Most Cameras & Lenses Are The Same
What’s important when choosing which ones to use?
Let me clarify the title. Most cameras and lenses produce the same results, or results so similar in 90%+ of picture-making circumstances that you could choose any of them. Clarifying that a little further, I don’t mean all focal lengths are the same nor do I mean that all film formats (if using film) are the same. Almost any APS-C, Full-Frame, or 44x33 medium format digital cameras produced in the last decade using just about any equivalent focal length produce more similar results than different results.
In my photographic pursuits, I’m constantly reminded of this. I make mistakes in choices of what gear I acquire all the time. I make fewer mistakes than I did a decade ago, more importantly, I choose a particular camera and lens I use for far different reasons than I used to.
The Similarities
Let’s take two very different cameras with two very different lenses. First up is a full-frame 24-megapixel camera from 2017 using a lens made in the 1940’s. The other camera has an APS-C 24-megapixel sensor released in 2016 using a lens released in 2012. One camera is manual-focus only with only one focus aid, the other has a bunch of auto-focus modes with 27 options of focus points and how one might use the focus mechanisms.
Taking a closer pixel-peeping view should reveal how different these rigs are… Surprise, they aren’t different, at least not in these conditions, with these exposure parameters. Surprise I didn’t even use the meter in either camera, I used the sunny 16 rule. That turned out to be 1/2000@f/4 ISO200.
Yes, if you do the math you’ll come up with 1/3200 shutter speed but I used the shutter speed dial instead of the fine-tuning crap available on the APS-C camera and decided to use the next shutter speed down instead of up. Why? I know both camera’s characteristics for ”real exposure”. Just as I would know which way to err on two different 400 ISO films.
The difference sure is subtle. I see a bit less depth of field at f/4 between the two. That’s expected given the two different sensor sizes and respective focal lengths for an equivalent field of view. I also see that those two lenses are not exactly the same field of view or image magnification either. The 50mm has a slightly wider field of view with correspondingly slightly less magnification.
Sharpness is the same, contrast is similar as I made no contrast adjustment between the two. Rendering of in-focus and out-of-focus areas are extremely similar in ”look”. So why choose one over the other? Why do I own both? When would I choose one over the other when deciding which one to take with me? Why do I like either of these cameras and lenses instead of the innumerable other choices to be made? All good questions but the answers depend far more on how you work and knowing these answers for your particular needs, desires, psychology, etc. Why the X-Pro 2 instead of the X-Pro 3. Why the M10 instead of the M Typ 240 or the M11? All of the answers to these questions nothing to do with “better” in the way all of us have been conditioned to think about camera gear.
Some Short Answers
I take the X-Pro 2 with me when I have no idea what I want to photograph and am likely to spend zero time considering the subject matter and how to approach it. One example are events that have nothing to do with any project I am working on that are fluid and I’ll be making a ton of random pictures while mostly participating in the event’s activities.
I take the M10 with me when I have specific subject matter and intent. I’ll be making far fewer pictures with a very specific “look”. Circumstances where I don’t want to be distracted away from specific kinds of pictures I already have in mind. In many ways the M10 (and all M cameras) put me in a zone and puts me in the moment with no distractions.
Putting it another way, the M10 (and my M4 with film) will absolutely influence the way I work while allowing me to super fine-tune “the look” and providing the simplest and best way for that particular way of working. The X-Pro 2 provides a compromised version of what I like about working with my M cameras and a “look” that is close enough in a pinch.
Longer Answers
I love optical viewfinders, especially range-finders but that holds true of SLR type cameras as well. This is more important to me in most of my work than any niggles of various performance parameters. I have zero need ever of fast frame rates or even motorized frame advance.
I like the optical design and general look of the Fuji XF 35mm 1.4R, the newer lenses do nothing for me. It has fantastic optical performance where it’s focused and focus falloff and transitions I find pleasing from f/1.4 to f/4. It does have a “look”. In many ways I find it’s look similar to some other 50mm lenses I’ve liked including some versions of Leica summicrons.
The lens used on the M10 shown is my chameleon 50mm. As you can see at f/4 it’s as sharp as a new lens where it counts and has a similar rendering. This all changes wide open. It gets crazy, swirly, and glowy while remaining reasonably sharp in the very shallow plane focus. It takes care in use wide open but produces an unmistakable look.
What’s really important to you? Is it based on experience or projection of what “should/might” be important to your own work?