Categories: Photography Technology

As a photographer, I lurk somewhere around the diffuse boundary between committed amateur and the semi-pro: My photography has, on occasion, been known to pay for itself, with some assistance from random scribblings, but isn't my primary source of income (and if anyone spots one of those wandering around and looking in need of a home, do let me know). Much of my work comes from my travels, taken in places ranging from extremely predictable to predictably extreme and, at times, downright dodgy (Eastern Congo and East LA being two that spring to mind here), but always involving a deal of moving around. So, when I come to choosing camera gear, it's with a slightly different eye and expectation to that of the local or studio-based snapper.

Current projects include a couple of books, working with my long-time collaborator, Sri, which each call for a deal of expeditionary travel – for one, much wandering around Central Africa by jeep, bus and bicycle and, for the other, a forthcoming extended hurtle around Australia on a motorcycle. Both set similar criteria for choosing and using cameras, starting with one basic principle: that the best photograph is the one that gets taken. And then used. There's a corollary to that: the best camera is the one that works, and which keeps on working. That's with a side order of it being the one you can hang on to in most situations – stealth is very often the best friend of the travelling photographer.

Which of course raises something of a contradiction – I need all the power and flexibility of an SLR system, but at times need the discreetness and portability of a compact camera. The answer of course is both – rather than carrying a brace of SLR bodies in the grand film tradition, it's better for the itinerant photographer to combine a single SLR body with a supplemental compact. But right now, I'm choosing the SLR part of the equation, so am asking myself what really works for me. And I'm being a little anal about it – after all, I change my main system about once every quarter century. The good news there is that I'm not constrained by my existing lens and accessory collection – my current stuff is less legacy than archaeology.

I've always been a film buff - the whole 'strips-of-celluloid-and-strange-smells-in-darkened-rooms' bit, and an accompanying passion for the quality of the emulsion'd image. That's been since my best ever Christmas present, a second-hand Exa IIb, in 1968. And that's scary in itself, because not only can I remember the when, but also the 'b' bit of the model designation – clearly the proto-geek at work. Since 1996 though, I've carried compact digital cameras as adjuncts to my film systems, starting with the very grotty (Apple Quicktake 100) and moving on through a succession of Canons until my most recent, the G3. In the meantime, I've stayed resolutely true to my extensive 35mm system - a brace of the great old classic (pre-autofocus) Canon T90s – compact and utterly reliable with near-telepathic ergonomics, and none of this new-fangled autofocus stuff. But, at long last, it's time to change, to take the deep breath and move the last remaining analogue part of my life into the digital domain.

One other thing: the idea of the camera as a piece of precision engineering. I have a firm believe that, if the tool you're using is inspiring to hold and use, you produce better results. Simple as that. So I'm not a fan of the 'camera-as-consumer-electronics' school of product design and much more into that whole 'precision instrument' thing. My early Canons definitely qualified there, as does my 1980s Olympus OM-2n, assorted Nikons and any film Leica you care to name.

So here's what matters to me in looking for a digital SLR system:

• Image quality: Obvious really, but I do want the best possible real-world images. And here the pixel count is but one factor of many – hold that thought for the moment.
• Responsiveness: Low shutter-to-shot and shot-to-shot times are crucial to capture a moment – until recently the banes of digital cameras.
• Robustness and reliability: I'm often in places where there is not only no service centre nearby but, quite possibly, not on the same continent.
• Sealing: It must be able to withstand dust, water, vibration and shock: however well packed, jeeps, buses, bicycles, motorcycles, sandstorms, blizzards and tropical downpours are hard on equipment. And many of the finest photographic opportunities happen in the worst conditions (Harris's Universal Axiom #33)
• Best possible battery life: I may be out of range of a reliable power supply for fairly extended periods.
• Portability is important, and not just for comfort – the ability to leg it at less than no notice is greatly aided when all your gear can be easily carried without the aid of a press-ganged yak. It's not just a question of the size and weight of the camera, but of the whole system and the number of bits and pieces you need to carry. For me, lack of bulk is more important than low weight, but I'm a fairly large object myself, so the odd few hundred grammes here or there really don't signify.

Now we move on to the specs and scope of my needs, plus features that are in the –useful but not essential– category:

• Lenses: at a minimum, I need to cover a range of approximately 24-300mm or thereabouts (35mm equivalence). That gives me decent wide-angle through to medium telephoto, hopefully without requiring too many separate lenses – I'm quite happy with fixed focal length lenses for the extremes, but prefer zooms for the core range (28-200mm). And as fast as possible, please – I'd always rather have a fast lens available than bump the ISO up.
• Resolution: I started this process with a minimum requirement for a 6MP sensor, but soon discovered that raw pixellage is about as useful a guide to image quality as the clock speed on a computer processor. Which is to say, –Not very–. The bottom line is that I can shoot or reasonably interpolate to print-quality A4 – that le's me shoot for fairly large format publication, with some scope for cropping.
• Modality: Having discovered the joys of RAW mode shooting with my Canon G3, being able to shoot and then effectively manipulate RAW mode images is vital. This is a combination of the camera being designed to function fully in RAW sensor mode (sorry Leica, this is where you lost out) and the software that can process the images quickly and cleanly.
• Workflow: It isn't just the camera any more, but the availability and effectiveness of software (generic and specific) to process the captured images – the best camera in the world is no damn good to me if it requires the use of proprietary software that crawls along like a moribund sloth and with an interface that is either unfathomable or cheerfully patronising.
• Fast connectivity: the practice of putting a USB 1.1 interface onto cameras that can generate 10MB+ image files is insane: give me Firewire or USB 2.0, puhlease.
• Continuous shooting: useful for action shooting but, for me, not desperately vital – absolutely consistent shot-to-shot times are more important.
• Flash: I'm not a huge fan of built-in flashes on SLRs - they're very useful for fill-in, but I still prefer the flexibility of an external flash, along with the fact that they're further away from the lens axis, reducing the 'party vampire' effect and any shading from the lens barrel

So, if you recognise your own priorities in all this, then you might want to read the next part, in which I get up close and personal with the candidates. Read on–

Post a comment