As I’ve been doing more research online in an effort to identify and fully utilize the capabilities of my camera gear, I’ve peeked back into some of the sites and forums I used to frequent when I was following the digital camera space pretty closely. I had kind of forgotten about all the rumors of forthcoming camera gear, the arguing about which platforms and camera makers are the “best”, the heated debates about which companies are “dying” because they’re not “keeping up”. I’ll confess that I used to get caught up in it all, at least from a distance.

To be sure, this type of online yapping isn’t unique to the world of digital photography. It happens with all sorts of technology: smartphones, laptops, high end audio gear, etc. It can also creep into non-tech-y areas like kitchen appliances and utensils.

I had forgotten how easy it can be to get drawn into the drama, especially the never-ending chase for the latest and greatest technical specifications. “You don’t understand! The forthcoming Nikon D7XL can shoot 70 frames per second at an ISO of 6,560,000! If your camera can’t meet those specs for burst shooting and low light, it’s literally worthless!”. “Pentax hasn’t come out with a game-changing high-end camera in over 2 years! They’re clearly abandoning the market!”.

Here’s the deal about these forums: The overwhelming majority of these folks are not professional photographers. They’re gearheads who are more interested in owning the latest and greatest equipment for bragging rights than they are about going out and taking photos. Sure, there are technical advancements that can be useful to a wide variety of photographers of varying experience, from casual shooters to pros. But the idea that the latest model update, or incremental improvement in technology, makes my current camera no longer capable of taking quality photos is absurd.

I’m old enough to remember when shooting 400 ISO (at the time, more commonly known as ‘ASA’) film could be potentially problematic because of grain (noise). One could generally keep grain mostly under control using a high quality chemical developer solution, along with proper timing and agitation techniques while the film was exposed to the solution, but it required care and attention. 800 ISO/ASA film was harder to come by, more expensive, more finicky, more noisy, and seldom used. 1600 ISO/ASA even more so, and was rarely used except in scientific research where the attractiveness of the image was not of concern.

It’s important to remember, too, that even 400 ISO/ASA film – which was the commonly available “low light” film – still required quite a bit of light to get decent results. That’s why professionals used expensive lighting systems for their indoor shoots, and why amateurs had to resort to an on-camera flash for indoor and night shots (unless they were using a tripod and didn’t mind the motion blur of any moving objects/subjects in the scene).

So when I see users today whining that they can’t get noise-free images at ISO 3200 or 6400, my gut response is “cry me a river”.

And then there are the megapixel wars, which are finally quieting down a little. Various calculations have estimated that the megapixel count which would equal the resolution of 35mm film is theoretically between 24MP and 40MP. But those estimates are based on a high resolution scan of a theoretically perfect negative or slide – perfectly exposed, perfectly sharp, with no grain.

Here’s the kicker – even 100 ISO/ASA film has grain. And even though there are some very high quality lenses out there, none is perfectly sharp. Furthermore, unless the shot was captured on a tripod with a cable release, there’s also going to be some lack of sharpness due to camera movement.

Factor all that in, and the average equivalent to 35mm film in real world usage is probably closer to 8MP. (I should point out that sensor size does matter to a significant degree when talking about image quality. Larger sensors, with physically larger pixels, are capable of much higher image quality. So in this megapixel/film comparison, I’m talking about the sensor sizes in interchangeable lens cameras, not the tiny sensors in compact cameras or smartphones).

The bottom line is this: pretty much any digital interchangeable lens camera (ILC) made since around 2003 is capable of capturing great photos outdoors, and those made since around 2012 are generally quite capable both outdoors and indoors, assuming you’ve learned some basics about photography and camera settings. This is the case whether the camera has a full frame sensor (the same size as a frame of 35mm film), an APS-C sensor (about 2/3 the size of full frame), or a four-thirds/micro-four-thirds sensor (about 1/2 the size of full frame). And that’s great news, since these older cameras can be picked up relatively inexpensively on the used and refurbished markets.

Now, I should probably throw out some caveats. If your paycheck depends on daily, high quality shots of NCAA basketball, with its indoor lighting and fast motion, or if you’re regularly being asked to shoot weddings in candle-lit warehouses with no windows, you might need to fork over several thousand dollars for the latest and greatest Canon or Nikon camera body (and several thousand more for high-end, bright lenses) in order to accomplish those goals. But you can shoot your kid’s high school basketball game, or a friend’s wedding in a conventionally lit sanctuary, without the latest top-of-the-line gear (and get great results).

A few points in summary:

• 95% percent of good results in photography are based on understanding the fundamentals of exposure, and knowing how to effectively use the settings in your camera. A good photographer can get stunning photos from pretty much any gear.
• Don’t buy photo gear based on shooting situations you think you might face, maybe, someday. Buy gear for the situations you’re mostly likely to be out shooting in on a regular basis.
• Heading out the door with your camera bag more regularly, to a variety of locations, will make you a better photographer – faster – than buying new gear.
• Be aware of, and honest about, the trade-offs. Full frame gear has the potential to give you the highest quality photos, but is more expensive, larger, and heavier to carry around. Micro four thirds gear offers somewhat less potential maximum quality (though still very good), but is less expensive, smaller, and lighter. APS-C gear is somewhere in between. Decide where your priorities are. Here’s where it can be helpful to be friends with a variety of folks who shoot with different types of gear, and who will go out with you and/or let you borrow their camera bags for a day for comparison.
• Unless you literally have an unlimited amount of money to spend, there’s always going to be something better than what you have, whether we’re taking about camera bodies or lenses. Resist the urge to let the “ideal” become the enemy of the “just fine”/”very good”, or keep you from having fun with any current ILC gear you have. Even entry level bodies and kit lenses can give great results in the hands of folks who understand the fundamentals.
• Within your budgeted amount, if you’re going to splurge on something, splurge on a faster, sharper lens or two, rather than the latest souped-up camera body.
• Don’t be afraid of some sensor noise. Many people forget that one of the things that still makes film pleasing to the eye, in comparison to digital, is the subtle presence of noise (grain).

So don’t let online comparisons, discussions, and arguments bog you down. Many of those folks will complain about even the latest gear. Get some gear that fits with your shooting style and price range, unplug from photography news/review sites and forums, and go take some pictures!