What camera do you use?

What camera(s) and Printer(s) are you using now days, and why?

— Jay Moynihan

I believe I heard you say in one of the post Japanese/China trip podcasts that your current photographic instrument is the Panasonic G1. Are you happy with the Panasonic at the 8X10" print size level? What doesn't the camera do that is important to your photography? Is there a particular lens that you feel is superior or any to avoid?

— Dennis Mook

   

Over the years, I have been asked this question more often than any other. I'm always slightly amused by it because the very question itself implies that the magic of photographic image making lies in the mechanical device used to make it. Of course, this is simply not true. I've said elsewhere that we would do well to remember that Edward Weston made all those wonderful images with a camera and lens that were incredibly primitive compared to anything we have available to us today. And he did pretty well, I hear.

And, let's remember that the choice of equipment is entirely a project of reverse engineering. What is the nature of the photograph you want to make? Giant wall art prints require a different choice of camera equipment than, say, a web gallery. Fast-action sports photography might imply a different choice of camera than, say, contemplative landscape work. So, my choice of camera is based on the images I choose to make — which is one of the chief flaws I see in so-called "camera reviews" so prevalent on the Internet these days. Does it really make sense to make "comparison shots" of the same subject with all cameras? That would be like playing the same piece of music with all kinds of instruments as a comparison of the instruments. Whether your test music is Stairway to Heaven or the Moonlight Sonata will make all the difference as to which instrument sounds best.

The answer to which camera I use is really not an answer about my camera at all. Because the camera I use is a function of the photographs I make, these questions are really just a shorthanded paraphrase for a much more pointed and detailed question: In order to make the images you do, which camera have you chosen to use that increases the odds of success? Whew. But, at least that's a question I can answer without hesitation.

Answer:

• My projects these days tend to be multiple prints rather than single images. I need to be able to process lots of images. I prefer working on the computer rather than in the wet darkroom because of the flexibility, control, and repeatability of printing in volume. Hence, I shoot digitally rather than on film.
• I make small prints — typically in the 8x10" range. My primary form of artwork is the handheld folio. I can't remember the last piece of work I did that was destined for the wall that was larger than 11x17". 10 megapixels are plenty, 12 a bit better because I can do a little cropping if needed. More than that is wasted for my work. Excessive pixels just slow down everything and make larger files.
• I want my prints to be tack sharp — mostly. Good lenses required. Image stabilization has become indispensable.
• I want my prints to be smooth, grainless, like my eyes — mostly. Digital cameras with larger sensors help.
• I have become quite comfortable with composing quickly, but entirely visually. I tend not to "previsualize" in my mind's eye but rather with my physical eyes, Zone System be damned. So, I prefer to see my image on a large screen like I did for decades with my view cameras. Eye-level finders are almost useless to me, used only as a last resort.
• Knees, back, shoulders, and bifocals demand that any camera I use today has a swivel-capable LCD viewing screen. Creature comforts do count. Light weight helps.
• For purposes of post-processing, I shoot only RAW files in the field. Cameras that don't create RAW files are valueless to me.
• So, taking all this into account and comparing my needs to the current crop of new cameras as well as the broad-scope of available used cameras, last summer I settled in on the Panasonic G1. It has performed beautifully against my rather narrow range of requirements and dictates. Before that, I used a Sony DSC-R1, which also performed beautifully but not as well as the Panasonic. Before that a Fuji s7000, which performed beautifully but not as well as the DSC-R1. After the G1 will be something even better, I'm sure. Or different, if my needs change. I'm not married to my equipment any more than I'm married to my keyboard, my toaster, or my television. Tools — even great ones — are just tools. Do we care what kind of hammer and chisel were used by Michelangelo to carve the statue of David? (You're supposed to laugh at the comparison of my aspirations to his accomplishment.)
• In fact, I have two G1s. I currently carry three lenses, typically a 14-45mm on one camera, a 45-200 on the other camera (I don't have to changes lenses in the field so often this way, the risk of dust on the sensors, you know), and a 7-14mm I can pull out for either camera if I need to. These are all Panasonic lenses that I've tested and found to perform in excess of my needs. They are all tack sharp, at least if I use the right apertures. They are fast enough for my subjects. They are light weight, within my budget, and work. In short, they are sufficient. Perfect? No. Life is a compromise, even in the world of artmaking. They are demonstrably not the best lenses mankind has ever made. I don't care, because they make the images I want to make. Someday they won't and I'll get different lenses. Or a different camera that can use those new lenses. I love eBay.
• I also carry a Panasonic ZX3 for HD movies and snapshots.

What would I like to see in a camera that the G1 doesn't provide? Artificial directional light as bright as the sun. Antigravity transport. Smooth, noise-free images at ISO 32,000. Bokeh up the wazoo when I need it. Autoinspiration and automotivation buttons. It would be really nice if it had an espresso dispenser built in for those cold, cold mornings when the photography is best. In the meantime, Panasonic G1 it is. Ask me again in 6 months.

Comments

[Jeff Curto]

Brooks Wrote:
"What would I like to see in a camera that the G1 doesn't provide? Artificial directional light as bright as the sun. Antigravity transport. Smooth, noise-free images at ISO 32,000. Bokeh up the wazoo when I need it. Autoinspiration and automotivation buttons. It would be really nice if it had an espresso dispenser built in for those cold, cold mornings when the photography is best."

See... that last bit... camera with a built-in espresso dispenser? That's why I like to photograph in Italy... you're never far from a good hot shot of espresso, no matter what camera you're using.

:-)

[jay moynihan]

" It would be really nice if it had an espresso dispenser built in for those cold, cold mornings when the photography is best."

Now there is a feature that would make me buy a new camera!

[Paul]

Respectfully, I have to disagree with this. I think if you were a sculptor, what kind of chisel Michelangelo used would be very interesting to you. It might help you to understand some of what he did. It's not going to show you how he conceived of what he did and the mental process of his composition, but at a hands-on level, for the pure act of cutting stone, I bet it's pretty interesting. Then again, I don't know. I'm not a sculptor.

I can tell you that violin makers obsess absolutely about the tiniest details of the process and tools of Stradivari, and maybe Guarnieri even more so. Things like what kind of little metal scrapers did he use and (of course) what went into his varnish. Basically every part of his process.

The funny part is: the guys who are more obsessed about the meaningless details are the ones who make the better violins. They sound better.

I think photography is different to some degree. It's not nearly as imitative an art as violin making. However, you have to start somewhere. If someone got a Leica and was able to spend a year or two copying Winogrand or able to make pictures that looked like Cartier-Bresson was alive, before setting off on their own style, I think that would be a pretty great beginning.

So I think people asking questions about what camera someone uses are totally natural and personally I think they should be answered with respect. I think what the person does with the information is their responsibility...if they buy all the tools and don't figure out how to use them, that's their problem. But personally I think asking the question is a good thing to do.

[jay moynihan]

"... what kind of chisel Michelangelo used would be very interesting to you. It might help you to understand some of what he did."

Interesting point. Kind of true also. the means and method are directly related to the expression. One example is Thoreau.
Much of the writing of his time was done by the writer with a dip pen. Victorian writing is known for its elaborate sentences that would diverge all about. This may have been due to the pause to wet the pen, which may have allowed the thought to "elaborate".
Thoreau wrote with pencils. His style is more modern than his contemporaries. No necessary pauses. Young folks still like Thoreau, generation after generation. I think it not only his content, but the "pencil style". Twain is another example. Went from pencil to typewriter.

[Josef Tornick]

You know Brooks, I also use a G1, for the many times when my big Sony is too much to carry around. And it'll make 13x19 prints if you need to beautifully, so 8 x 10 is a piece of cake.

Mine has a time-travel setting on it, some day i'll show you those pics. :-)

-Josef