Because I constantly review Nikon gear, I have a lot of it available to me. One of the persistent comments last week was that I was being a bit hypocritical about "12mp is probably enough for most folk" since I obviously have and use a 24mp D3x.
While true, I don't use the D3x as much as you might imagine. As I prepare for summer and fall trips I thought I'd give you a taste of how tough it is for me to figure out what to use these days. I often have conflicting needs and goals and sometimes get caught up in the "latest and greatest" craze myself while trying to resolve those conflicts.
Note that many pros have things pretty well settled for their work. I know of at least four big name pros whose names you'd recognize that pretty much use this: a pair of pro-but-not-highest-megapixel bodies (e.g. D700 or D3), a wide zoom (e.g 14-24mm or 16-35mm), a midrange zoom (24-70mm), and a telephoto zoom (e.g. 70-200mm or 70-300mm). If the subject requires it, they'll add a long lens (e.g. 200-400mm or maybe 300mm). That's basically it for camera and lens, though I do see them slip one additional lens in from time to time (e.g. 24mm PC-E). Art Wolfe on the Canon side uses a similar kit (obviously with Canon equivalents). One well-known Nikon pro does basically the same thing, but with DX instead of FX. The basic kit described above pretty much does the work for any job those pros encounter. The common denominator is no D3x, no 400mm f/2.8 or bigger lens unless the circumstances absolutely dictate it, no Zeiss primes or other oddball stuff--just a basic core of Nikon pro gear, usually centered around the D3 (now D3s) and the f/2.8 lenses.
You've seen thousands of images from that basic set of gear in everything from newspapers to magazines to ads to big prints. The gear is good and it works.
So, here I sit with a gear lockup that's got the D300, D300s, D700, D3, D3s, and D3x in it. I'm headed to Africa next month, so which bodies do I take? Well, usually the D300 bodies. That's because they're competent, small, light, and have a high pixel density that works well for wildlife photography. But as I take the D300 bodies out of lockup and put them into my bag, I look back to the shelves and see the superb high-ISO capability of the D3s and the nothing-beats-it pixel ability of the D3x just sitting there doing nothing for me. Guilt (and a bit of greed) floods my thoughts. Maybe I should take them to Africa this time just to see what new opportunities they open up?
And so I vacillate a bit. Higher ISO would be nice to have at the edges of the day (early morning and late afternoon drives when the sun isn't up). I've never put 24mp on an elephant or a lion before, and that might just open up detail I'm not capturing now.
This is a continuation of last week's discussion. I feel the urge or want to have more, but in practice I've never really needed it. Back when I used film I never used higher than ISO 400 in Africa, and even that rarely. I got along just fine, though, yes, there were sometimes things I missed or had to adjust technique on. "More" in this context causes some other issues of its own, though. The places I go and the transportation I take often requires that I minimize size and weight. That D3s and D3x add a couple of pounds and considerable bulk to my bag by themselves, but they might also push me off the 200-400mm and to a longer, heavier lens. The D3x starts me down the path of thinking about whether a lens that works fine on the D300 might be struggling on the D3x (70-300mm, for instance). Again, there can be size and weight consequences.
Some people suggest that I go D300/D3x or D300/D3s. No. This doesn't really solve a problem and introduces new ones. I don't like switching back and forth between DX and FX bodies--it complicates my previsualization routine because I have to distinguish between angle of view differences while thinking out compositions. It also introduces battery differences (and those that then say "just use the MB-D10 grip on the D300 really aren't getting the trade-offs: I might as well bring the D3s instead of the D300, then, as size and weight get bulked up adding the grip).
I can compromise a bit by bringing a D700 as a third body packed away in my duffel (well protected). This keeps me on the same battery set and gives me the option of high ISO should I decide that I need it. But I'd still be choosing lenses for DX, so that low light option really only benefits me with the shorter lenses.
Too many choices actually confuses the mind and forces it to ask additional questions as it turns out. Study after study shows this. Many of those new questions end up nonsensical and don't actually provide you with useful information to differentiate by. This is one of the tricks that high tech marketing departments know: the more information they present, the more confused you get and the more questions you'll ask.
Camera makers hope you eventually ask a question that'll make their product stand out from another. "Does it have sensor-based stabilization?" is a good example. As I wrote in my article on VR, stabilization should be off unless you need it. But "logic" tells you that sensor-based stabilization has to be better than lens-based, because then everything has stabilization, right? Not really. And that sensor-based camera, does it have a 600mm lens for birding where you might really need stabilization? Confusion reigns supreme in marketing, and it's to the advantage of the marketer, not the buyer. A good sales person will eventually find a lever that gets you to decide. In practice, that thing that triggered the decision will almost always turn out to be something you didn't really need or don't use much. Right now it tends to be thinks like megapixel count, low noise ability, or some new feature that isn't on every piece of equipment (nor does it need to be).
You see this "too much information" problem on the Web, too. I've been trying to figure out how to lower the amount of information I present, but usefully. (That's not working yet. ;~) When you get to a site like dpreview, which has zillions of facts and samples and tests from zillions of cameras for you to compare, you see what happens: brains get confused because they pick up on some single detail (e.g. 2600 lpm resolution instead of 2450) and then end up getting lost in the forest by trying to argue about subtleties in the branches of two trees.
Which brings me back to my packing dilemma and slight vacillation. I know that the D300 bodies and my lens selection works fine in Africa. I've used that two years running with great success. But those D3 twins sitting on the shelf call out to me. "More pixels, less noise" they chant as I close the cabinet and lock them back up. How can I resist "more pixels, less noise"? More pixels is better, and less noise is better, too. "Overweight and underlensed" chant my D300's in response, sensing my equivocation.
I haven't actually completely resolved what I'll take yet. I need to test the new 200-400mm and the TC-20e III with some of my other lenses and all of my cameras before I'll know if anything has changed that might impact my thinking. Right now I could go D3s/D3x/500mm/70-200mm with TC or D300/D300s/200-400mm/70-200mm. Both achieve slightly different objectives I need to consider a bit more. That said, I also know that no matter what I take, I'll have plenty of image quality.
And so it goes, right up to the final day of decision. (I won't even drop into the discussion about those of you who are waiting for something new to pop up at the last minute before you head out on your once-in-a-lifetime trip other than to say: big mistake. Go with what you know.)
Those of you who only have a sole D300 in your gear closet hear the chant differently. It's coming from your local camera store or some Internet site: "Buy me, I've got more" call the gear on their shelves. All you have to do is get out your credit card and click and you'll have more. Sounds great, doesn't it? Wait. You just paid off the credit card from the last time you fell for the siren call of new stuff. And have you really exhausted what you can get out of that?
A lot of you thought last week that I wasn't empathetic to your thoughts. No, I'm quite empathetic. I go through much the same sort of second guessing about gear. We're conditioned to that by a lifetime of constant marketing messages and consumptive behavior rewards. Just remember this: all those messages and rewards have nothing to do with taking pictures. You can take a picture with a cell phone or your old Polaroid. That image still has value (at least if you're not being totally random and actually think while taking your picture). So you have to come to grips with the notion of "better." What really constitutes a "better image": better gear or your use of the gear you've got? (Don't worry, I'll eventually get off the topic of gear itself and back to techniques.)
But tomorrow? Be prepared for a zigzag. Better gear is sometimes better. Those of you who've read my tripod article may have an inkling about where I'm headed. Until then, take pictures with what ya' got and be happy.