Choosing the Right Camera System
Brand, Type, Medium, & Megapixels
by Wes Kisting
To get good advice about what equipment you need to capture "good" paddling photography, you have to ignore the prevailing tendency among online forums and discussion groups to talk exclusively in terms of the "best" equipment. In truth, the photographer, not the camera, determines the quality and success of a photo. Thus, the most important consideration for budding photographers is not, as many novices assume, to find out "what the pros use," but to determine your own, individual needs.
If you begin your induction into the world of photography by thinking realistically about your purpose and goals (photographically speaking) instead of what "this" or "that" piece of equipment can do, or what "experts" deem "best," you'll save yourself a lot of cash, time, hassle, and heartache. You'll also grow in skill more quickly, enjoy photography more, and achieve better results.
Which Brand: Nikon, Canon, or those Other Guys?
Want to stir up a group of semi-professional photographers until they're madder than rattlesnakes? All you have to do is raise one question: "Which is better: Nikon or Canon?" Better yet, ask about specific cameras: "Which is better: the Nikon D70 or the Canon Rebel XT?" Opinions will bandy back and forth, tempers will flare, data will be cited, sample picture "evidence" will abound, but agreement will never be reached. Why? Because, quite simply, there is no right answer—at least not in objective, universal terms. If and when the dust finally settles, it will be because someone finally observes that the question cannot be answered in objective terms—only in terms of this or that specific individual, and his or her specific needs.
My point is that unless you already have a small fortune invested in lenses and accessories that will only work with a particular brand of camera, choosing a camera based on brand name alone is absurd. The right question to ask is not "Which brand is best?" but "Which camera do you prefer?"—or more specifically: "Which brand and model provides the functions, control, durability, ergonomics, versatility, image quality, and range of accessories that best fit your needs and your budget?" Nikon and Canon are both highly regarded for the quality and performance of their cameras (both use excellent imaging systems, and Nikon is unsurpassed for lens compatibility), but they're certainly not the only "good" choices, nor are they necessarily the "best" choices for many photographers. Do your research, but try to ignore brand-related hype. If at all possible, try out as many different models as you can before you buy. The "right" choice depends entirely on you.
Which Type: SLR or Point-and-Shoot?
There are two basic kinds of camera to choose from: single-lens-reflex (SLR) or point-and-shoot (P/S). P/S cameras offer the ultimate in compactness and convenience. Some P/S cameras are as small as a credit card, most are closer in size to a pack of playing cards, and even the largest P/S cameras are about the size of a small brick. They are easy to stow, light to carry, simple to operate, and dramatically cheaper than SLR cameras (with few exceptions).
All minor drawbacks aside, P/S cameras have only one serious limitation: They don't offer the same level of creative control as an SLR camera. That is not to say, however, that you have no creative control with a P/S camera. In the digital world, P/S cameras keep getting better and better, offering more advanced features and capturing amazingly crisp, vibrant photos. I've photographed many kayaking trips using only a compact digital P/S camera, and although the limitations of the P/S camera occasionally prevent me from capturing the particular mood, effect, or perspective I want, I've never been disappointed with the cumulative result of the many phenomenal photos I have to show by trip's end. More importantly, for every one shot that the inherent limitations of my P/S camera force me to miss, I probably capture 5 - 10 shots that I would not bother trying to capture with my SLR. Why? Because a P/S camera is much easier and faster to retrieve from dry storage, so it gets used far more often to capture great shots while I'm paddling.
On land, the story changes. For creative control on-the-go or shooting in night and low-light conditions, SLR cameras are far more powerful and versatile than P/S cameras—partly due to their more sophisticated controls, partly due to their broader range of creative accessories (filters, flashes, etc.), but mainly due to their repertoire of lens choices. With a good set of lenses, SLR cameras offer framing and composition options which no P/S camera can begin to match—especially at the extreme wide angle and extreme telephoto ends of the lens spectrum. A typical P/S camera will zoom as wide as, say, 35mm and as long as 115mm (some can do much better, though usually at the cost of image distortion), but SLR cameras fitted with even a basic set of zoom lenses can do much better, pulling back as wide as, say, 18mm or reaching as far as 300mm! With "fisheye," "ultra wide angle," or "super telephoto lenses," they can cover an even greater range. (The only real limit is your wallet.) With that much extra range, an SLR enjoys a significant optical and compositional advantage over P/S cameras. Of course, it takes knowledge and experience to exploit this added power to good effect.
The Verdict
If your goal is simply to "capture the memories" of your trip to show the folks back home, P/S cameras are your best bet. They'll save you money, space, weight, time, and hassle, while still capturing many wonderful shots. After a little experimentation with the various automated settings, you'll also be able to produce a number of interesting effects of color and composition. Read Compact Digital Cameras for more information about their convenience, power, and appeal to paddlers.
If you really want to delve into paddling photography and landscape photography on an intensive level, the 35mm SLR is the clear winner for creative control. The rest of this article assumes you fall into this latter group of "enthusiasts." Keep reading to learn more about choosing the right SLR system to meet your needs.
Which Medium: Film or Digital?
The heated debate about which is better (film or digital) has been raging on ever since digital cameras hit the 3-megapixel mark—and there's no end in sight. Unfortunately, the question is both easier and more complex than most folks think. Certainly, there are "experts" and "pros" intelligently debating the merits of film vs. digital photography on the Interent, but their voices tend to get drowned out by the thousands of "amateur" or "semi-professional" photographers who have little or no experience with medium-format and large-format cameras, limited knowledge of digital technology, false impressions that the 35mm DSLR (digital SLR) camera is the world-standard of professional photography, or delusions that there is only one "correct" answer to the film vs. digital debate. With passion and bias clouding their logic, these folks argue in absolute terms, losing vital focus (pun intended) of the all-important matter of the individual photographer's particular needs and expectations.
First off, if your end-goal is to go full bore into the world of landscape photography and to become a professionally acclaimed virtuoso with the camera, you should know that many of the world's most respected photographic publications only accept film submissions. (See, for example, the Arizona Highways policy on submissions.) Why? Because despite all the hype about the "digital revolution," no digital camera in existence today can match the resolution of a properly-exposed image captured on medium- or large-format transparency film. Medium- and large-format cameras are still the professional standard for large-scale, razor-sharp landscape photography. If you see their images up close, you'll immediately understand why. Their photographic power is, in a word, breathtaking. Contrary to widespread misperception, film is in no immediate danger of obsolescence. That's not to say you can't produce wonderful, professional landscape photography with a DSLR. Of course, you can—and many people do. In fact, unless you're enlarging your pictures to billboard size, you will probably never notice what you're missing unless you compare your digital images very closely to the same images captured on 4 x 5 transparency film. I only mention the subject because if image quality is your absolute top priority, your money will go much further (buying you much, much higher resolution-per-dollar) if you invest it in a used medium- or large-format camera and (for digital reproductions) a high-quality, high-resolution scanner.
Realistically, I doubt many readers of this article aspire to become the next Ansel Adams. (If you do, I'm the wrong person to ask for advice.) For purposes of this article, I'll assume your main goal is to capture beautiful paddling photos—perhaps even to experiment intensively with mood, color, contrast, and composition—but not necessarily to sell professional prints for a living, or to produce poster- and billboard-sized reproductions. That's good news. Medium- and large-format cameras can feel too unwieldy to tote along in a kayak, too complicated to capture spur-of-the-moment images without warning, and too expensive to shoot "casual" scenes. For paddlers (or wilderness travelers of any kind), the 35mm SLR camera is far superior: lighter and more compact, quicker and cheaper to operate, more versatile, and still capable of producing superb images (yes, even "professional" quality prints, though don't expect to do so overnight if you're new to photography).
Weighing the Benefits
Where 35mm SLR cameras are concerned, the question which is better (film or digital) becomes more difficult. On one hand, the "digital revolution" has driven down the prices of film SLR cameras significantly—especially on the used-camera market, where many photographers are selling "like new" film cameras (and non-digital-compatible lenses) for rock-bottom prices because they want to switch over to digital. Film also offers comparatively greater resolution and dynamic range, though DSLR cameras have gotten so good that the difference is almost a moot point except where preserving very subtle highlights or generating a particular "film look" is concerned. Theoretically, film is also more "future-proof." If you shoot slides and store them properly, you will be able to generate ever-sharper digital reproductions in the future, as slide scanners continue to improve. With DSLR cameras, the resolution is fixed: A 6-megapixel image today will still be 6-megapixels 10 or 20 years from now. That won't be a problem for the average photographer, but it's worth noting. Plus, slide film looks gorgeous when you project it through a color projector, allowing you to put together some breath-taking slide shows to dazzle your friends.
When it comes to long-term costs, film is much more expensive than digital. Consider this: I can buy an entry-level Nikon D50 DSLR with an 18-55mm lens for about $650, whereas I could probably buy a used, entry level Nikon N75 film SLR for as little as $80. That seems like a huge difference ($570) in the initial investment, but it adds up to only about 57 rolls of slide film at $10 per roll (36 exposures per roll, for a total of 2,052 pictures). Most new photographers will need to shoot at least two to three times that many pictures (4,000 - 6,000) before they even begin to develop a working confidence and familiarity with the various settings and exposures required to obtain good photographic results under a wide range of conditions. Thus, if you invest in a DSLR, the amount of money you save on film alone (not even counting film-development fees) can probably pay for the camera two or three times over just during the initial learning curve! I shot 2,000 pictures in only the first three weeks of owning my first DSLR, and I learned many valuable lessons about exposure and composition by mulling over the images carefully in Adobe Photoshop. In fact, from a learning standpoint (for budding photographers), I think a DSLR camera is by far the smarter choice because you don't have to waste money on film and development fees in order to view and learn from your mistakes. The more you shoot, the better value a DSLR offers over film.
Digital also offers several post-processing advantages as well. First, you can perform all kinds of post-processing operations (crop, re-size, brighten/darken, sharpen, etc.) to "tweak" digital images, thereby replacing a huge array of filters and accessories which would be required to achieve the same effects on film. Yes, you could do the same thing by scanning in film slides (to transform them to digital format) and then processing the digital file as desired, but if you shoot digital to begin with, you cut out the middle man. Second, digital storage is obviously far more efficient and convenient than physical storage: No more filling up whole closets with trays of slide film! Now you can store thousands upon thousands of high-res photos on a set of inexpensive DVDs that fit on the corner of a bookshelf—all neatly catalogued to make it easy to find individual pictures.
How Many Megapixels?
The megapixel issue is technically complex, but it doesn't have to be complicated. All you really need to know is that more megapixels means better resolution, which, in turn, means sharper detail at larger image sizes. That said, few non-professional photographers will derive any practical advantage beyond the 5-megapixel mark, which is sufficient to produce stunning 8" x 10" photos. My 6-megapixel Nikon D50 can print stunningly detailed images at 13" x 19" with razor-sharp clarity (assuming the picture was captured in razor-sharp focus to begin with). Do you really need them any larger? Few people do. Regardless, even when you print significantly larger that these sizes, you may notice a loss of detail under close inspection, but the detail will be more than adequate to look sharp at normal viewing distances (the distances an observer would be required to step back to "take in" the whole picture anyway). The only folks I know who truly "need" more than 5-megapixels are those who work in graphic art or advertising, or who sell framed, giant-scale prints—and even then, I'm not sure they really "need" it. (The last graphic art department I worked in used a 3-megapixel camera to produce billboard advertisements.)
As cameras increase in megapixels, they capture increasingly finer detail, but the differences only become visible as you move to giant print sizes larger than 13" x 19." More megapixels can also mean more "noise" (artifacts and irregularities in the picture, as well as pixel "bleed") since more pixels have to be packed into the same sensor area. Realistically, 5- or 6-megapixels is plenty of resolution to meet virtually anyone's needs. Oddly enough, many folks adamantly insist that "more is always better," yet the vast majority of those people never actually utilize the extra resolution (never actually blow their pictures up to poster or billboard size). I wouldn't let megapixels dictate your camera-buying decision. Any camera with at least 5-megapixels of resolution should be perfectly adequate, and in some cases, going significantly higher (up to, say, a 10-megapixel camera like the Nikon D80) may actually give rise to more imaging problems, especially for the novice photographer/photo-editor.
The Verdict
My recommendation? If you're serious about getting into the world of photography, invest in a high-value, low-cost "prosumer" camera like the 6-megapixel Nikon D50 or the 8-megapixel Canon Digital Rebel XT and a decent lens. The higher initial investment (compared to film) will quickly pay off in film and development fee savings. Plus, the ability to view your pictures immediately after capture (either in-camera or on your computer) will dramatically speed up the learning curve.
This article courtesy of:
