A Good Picture is Where You Stand - Part 2 (and what camera you use?)
Well, well, well, colour me purple and tie me up in a bow. Or something like that.
I’m trying to express my surprise. I just watched a very good professional photographer go on a YouTube rant about people’s insistence on using the best cameras. The latest 56 megapixel Sony A whatever or Canon 5D Mark whatever that cost $5000 + for the body alone. Etc., etc.
And he insisted it’s a great waste of time, because you will never actually see the difference in any print you are likely to make. I then watched another YouTube video by a different pro take shots with his full frame Canon and his micro 4/3 Olympus (for an exhibition he had coming up) and then take the shots to the printer and have them printed at a meter wide (yes 3’) and then ask the printer to tell them apart. And of course he couldn’t. The photographer said he couldn’t have either if he hadn’t known in advance; he expressed great surprise, saying he had expected a noticeable difference.
The fly in the ointment is noise. Smaller sensors have more noise. It is actually the only real trade off and if people at Olympus and Panasonic can come up with a way to get around noise levels, the bedlam of the race to small would be awesome to behold. However, even there it is a bit similar to spending too much for a camera. The pictures below were shot in natural indoor light with no flash; noise inducing conditions (these were at ISO 400). Fast lenses definitely help,* but you will probably agree, looking below, that noise is not an issue. And for many of us, most of the time, with the right lens, it won't be. Keep this in mind when I tell you what cameras I used.
So, three shots below. They were all taken on a tripod exactly the same position from the subject. One was taken with a lens half the focal length of the other two and then cropped in. One was taken with a full frame camera, one with a micro 4/3 and one with….well, we’ll talk about that after. All you have to do is decide which is which.
Okay then. Not so easy is it?
The top one is the full frame Pentax with a 31mm lens on it. The other two pictures are done with cameras with 60mm lenses on them (approximately - one was a zoom). Notice that the proportions and structure of the top picture are identical to the other two pictures. As in, if you can see a difference, you're a better man than I am. I have tried this over and over; where you stand, not the lens you use, determines the characteristics of what you are shooting. That 90mm lens that portrait photographers swear by? It is basically a function of them standing at a certain distance that the lens sort of 'moves' them to. Stand in the same spot, shoot with a 60mm lens and crop the picture in a bit in Lightroom, and it will look identical. If you doubt this, as I certainly did, you just need to try it; quite remarkable really.
The bottom picture is taken with the Olympus OMD EM1 and its very nifty 30mm (60mm equivalent) macro lens.
Which leaves the middle pic, and it was done with....a pocket camera. Yep. Now to be fair, it is a good pocket camera, but it has a fixed (non-interchangeable) zoom lens that closes flat and shut (no lens cover) and sits in the palm of your hand. The Canon G7X Mark 11* has earned a spot in my carry bag along side my wallet and my cell phone and my sunglasses for those times you just need a picture and aren't lugging one of the big boys around.
If you are happy with your cell phone pics, more power to you. But if you're into photography, all three of these, even the little Canon, will run rings around what even the best cell phone camera can do.
And yes, Ansel Adams is the man.
*The Canon G7X Mark 11 has a few endearing things. Its lens has an aperture of f1.8 - 2.8 over its entire zoom range of 24-100, which is almost unheard of in pocket cameras and is a huge advantage in these types of shots. It also shoots RAW and has a decent sized 1" sensor.