The main reason I went mirrorless, and the benefits that have proven to be objectively meaningful, came in terms of video. And if you're a videographer, I think there are still valuable improvements in that world that make it worth upgrading. But when it comes to still photography, it feels like the technology is already there, and if it makes a visible difference to the end product, it might be the right decision to upgrade to the latest and greatest. But when it comes to creating the Sistine Chapel, remember that the painter is much more important than the paintbrush.
