Virtually any camera equipment that we buy comes with some kind of photographic trade-off. All of which must be carefully considered. Our style of photography, the specific situations under which we capture our images, and the integrated capabilities of our camera gear, are critical factors to consider in order to properly assess trade-offs.
NOTE: Click on images to enlarge. To view this article in a range of other languages click on the Canadian flag in the upper right corner.
It is important to remember that the sources of camera equipment information that we may use in our decision making process could themselves have some risk due to reviewer bias.
That includes this website and the article that you are currently reading. It is true that over the years that I’ve used a wide range of camera gear in terms of sensor size. Tiny sensor bridge cameras. APS-C. Full frame. Nikon 1. And, currently Olympus/OM M4/3.
While I may consciously try my best to be even handed when discussing camera equipment… the fact that I shoot with a particular camera format exclusively, confirms that I have a degree of bias towards that gear.
One of the primary reasons why we changed the name of this website to smallsensorphotography.com was to clearly position the nature of our work and the potential equipment bias that we may have. Readers are forewarned about our content by the name of our website.
The gear reviews on this website are centred on the camera equipment that we actually own and use. I’ve never believed that I have the skill and experience needed to be able to use a piece of camera gear for a few days… or perhaps a week… and then write a definitive in-depth review on it. In my mind this limited amount of time would lead to little more than a high level overview.
I can’t speak for other people… but it takes me a few months of intensive use, and capturing thousands of images under various conditions to properly understand the capability of a specific piece of gear.
Plus, I have no interest in producing a gear review website, and try to make click through sales commissions by encouraging readers to buy equipment that they may not really need.
Situations can be more important than specs.
No doubt there are some performance differences when it comes to the size of sensor in various cameras. Most of us are very familiar with those differences. Dynamic range, colour depth, and low light performance are the three most common factors quoted in the plethora of reviews on the internet.
The work that we do will determine the amount of relevance those differences represent to us. It is important for us to remember that a camera’s sensor doesn’t operate in isolation. It is a part of a highly integrated image creating system which can help level out some trade-offs in terms of overall performance.
For example, the image above was captured handheld in an indoor setting under quite challenging low light conditions. I was able to use the maximum dynamic range and colour depth available with my camera’s M4/3 sensor by shooting at ISO-200, using a handheld shutter speed of 4 seconds thanks to the IBIS performance of my camera body and the Sync-IS in my lens.
If we compare the available dynamic range (as noted on photonstophotos.net) in the two images above we find that the full frame D800 photograph had 5.86 stops of dynamic range when shot at ISO-6400, compared to 9.71 stops with my E-M1X when shot at ISO-200.
This confirms that the advantages of various camera systems can be situational in nature, and can be dramatically impacted by other capabilities that our camera equipment may… or may not… have. Just because a camera may have a larger sensor that delivers more dynamic range, colour depth and better low light performance under ideal conditions, doesn’t guarantee that we will be able to always fully capitalize on those capabilities.
Understanding the essence and value of the work we create.
It is very easy to fall prey to the siren’s song of a specific piece of camera gear. Or, to be drawn to a particular system like a moth to a flame… based on online reviews. We can get burned if we don’t fully understand the essence and value of the work we create. Without question, for many photographers using a full frame camera system is an excellent choice based on the work that they do.
For me, investing five figures into a full frame system was a significant learning experience. Over a decade ago, I had allowed myself to fall prey to all of the hype surrounding that camera format. I initially believed that making a $10,000+ investment would propel my client video business forward. Unfortunately I did not properly understand the essence and value of the client video work that I was doing.
Using my full frame kit ended up being very inefficient for my industrial client safety video business. After a couple of years I realized that I had made a significant mistake with that investment, and subsequently sold all of that camera gear.
It ended up being far more cost and time efficient for my industrial safety video clients for me to use the Nikon 1 system. The crop factor allowed me to shoot at f/2.8 in available light and still get the depth of field required. Rather than shooting at f/8 with my full frame gear, and needing to continually set up a bank of four to six studio lights to record various scenes for a video production.
I still had to use an assortment of camera supports like tripods, slider, jib, skater dolly etc… but I could leave all of my studio lights at home. This meant I could eliminate the onsite time it took to set up an array of studio lights for each video scene recorded. The time savings were significant and were reflected in my costs and client pricing.
I had to trade off some dynamic range and colour depth using the smaller sensor system, but these were not critical factors for the safety video work I was doing. The increased efficiency that came from reducing my on-site time and the related cost savings, were more than adequate trade-offs for the difference in sensor performance.
Moving to my Olympus kit increased my efficiency even more as I could shoot everything handheld, and no longer had to bring any camera supports with me. Most of those camera supports were subsequently sold.
Understanding the essence of our work and how it creates value, are fundamental in us choosing the right camera gear for our needs. Understanding these factors also helps us do a valid and balanced trade-off analysis.
The meaningless advantage.
When we allow ourselves to get caught up in marketing hype we can fail to realize that the advantages being promoted are sometimes meaningless from a practical standpoint, for the actual work that we’re doing.
For example, Sony has a full frame camera with a global shutter which helps eliminate rolling shutter effects. The industry hype is that this camera has “changed the future of photography forever”. Do some of my image captures suffer from rolling shutter effect? Yes… and I do my best to work around it.
Do I need to change my entire photographic system to get a camera with a global shutter and invest $8,300 plus HST in a Sony A9 III body… plus an array of full frame lenses? Nope. From a pragmatic standpoint it would be a waste of money. My work is not contingent on avoiding rolling shutter effect. So, having a camera with a global shutter is a meaningless advantage for me.
Return on investment.
Buying any camera gear these days requires a significant investment of our hard earned money. That is the ultimate photographic trade-off. Is the camera gear that we are considering buying going to be worth the money that we have to spend for it? Will we actually get important and noticeable improvements in our work? Will that new piece of camera gear materially expand our photographic potential?
It occurred to me that there are four M.Zuiko zoom lenses that I could use for comparison purposes. I own the M.Zuiko PRO 40-150 mm f/2.8, and the M.Zuiko 150-600 mm f/5-6.3 IS zooms. Combined, the two lenses weigh about 3 Kg, and at list price in Canada, currently cost a total of $5,600 plus HST. This combination delivers an unduplicated focal length range from 40 mm to 600 mm (efov 80 mm to 1200 mm) with minimum apertures ranging from f/2.8 to f/6.3 depending on the focal length used.
By comparison I could invest in the M.Zuiko PRO 150-400 TC1.25 f/4.5 IS lens and the new M.Zuiko PRO 50-200 mm f/2.8 IS zoom. These two lenses weigh about the same 3 Kg in total and would deliver a focal length range of 50 mm to 500 mm (when the integrated 1.25 X teleconverter is used) with an equivalent field of view of 100 mm to 1000 mm. There would be some minor overlap in focal length range.
The minimum apertures for this lens combination when the integrated 1.25 X teleconverter is used ranges from f/2.8 to f/5.6… or f/2.8 to f/4.5 with no integrated teleconverter use. These two lenses have a list price in Canada of $14,700 plus HST. This represents a 263% higher cost than the gear that I own.
According to Petr Bambousek’s assessment (an opinion that I value) these two lenses would deliver a bit more sharpness and overall image quality than the two lenses that I already own. Obviously they would also provide somewhat better low light capability depending on the focal length used.
Would the improved image quality actually be noticeable for the work I do, and how I use my photographs? Probably not. And, even if they did… could I justify spending 263% more? Not a chance. Both lenses are out of my snack bracket, and as such would not warrant any consideration from me. The reality of the wallet is ever present in most lives.
The impact of cognitive dissonance.
We all bring our core beliefs to the decisions we make in everyday life. When faced with the dilemma of being presented with contradictory information that may challenge our dominant beliefs, we tend to focus on information and facts that support our current personal belief system. This directly impacts how we assess a specific trade-off when evaluating camera gear.
All kinds of questions swirl in our heads when considering camera equipment. Do we need an f/2.8 or f/4 constant aperture zoom lens… or will a variable aperture lens be a better decision for us? Do we need ultra fast primes lenses? Do we even need any prime lenses at all? Should we invest in branded system lenses or are third party options a better choice?
Will computational photography technologies dramatically impact our shooting style and increase our image success rate? Could they expand our photographic potential? Or, will those technologies lay dormant after we buy a camera body because we don’t really need them. Is it possible that we really don’t care enough about those computational photography technologies to learn how to integrate them into our shooting style?
It doesn’t matter how we answer those questions, and hundreds more than may enter our brains, compared to other people. We just need to realize that how we answer those questions reveals our dominant beliefs. Unless questioned consciously to confirm their current validity, those beliefs will keep us on a path of doing what we’ve always done.
That could be a good thing if our current path is ideal for the work that we do. On the other hand, it could be a bad thing if we are overpaying for gear we don’t really need.
It could also be a bad thing if we are missing opportunities to expand our photographic potential, and increase the enjoyment of our craft because our current belief system is holding us hostage to the past. Nostalgia is not a strategy for personal growth.
Regardless of the camera equipment that you may own and the work that you produce with it, the only person who can properly assess the photographic trade-offs associated with it… is you. Remembering a quote from the film Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade… “You must choose. But choose wisely…”
Technical Note
Photographs were captured handheld using camera gear as noted in the EXIF data. All images were created from RAW files using my standard process in post. This is the 1,485 article published on this website since its original inception in 2015.
How you can keep this website advertising free
My intent is to keep this photography blog advertising free. If you enjoyed this article and/or my website and would like to support my work, you can purchase an eBook, or make a donation through PayPal (see Donate box below). Both are most appreciated. Sometimes all we need as photographers is a bit of inspiration. We hope you can find some of that inside Finding Visual Expression II.
Finding Visual Expression II is available for download for an investment of $11.99 CDN. The best viewing experience of this eBook will be at 100% using Adobe Acrobat Reader.
You may be interested in all of the 30 concepts covered in both of these related eBooks. If so, you may want to also consider Finding Visual Expression.
Finding Visual Expression is available for download for an investment of $11.99 Cdn. The best viewing experience of this eBook will be at 100% using Adobe Acrobat Reader.
Our other eBooks include Images of Ireland, New Zealand Tip-to-Tip, Nikon 1: The Little Camera That Could, Desert & Mountain Memories, Images of Greece, Nova Scotia Photography Tour, and a business leadership parable… Balancing Eggs.
If you click on the Donate button below you will find that there are three donation options: $7.50, $10.00 and $20.00. All are in Canadian funds. Plus, you can choose a different amount if you want. You can also increase your donation amount to help offset our costs associated with accepting your donation through PayPal. An ongoing, monthly contribution to support our work can also be done through the PayPal Donate button below.
You can make your donation through your PayPal account, or by using a number of credit card options.
Word of mouth is the best form of endorsement. If you like our website please let your friends and associates know about our work. Linking to this site or to specific articles is allowed with proper acknowledgement. Reproducing articles, or any of the images contained in them, on another website or in any social media posting is a Copyright infringement.
Article is Copyright 2025 Thomas Stirr. Images are Copyright 2012-2025 Thomas Stirr. All rights reserved. No use, duplication or adaptation of any kind is allowed without written consent. If you see this article reproduced anywhere else it is an unauthorized and illegal use. Posting comments on offending websites and calling out individuals who steal intellectual property is always appreciated!