
The Truth: Your Camera is Better Than Ansel’s

Ansel Adams with his camera and “mobile” tripod.
As a person in my position – an educator (for lack of a better term) in the world of Photography – I often get asked to recommend gear. After getting a better idea of what that person needs and where they are as a photographer, I will offer some broad recommendations – but it’s not as specific as some might wish. It’s not that I don’t have my favorites (I do). It’s that the person asking the questions doesn’t realize that the slight differences between cameras is not going to have a significant impact on their photography. I usually fall back on a statement you may have heard from me before: Whatever you choose will be better than the one Ansel Adam’s shot with.
What Is Better?
Better is a subjective term. If I’m comparing a Nikon D7000 to a Canon EOS Rebel T3i, for example, the statistics might matter more (for the unwashed, note that these are very different cameras targeted at different kinds of shooters and different price points). The speed of continuous shooting or the ISO response might matter will become factors. It all depends on what you need, of course and of course your shooting style. The reality is that both cameras are pretty comparable and it all comes down to preferences.
Let’s look at it differently…supposing we’ve decided on Nikon and we want to compare the Nikon D7000 against the Nikon D700. With about a $1500 USD difference in price, these two cameras are clearly not even in the same class. But the cheaper camera actually has a higher bit depth (16 megapixel vs. 12 megapixels). If you were to believe industry hype alone, and you believed that the megapixels really mattered, wouldn’t you suspect that the cheaper camera, the D7000, is actually the better camera? But that’s not the case and the data doesn’t tell the full story. Truth is that the cost difference comes down to format, ISO response and dynamic range. The D700 has a full-framed sensor while the D7000 is a cropped sensor. You’re not really comparing apples to apples. But again, that doesn’t mean the D700 is necessarily better…just different. The faster shutter cycle and the cropped factor of the D7000 might make it more appealing for sports photographers. The full-framed sensor might make the D700 more appealing for portrait photographers. Again, it all depends on how you look at it.
Final example: Take that D700 vs. a Leica M9 (which is nearly 3x the price of the D700). Is it safe to assume the M9 is automatically the better camera? Now we’re talking about completely different formats: A traditional SLR vs. a rangefinder; a heavy camera vs. a light camera. Would it surprise you to know that the D700 has a better ISO response, or a faster shutter, or better connectivity options (flashes, tethered shooting, etc) and so on? I’ll say this: The reason to buy an M9 has little or nothing to do with it’s technical specs. People who buy an M9 are looking at form factors. They’re looking at being inconspicuous and being able to quickly snap a photo at a moment’s notice. The M9 is coveted by street photographers and photojournalists. Because they work, and because they’re simple and intuitive.
In the end, Better is far more subjective than you could imagine. Better has less to do with technical details and capabilities and more to do with feel and preference. Better can really only be determined by the end-user. So if you wan to get the Better camera…you – YOU – need to try them all out and form your own opinions. Even the most skilled and unbiased photographers can only get you part way there.
What About Ansel’s Cameras?
I use Ansel Adams as an example for two reasons: First, everyone should know (and possibly love and admire) his work. You should all know what an influence and what a pioneer he was for the photography world (not to mention the impact he’s had on some of our most coveted US National Parks) . His photography is widely known, coveted and is used as a ruler – even today – to compare all other landscape photographs. He’s potentially one of the most famous photographers of all time, and it doesn’t look like that will change any time soon. But the second reason I use him as an example in this discussion: Most of his famous works were shot in the 1940′s – about 70 years ago. Even the best lenses from that era couldn’t compare to the consumer grade lenses of today. As for the medium – film of that era was pretty archaic as compared to the high quality films of today’s more stable and cleaner films. And digital was still 40 years away.

“The Tetons and the Snake River” by Ansel Adams
The truth is that Ansel’s gear is a far cry from what is possible with today’s technology. No one of that era considered signal-to-noise ratios, or shutter speeds or Zeiss vs. Nikkor lenses. These weren’t essential factors. By today’s standards…all of that equipment was pretty poor. But look at what Ansel Adams was able to accomplish with his dated lenses and temperamental film.
Final Thoughts
I’ve said it once, I’ll say it again, and I’ll continue saying it until I’m blue in the face: Your camera doesn’t matter. We’re gear-heads at heart, and so we have a natural attraction to statistics and quantifiable evidence. We like to compare notes and details and try to quantify what camera is actually better. And that’s okay, because sometimes those details will make a difference, and such an expensive purchase should be considered.
But we must stop the madness and stop thinking that the camera makes the photo. The camera is simply a tool and should be considered as such. In the end, it is you that takes the photograph. It is you that will make it brilliant. So if you get hung up, just think about what Ansel had to work with and how far he went with it.
Editor’s Note: This article was originally published on August , 2011 here at Shutter Photo.
















I agree 100% – the gear doesn’t matter… until it does. Ansel shot landscapes and could hike to a spot an hour before he knew the light would be right, spend time setting everything up, and wait for the magic moment to release the shutter. He probably would not have fared as well covering a football game under the lights or a fast paced wedding in a dark church with the same setup.
The key here is not to upgrade because you “want” new gear. If you can’t articulate a specific reason why a new camera/lens/flash/accessory is necessary to realize your photographic vision, you probably don’t need it. As an amateur, there are a lot of things you can do with the equipment that you have that you probably haven’t even considered. However, if you want to take 1:1 macro shots of insects, there’s really no substitute for a macro lens.
A good photographer can make a great photo with any equipment, but he cannot make a great photo of *anything* with any equipment.
My advice for a first camera is to buy a used advanced-consumer DSLR with a standard zoom and a fast 50. You can make a lot of great shots with this equipment, but as you learn and decide what you really want to shoot you’ll realize the limitations of your setup and decide what to upgrade.
I think I’ve moved away from your original point, though. A new camera or lens will not magically make your photography better. If you can’t shake the GAS, go to somewhere like lensrentals.com and rent whatever it is you’re lusting after for a weekend. You’ll quickly find out if the upgrade has an impact on your work. Chances are things will be marginally better, but it’s up to you to justify spending the $$ for that bit of difference…
Excellent article Travis!
Travis,
I think you have hit the nail on the head with your article. Simon’s comments are also spot on. I shot with my first DSLR for many years before making an upgrade. At the time that I bought it, I was just starting out in my photography career and could not have guessed the direction that photography has taken me. When the camera finally met its demise, I had a much better idea of what I needed in my new camera. Three key considerations needed to be satisfied.
1. I needed a much higher ISO performance as I found that I shoot in a lot of low light situations indoors as well as outside.
2. For the same reasons as #1, the new camera needed to focus quickly and sharply in low light.
3. I needed a sensor with higher resolution. In my case, the low Mpx count of my old sensor was limiting the size of the prints that I could make. In no way would higher MPx ratings create better images, they would just allow me to create different kinds of output with my images.
There were a lot of cameras that fit my requirements and the choice came down to finding one that also fit my budget. I would have loved to have a higher end full sensor camera but, my budget would not call for it and at this point, I do not NEED to have one. My new mid range APS C cropped sensor will do me for a few years. Instead of a full frame body that I don’t currently need, I can now put the money into better glass.
Thank you again for your solid article.
Weighing what you need and what you “want” is a very difficult task. It’s times like that when I think back to what Adams could do with 1940s tech. Of course when the camera starts to bring you more money, that’s when you can justify splurging a little bit. But until then…it sounds like you’re set with everything you need.
Thanks for sharing Sir Travis (:
Excellent article and analysis