Investing in a camera system is a costly business. Once you are tied to a particular brand, you seem stuck with it. Changing is a big decision, but there can be good reasons both to and to not swap systems.
Before I start, I should point out the elephant in the room. It's an undeniable fact that we consume much more than is sustainable. Earth has finite resources. Ten years ago, it was reported that if everyone worldwide consumed as many resources as the USA, we would need more than four Planet Earths to maintain that. Human consumption has grown since, and only the most foolish won't recognize this as disastrous.
Changing camera brands means buying new stuff made from plastics, metals, and rare elements. They are mined in ways that are far less than environmentally friendly. Carbon dioxide is released in the production process, exacerbating climate change. Meanwhile, pollutants are pumped into the air, rivers, and seas. Camera production uses a lot of valuable fresh water too, which people finally realize is a limited resource following the droughts and wildfires sweeping the world.
Moreover, transporting the products worldwide and distribution to wholesalers and shops burns a lot of fossil fuel.
Camera manufacturing is not an environmentally friendly business. Let's take Canon as a typical example. The risk to water supplies at its manufacturing sites is shown on page 71 of 148 of its new sustainability report, hidden within Canon's global corporate website; you must hunt for it from the camera page. In the USA, the risk to the water supply at Canon's manufacturing plants is high, as it is in many parts of the world. The risk is considered "Extremely High" at its manufacturing bases in Thailand and China. They also release nitrogen and sulfur oxides into the environment; 426 tons in 2021. Those chemicals dissolve in water, creating nitric and sulfuric acids. That is before considering their declared 990,000 tons of climate change gas emissions.
They make a lot of noise about improving their performance in these areas and are doing that steadily. But the amount of damage caused to the environment each year is still massive.
I should point out that Canon produces other equipment besides cameras. Furthermore, all manufacturers have similar problems happening in the background. I've used them to illustrate my point because they have the largest market share and as a general example of how the industry performs. Unlike Canon, not all manufacturers publish their data, and some of the other companies' data is hard to decipher, so one can only assume they perform poorly.
I hope they are all improving as Canon is, but these multimillion-dollar businesses could change more quickly and set an example for photographers and other industries. Photographers are environmentally aware and will invest in low-impact products, so they should be working to impress us.
Then, there are the ethical considerations. There are countries around the world that have appalling human rights records. A growing awareness of this means that consumers are boycotting manufacturers whose production is based in certain countries. With the invasion of Ukraine and the ongoing war, many businesses have boycotted Russia and Belarus. But camera manufacturers are still selling there, although other arms of their companies have stopped.
So, unless we have a good reason — and surely, desire is not a good reason — then upgrading is something we should consider delaying until it becomes a necessity.
If you are contemplating changing systems, it is maybe because your camera is worn out. Sadly, many cameras have built-in obsolescence. Their limited shutter lives are indicative of the overall build quality. For example, the Nikon D750 was only supposed to last 150,000 shutter actuations, and the Canon 5D Mark IV likewise. Many entry-level cameras have far shorter lives, and manufacturers are starting not to publish their life expectancies to hide the deliberate restrictions they impose. When they can also design cameras with shutters to last more than 400,000 or 500,000 actuations, is there any doubt that they fitted inferior parts intended to fail, so the photographer will be forced to buy again? That approach is bad for the planet and the consumer.
The secondhand camera market is far more environmentally friendly and buoyant. If you decide to change, there are some excellent used models available. Other photographers will want to buy your used kit too. Even older cameras have value and, although not a perfect system, most countries have efficient electronic equipment recycling. Hopefully, your old camera is unlikely to end up in a landfill if you dispose of it responsibly.
Do you need to upgrade because you want a camera with functionality that yours lacks? Ten years ago, I would never have made asked that. Most cameras within any price bracket were much the same as the next. Indeed, even now, most top model cameras don't have features you can't find on similar models from other brands. Take the Canon EOS R series of cameras as an example. They are fine machines capable of taking great photos, but they don't do anything special that sets them a long way apart from cameras from Nikon or Sony.
The basic model of the Canon EOS R series. They are fine cameras, but do they boast unique, innovative features to set them apart from the competition.
Nevertheless, with the smaller brands, things have changed significantly. There are cameras with exceptional, unique features. Technology has leaped forward, and all cameras can do things they could not do before, and some can do things that other brands cannot. Additionally, many of the disadvantages of sensors smaller than 35mm have paled in insignificance as technology has advanced.
So, what factors might you be looking for when choosing a new system?
The type of photography you do may well dictate your choice. All cameras will do an excellent job of shooting standard, stationary or slow-moving subjects such as daytime landscapes and portraits. Similarly, with a fast lens, all modern flagship cameras will give excellent results in most genres.
But when you look at the more specialist areas, some cameras will help you achieve those shots more than others. For example, I do a lot of low-light, very long-exposure photography before dawn. So, having the ability to watch the image gradually develop on the rear screen and observe the histogram move to the right as the exposure progresses is a boon. Alternatively, I can set my camera so it only adds new light to the frame, which is excellent for shooting lightning or light painting. I also dabble in a bit of wildlife photography. Having images buffer while the shutter is half-pressed and the buffered images become recorded when I fully press the shutter release button means my reaction time is taken out of the equation. Consequently, I don't miss the shot.
It also has built-in ND filters and can shoot 120 raw frames a second. We find none of these functions on the big three branded cameras, which is why I chose the model I use.
My main camera is the OM-1.
I have a couple of clients who don't want to spend time processing photos. They both miss shooting with film, so they use Fujifilm cameras that emulate the look of film. They are both meticulous about composition and publish their JPEGs straight out of the camera.
Pentax cameras have a unique function called ASTROTRACER. That moves the image sensor to track the stars in the sky, negating the need for star-tracking tripod heads in many cases.
About 30 brands build cameras and lenses to the Micro Four Thirds standard. This includes Panasonic Lumix and the OM System (Olympus), as well as cinematic drones such as the Hasselblad camera and lens on the DJI Mavic 3, and the XDynamics Evolve 2. So, the cameras, while giving excellent image quality, are smaller, lighter, and thus more portable than their larger competition. That is an essential factor for some photographers.
To conclude, my message is that if you change the system or even buy for the first time, don't just jump for the prominent brands without thinking about what else is available. All of the major brands make great cameras that will help you take great shots, but think about what you require. Some of the less obvious choices might suit you better.
There are lots of reasons for sticking with what you've got. As I said, all the manufacturers make great cameras, so if you are pleased with what you have, you have every reason to be. But have you changed your camera system lately? Are you contemplating it? What were the reasons that attracted you to a different brand? It would be great to hear your thoughts about why you would change in the comments.
If you actually took time to read the article, Ivor addresses both sides of the argument.
As Stuart says, hopefully, it was an article looking at either side of the debate. The title certainly wasn't telling you that you must change your brand but asking why should you, as opposed to why you should.
As Stuart said, I didn't read the article. I just saw a click bait headline and made a joke about.
I'll read it when I come home from work,and give an honest opinion on it.
That's kind of too late.
First 8 years of digital we kind of had to cycle often and unfortunately keep investing because the technology was not there yet. The original 5D really allowed slowing down the need to upgrade. But it's not just cameras, not sure why we always stop at cameras, lots of cheap lights have been sold to people who didn't need them and barely use them and many have broken and will never get fixed.
It does seem odd to single out cameras as a source of great environmental concern. Camera manufacture and waste is not even a drop in the bucket. It's not even one one hundredth of one percent of one drop in the bucket.
I believe that each photographer produces or is responsible for at least ten thousand times more negative environmental impact than that caused by the unnecessary disposal of a camera and the manufacture of one to replace it.
But, "every little bit helps". Actually no, it doesn't. Big things help. Minuscule things don't help or change anything at all.
Personally, I have been "environmentally responsible" in my camera buying habits, relatively speaking. But me only upgrading once in a great while and always buying used really hasn't helped the Earth at all, not one tiny bit. And if there were 10 million people doing the "right thing" with cameras, like I do, it still wouldn't make any difference whatsoever. Not even on the tiniest scale.
Now if 10 million people decided not to reproduce, and stuck with that decision throughout their entire lives, then that would actually make a tiny little difference. Not much, but at least a small difference in some localities. But putting off a camera upgrade for another 2 or 3 years? Seriously?
I make a living with my cameras and haven't switched to mirrorless. I'm in a position where I can wait and rip more profit with what I currently own. I had already slowed down and skipped models, but Canon pushing me to buy a video feature that's a fail and not needed, has really made me reconsider my wants and needs at a much higher degree and I thank them for that.
A tiny bit less of not needed stuff x 8 billion people. That does make a difference especially since a good portion can be avoided on a daily basis. Take one single piece of plastic, spoon, a straw, a bag or anything small x8billion x52 weeks. Can you imagine the space four hundred sixteen billion small items take? That's nothing compared to what we trash on a daily basis. My point is things add up faster that we can even possibly imagine with the 8 billion people that WE are. We pretty much entirely stopped fast food due to extreme use of plastics, Chick filet is one of the worst and it's my kids who insist the most to skip them.
Benoit Pigeon asked,
"Can you imagine the space four hundred sixteen billion small items take?"
416,000,000,000 small items such as plastic spoons and straws and to-go-cup lids would take up approximately 460 acres if the waste were piled 12 feet high (and not compressed at all) ... much less if it were compressed a bit.
460 acres is significant, especially if it is in my neighborhood.
But many thousands times more acres of natural habitat are being destroyed every single year by the construction of homes, driveways, shopping centers, warehouses, roads, parking lots, and wind farms. The amount of wildlife habitat that is being destroyed every year is freaking HUGE compared to the 460 acres that 416,000,000,000 small items displace.
I am all for saving the environment, especially wildlife habitat. But I just don't see small measures adding up to anything meaningful when compared to the enormous devastation that is happening because of new construction. Yet, I see a great amount of "propaganda" urging us to consume a wee bit less, or to use a different form of energy, or to recycle that plastic bottle ... but almost ZERO about stopping new construction altogether, or about not having any more babies, both of which would actually help the Earth and its wildlife in a significant and tangible way.
I want real change, not pathetic tiny measures that make virtually no difference at all. And no matter how many billions of tiny measures you put together, they will not offset the devastation that new construction and population increase causes, not even by a wee bit.
I agree with you but we can't control other nations population. I think we have reached our maximum a long time ago on earth. There are however some good things about cities, like bees thriving there because they are away from pesticides. I'm sure we can do better, things like that take time to study.
I could indeed have written this article on any number of specialist sites that deal with consumer items, but this is a photography site and the thousands of people who have read the article so far are photographers.
Within my lifetime, the total population of invertebrates has declined by 45%, up to 76% in some areas. Much of this is down to the use of pesticides in agriculture, most recently nicotinoids, and planting huge monocultures such as corn and soy beans. Plus there's habitat loss. The biggest loss of natural habitat is through agriculture, especially farming animals to meet the excessive demands of the developed countries, and planting crops like palm oil where there were once rain forests.
Most scientists agree that there are enough resources to go around, but some populations are using far more than is sustainable. Sadly, most people have an "I'm alright, Jack" attitude and are not prepared to make big changes. Nor do the governments have the resolve to make long tern changes.
There's a catch.
There's enough resources using industrial farming; but stripping top soil, chemical inputs, embedded and logistics costs, etc.
If you want to use sustainable farming, you take a significant hit to efficiency; there are too many people.
While we're here, over 2 billion people rely upon the oceans to survive; we're increasing capacity, and yields are crashing.
One could also talk about a number of tipping points, the hole in the ice near the north pole being notable. No doubt everyone remembers from thermo what happens to water temperature as a function of energy when the ice melts. Methane hydrates are all sorts of fun.
We chose not to mitigate risk, now it's nature's turn.
These guys will be the first to scream when food prices skyrocket.
Even funnier, environmental issues are hitting at the same time as economic issues.
Yep. Jean de La Fontaine probably has one pretty close to that. One of the same genre that comes to mind - La Cigale et la Fourmi.
Sigh. Maybe you're the one that needs to pay attention. If food prices skyrocket, it's the government and billionaires to blame, not climate change.
Yes, because having no water for agriculture, and crops burned from high temperatures, would never impact supply.
Are you trying to appear stupid?
I now had time to read the article and here is my impression.
About the title. If you don't want people to misunderstand it as a clickbait title, there are two simple rules to follow.
Do not use absolutes and don't ask it as a question. Both semantics have a way of tricker a negativ response on camera sites (due to past use to generate traffic).
"Why" is an absolute word. Drop it. And then you ask us if we should change camera brand. Well, you tell us. You are the one writing the article.
"Should you change your camera brand? Pros and cons". Much better title. It is neutral and now you ask yourself the question and suggest you will tell us of your findings.
The title aside, most of the article is actually about why you don't think we should change brand, which is sort of funny.
A lot of environmental concerns, ethical considerations, and the fact that you seem to hate the big camera brands, especial Canon.
About the build-in obsolescence with the shutter actuations. Today you are way better of than what you were in the olden days (the 80' and 90') when the life expectancy of a shutter was 50.000 for a normal camera and 100.000 to 150.000 for a pro camera.
Today, an entry level camera has a rated shutter of 150.000 and a pro camera way higher than that. Technology evolves.
And future cameras might not even have a mechanical shutter. How do you obsolesce that?
Anyway. You make a compelling story for what in the end seem to just be a rent against full frame camera manufactures and a glorification of the smaller sensor cameras.
But then I am bias, as I read the article as a person that is not going to change brand.
I am happy with my brand. Another brand will not make me a better photographer.
Well Ivor I am intrigued by the OM-1 as I shoot video and the built in NDs sound awesome. But the link above the image goes to the Fuji XT4 😬
I shoot Canon, and dabbled with Sony. There's things about each I like and things about each I wish the other had. I'm sure I'd feel the same about Nikon and Fuji as well. We are definitely in the golden era of photo equipment, I don't think you could go wrong with any choice really.
Oops! I thought I had double-checked those links. I agree with you, in a lot of my articles I reiterate that it is the skill of the photographer not the camera that makes all the difference. If the camera does what you need it to do, then that's all important.
The floods in Pakistan are fun, aren't they? Estimated 1,000,000 houses damaged or destroyed and 500,000 people displaced.
But they're brown people, and they aren't important.
I think changing camera brands is important as a photographer. It really helps you to be more well rounded an gives you an opportunity to see which brand better compliments your shooting style. Like most shooters, I started out with Canon then later moved to Sony. Eventually I found that Fujifilm worked best for me. Had I not been willing to change brands, I would never have known how much better the photography experience could be. There's a bunch of different factors that come into play, but ultimately you have to go with what works for your style and your budget. You also need to be aware of the limitations and shortcomings of each brand before making the switch.
I shoot Canon (6D and EOS R) because I started out with Canon years ago (1000d was my first Canon) . As my photography developed my main point of interest became landscapes , concerts and cats. For concerts and cats (with available light) I upgraded to full frame cameras. If everything got stolen and the insurance paid enough to start again I would probably by Canon again, the functions and menu’s are second nature to me, but I would consider Nikon Z cameras or a D850. A fujifilm medium format would be nice considering it’s dynamic range. For landscapes the OM has some cool features , long exposures and the compactness of the system, but it would be less suited for my concert photography. I don’t consider Sony, great sensors , but I don’t like the ergonomics. So if my 6D fails , it will probably be the first to go, I would replace it with a R6 or maybe an used EOS R or 5D mk4. Almost forgot to mention my canon EOS 5D (1) that I bought second hand for €250, had a lot of fun with it and it did have a certain look to it. It was only 13 mpx but it created some beautiful images (at least I think so) it died recently, but it has an honourable place in my room.
Epic flooding a few months ago in Sydney, and now breaking 169 year record for flooding in Sydney. Then two 100 year floods in northern New South Wales this year. And remember when fires burned massive areas of Australia a year or two ago?
Oh, and just for for funsies, check out the news from China. It's apocalyptic. Who would have thought the Yangtze would dry up.
It's a big fraud, guys
Deniers should be ridiculed; they're utterly absurd.
It’s ok though, the insults start once they called out for their silly comments…. Following the standard pattern of behaviour perfectly, keyboard warriors.
I'm good with it, mate, I can wheel out fun facts for hours. You know, if they want to make me look stupid ;)
Yep, when the fabric of their argument is taking what a glorified conman says as gospel, then calling you a libtard or fear monger for having an opposing view, it really speaks volumes.
It's crazy how much traction this post has gotten.
Ivor is pretty good at stirring up peoples thoughts, I enjoy most of his articles.
It's a very popular subject. See the large number of YT videos and their view numbers.
Ivor Rackham, I actually got click-baited by this article. Not to say it is terrible but I do not quite get the connection between APS-C versus full frame versus climate change. One of the comments above said that let's leave photography as it is and I do agree with the person who wrote it.
Like 2 years ago I was for a long time an Olympus user. I followed the footsteps of a good photographer who used MFT, Panasonic exactly. I was impressed by the picture quality he managed to get out of his Panasonic camera. Then suddenly one day he pulled a video on youtube saying that he is no longer using the Panasonic system and he switched to Sony. Firstly I thought that he just changed because of the Full frame, lenses, or something like that.
NO. He stopped getting ambassador stuff. He signed with Sony, so he would get ambassador stuff there. He never owned any of those lenses, cameras anything.
My question to you Ivor - are you sponsored by Olympus? or have you not got any sponsorship from the other brands and that is why you hate them?
Please don't get me wrong on this one but reading a title [My opinion] would have a nicer impact on my first comment here :)
Did I even mention APS-C?
No, I don't receive any sponsorship other than from Fstoppers you when you read and comment on my article. Thank you for signing up especially to criticise this one.
Actually, thinking about it, I did get a free branded beanie hat and a pencil from Olympus many years ago after voluntarily writing a blog post for them. The hat was cozy but blew off my head out to sea on one stormy morning photoshoot. That was long before I wrote for Fstoppers. However, it's a nice idea. I'll ask them. If it happens, I'll declare it in any article that I write that mentions the camera. You do the same for Canon and let me know how you get on.
I wouldn't object to taking on an ambassadorial role from a photography related brand that I use now as it benefits the photographer and the business. I can't speak for every brand, but the ambassadors from a few different brands I know or have spoken to don't receive payment or the permanent loan of lenses. It's just an expression of mutual admiration. They do get short-term loans of kit to try out so they can review them, just as all online reviewers do. There's nothing sinister in that. Reviewers couldn't afford to buy every bit of kit that passes through their hands, and nor could ambassadors. However, I did buy a Benro Tripod that was sent to me to review after I had reviewed it but before the review was published. I did get a small discount because it had been previously used by other reviewers.
I actually turned down an ambassadorship from another brand a while back because of the appalling inequality in their ambassadorial team. I told them why, but have never publically shamed them. They are getting better now.
Neither do I hate other brands; you really should not make defamatory accusations like that as it could land you in hot water, even if you try to hide behind a false persona. I think any corporation big or small that doesn't minimize the damage it does to the planet in the pursuit of profit is open to be exposed. If you re-read the article a couple of paragraphs down from the 5D Mark IV you will see that I apply the same criticism to all brands.
Most writers write about the equipment they use and know. I currently use OM System cameras, Metz and Godox flashes, Benro tripods, and Urth filters. Software, I mostly use ON1, Silver Efex Pro, and sometimes Adobe's software and Infinite Black and White because I train people in it. Why? Because they do a great job. I know the kit and that's why I write about them when I occasionally write a kit-based article. I've handled and used cameras of every other major brand, (with the exception of Leica; I don't know anyone who uses that brand) and I choose to stick with what I've got.