It’s easy to feel like you need the latest camera or lens to improve your photography. With constant advertising, you’re led to believe that without the newest features, your images will be lacking. But that’s not entirely true.
Coming to you from Roman Fox, this straightforward video breaks down why chasing new gear for better image quality might not give you the results you expect. Fox talks about his experience running workshops and how he learned that most people prioritize three things: image quality, autofocus, and ergonomics. Image quality tops the list, but it doesn’t always improve with every camera upgrade. Autofocus and ergonomics are useful, but unless you’re shooting fast action or sports, you probably don’t need the latest system.
One eye-opening point Fox makes is that image quality hasn’t advanced as dramatically as other camera features. When he compared photos from the Fujifilm X-T3, a camera released several years ago, to the newer Fujifilm X-T5, the difference in quality wasn’t drastic. Sure, the X-T5 has more megapixels and slightly better dynamic range, but unless you’re printing large or pixel-peeping, those differences are minor. This illustrates that incremental camera upgrades often improve autofocus or burst speed rather than actual image quality.
Fox also touches on the trap many fall into: confusing image quality with creating quality images. He reflects on his early days, when he believed that technically perfect images equaled good photos. Over time, he realized that a sharp, well-exposed image doesn't necessarily make it interesting or meaningful. The subject, lighting, and overall composition matter much more than whether the image is technically flawless.
To emphasize this, Fox urges you to think carefully before upgrading your gear. If you’re considering a new camera, ask yourself whether it’s because you need a feature like better autofocus or improved ergonomics, or if you think it’ll automatically give you better images. If it’s the latter, you might be better off investing that money in a trip to a new location or spending more time behind the camera practicing. Real-world experience, not gear, is often what leads to creating better images. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Fox.
This was a great video. I've been saying for years that a sharp well-exposed photo doesn't mean it's any good.
We could add that, a scene shot on film doesn't mean it will be better than the same scene shot digitally. 🙂
Your use of the word "scene" made me think in cinematic terms. Many studios/directors/producers still go to considerable expense and trouble to shoot on film rather than digital video. Maybe they see something you don't?
"Quality" is a loaded term anyways. An 8x10 B&W contact print has different qualities than a color inkjet print. And daguerreotypes, tintypes, platinum prints or gum prints have yet other qualities. Which is best depends on who you ask, or what the photographer intended.
Ansel Adams once famously commented that "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept." Which makes me think the Pictorialists made some gloriously fuzzy pictures of some very sharp concepts.