When the Canon 5D MkII came out in 2008 it set a new benchmark in the world of full-framed-sensor cameras. Almost three years on and we’re due for an upgrade. My favourite Canon rumours site is ‘canonrumours.com’ and for the past 6 months there has been lots of speculation about the Canon 5D MkIII.
I recently found myself in conversation with a friend who said that he was waiting for the MkIII to come out so that he could save up and purchase a discounted MkII (which is still a very good camera). I caught myself thinking, ‘Do you really need that expensive a camera?’
That question was posed (mentally!) for a number of reasons, chief of which was that he currently does not own a DSLR.
So here are my thoughts on why you don’t need the 5D MkIII, but should still get a DSLR.
Why you don’t need the 5D MkIII:
- The more expensive the equipment is, the less margin for error you have. This means you need to be a better photographer the more expensive your gear gets. Having an average photographer with expensive gear is like taking an average driver and putting them behind the wheel of an F1 Racing Car.
- Your body is only as good as the lens you put on it. The lens often counts for more in terms of picture quality. One of the worst things I saw in Europe was an Asian tourist who was walking around with the Canon 1D MkIII (which was about $4,000 AUD) body, and a Tamron 18-200mm lens (worth $200). To use another car analogy, that’s like taking the engine of a Hyundai Getz and putting it into the body of a Ferrari…
- You’ll face the ‘Oh…that’s nice…’ looks if you have expensive camera and only take average photos (in Automatic mode). Which is like wearing the latest Air Jordan basketball shoes but having no game!
- The learning curve can be steep on a DSLR, so a cheaper body will suit most people early on.
- Having expensive equipment does not compensate for poor composition – the camera is only every going to be as good as the photographer behind it.
BUT why you should get a DSLR…
- The picture quality between a Point and Shoot and a DSLR (on a 1:1 ratio) is always going to be different – and the DSLR, even a low-end model, will trump most point and shoots primarily because of its larger sensor.
- DSLR’s will give you a greater range of control over Aperture, Shutter Speeds and ISO that most point and shoots aren’t capable of – and with better noise control at higher ISOs – so this gives you greater creative control.
- DSLR’s give you a wide range of branded and third-party lenses/attachments to grow a serious (and expensive) hobby.
But what to do if your budget can’t quite match getting a DSLR (with the whole kit and caboodle)?
- Consider getting a high-end point and shoot camera with a hot-shoe flash attachment, coupled with an external flash capable of bouncing light at different angles. Flash which is bounced from the ceiling or a wall will instantly improve any night-time (and sometimes day-time) photography.
- eg: Canon G12/SX30IS with the recently announced Canon 320ex
- Micro 4/3s? I’m personally not sold on them: the current range of cameras and attachments are fairly limited and branded only – and they are almost as bulky as low-end DSLRs (some argue that they are lighter, which is true – but you’d just as easily get frustrated with how bulky the camera and a few attachments are if you’ve never lived with a DSLR before, which seems to be the market for most buyers of 4/3s cameras)
- Low light performance might still also be an issue
- OR stick with your current point and shoot. Your best camera is the one you already have. Learn composition before anything else. You can still take good photos if you know how to take a photo.
Final thoughts:
- Whatever you get – always get your wife’s permission!
Comments are closed