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.
I refer to film vs digital in regards to photography. I see many people going out shooting rolls of film and the subjects they choose are rather boring and pointless. but because they are shooting film they think that is enough to make it interesting. It seems the technique and look is more important than the subject and the message, which is very superficial. Of course, this is just my observation and opinion. Many would say what I choose to shoot is pointless and boring, i'm sure!
There's no such thing as a boring subject... only boring pictures.
That's what i'm saying, the fact that film is being used over digital is somehow going to make a boring photo interesting.
Film and digital photography have equal capabilities of producing boring images. But that does not mean they are equal in all other ways.
And I wouldn't say it's not unmeaningless that so many digital photographers go through so much effort to imitate the "film look". Perhaps the hallmark of digital photography is "hey, I can fake that in Photoshop!"
https://fstoppers.com/gear/why-might-want-use-dehancer-bring-film-look-y...
https://fstoppers.com/diy/how-get-large-format-film-effect-any-digital-c...
https://fstoppers.com/reviews/analog-look-lightroom-review-rnis-all-film...
https://fstoppers.com/post-production/how-replicate-film-look-your-dslr-...
https://fstoppers.com/education/three-ways-add-film-grain-photoshop-194576
https://fstoppers.com/video-editing/emulating-film-looks-and-analyzing-y...
https://fstoppers.com/photoshop/making-light-leaks-lightroom-free-brush-...
Nobody in film photography is trying to give their work "the digital look".
Not for sure with camera he was using but my new camera increase my quality of pictures and also increase my number of pictures I can take not to take away from what he wrote but the simple fact that it wasn't me chasing image quality. Sometimes I was chasing 4K instead of shooting 1080p but even after shooting 4K it's kind of hard to download but when you get it it's still beautiful. Image quality from my 80D to my 90D oh yeah that's definitely a add-up it definitely adds up to me now the latest gear such as the R5 Mark II and the z6iii R1. I'm not really chasing those. I like the image quality that I get even in low light for it to be a APS-C camera. I'm not even chasing full frame that's the funniest part. I definitely can see a difference in the quality of my work versus the camera I was using. But as of lately I haven't even bought a new camera I just buy new lenses a good glass to any camera makes the camera what it is
First an image is only as good as your eye to see a good subject. Next as far as image clarity and all that ball of wax that makers toss at everyone, I say I double dog dare all those who spill such venom or any one who wants to upgrade because of it to get a point and shoot 2MP or 5MP with a so called telephoto lens that extends out to never never unseen in front to get one and use beside your best of the best camera you already have. One thing you will find right off is the point and shoots no not have IBIS BUT images are steady, second you may not believe there is very little noise if any seen, even zooming in, third colors are like perfect from what you see. yes they are low in MP's but no problem with SW today you can make as big as you want but it has been proven that even 12MP can be made as big as a poster and even back in the mid 2000's those low MP cameras could be made into a billboard size also so is there a real need for that 100MP or higher. Image one was taken with a Vivitar ViviCam 8300s handheld after my eye saw the faces in the oil in Hawaii on trip. Years later a woman became some what famous when she also captured the same thing like and was is in all the newspapers and photo mags (yes paper) results were tiff or jpeg or both. Todays SW makes it great also, remember Software we had none off back then for you just took to a camera shop or store and got prints and keeping files on a little SD card.
I also unknowingly captured the Milky Way one night while capturing a moon setting next to a lighthouse when I aimed to the SE with my T2i when looking back at old images at the time had no idea of MW's, also handheld at night!
I started with Sony A7SM1 in 2014 a 12MP camera and no IBIS but using sticks got my first Lunar eclipse on 10-8-2014 not know how but playing again SW helped.
Lastly after studying the info on PhotoPills web site in 2015, no info in mags on how or where to aim, I captured a MW with a Sony APS-C lens E 10-18mm f/4 OSS (15-27mm in 35mm) BUT at 12mm in full frame mode on a lit Jacksonville Fl beach, yes LIT by hotels and others but with dark sky's over the ocean, I also said f/4 lens and super small in compare to the 2017 FE 12-24mm f/4 (a tank in compare) if you want a small lens for a panorama on a small rig in July or August for the last of the season MW Arch's where the top will be over you head and some beyond it.
Bottom line it is the operator who reads a book on the camera learning most anything and the seeing something worth a capture that others do not see.
Yes the new Eye or critters or subject AF is great but also a camera that shows Focus point in MF also great. The one very important thing is AWB and even with the A7SM2 and M3 the A7SM1 has been the only one to capture sky glow colors once I learned they where not city lights glow. We learn as we go and find way after the old can do what we bought recently.
The Fujifilm cameras with their different sensor color layout will have better colors out of camera i have found looking at results on a nephews camera, but color is of the operators eye and art works also.
--- "One eye-opening point Fox makes is that image quality hasn’t advanced as dramatically as other camera features."
I would agree. I was just looking back at some of my images I took back in 2013 with my Sony NEX-5N (first 2 images) and SLT-A77V. Even compared to today's cameras, the quality of these decade old files are more than fine. The AF, not so much. :)
That bucking shot is ace. Love these!
Thanks!