Do I need the latest greatest camera
to take good photographs?!
Back in the good old days I was a 35mm (full frame) Canon SLR film camera user, a member of the Bureau of Freelance photographers, had my own dark room, etc, but eventually I got fed up of carrying around a selection of large heavy lenses which ended up more often than not being left at home unless I was going on a specific photo shoot. I am currently using small Micro Four Thirds (MFT or M4/3) sensor mirrorless equipment so ultimate image quality won't theoretically be as high as the larger (APS-C or full frame) sensor cameras especially at higher ISO settings but the smaller size and lower weight of the camera and lenses makes it easier to carry around and therefore less likely to be left behind to miss that once in a lifetime shot!
In fact, despite the smaller sensor, the Panasonic G9 I am currently using actually has higher dynamic range than the Canon 5D MKIII full frame Pro camera at moderate ISO and the G9 can do many incredible things I appreciate that the 5D3 is incapable of, not to mention having the incredible 5 axis image stabilisation built in (one of the best systems in the world) allowing slower than normal shutter speeds for static subjects which in turn means you can use lower film speeds (ISO) which can negate the sensor noise disadvantage.
Reading the various camera forums it is easy to think that only the best and latest systems with the biggest sensors will do but I think it is very easy to get carried away and lose perspective. On photography forums (Fora?) you see endless, often quite heated, arguments claiming that you need the biggest sensor to avoid digital noise and that brand A is far better than brand B which must be rubbish and can't possibly take a good photograph. I sometimes wonder if these people ever actually take any real photos or just spend all their time reading camera specification sheets and arguing on forums, like some sort of "Top Trumps" game. Yes, all things being equal, a larger sensor with lower pixel density, will potentially, in low light situations, give you a "cleaner" looking photo. And yes, if you need a camera for specialised photos like fast sports or photographing Birds In Flight (BIF - One of the most difficult subjects to photograph) then cameras with faster frame rates and focussing capabilities will be a distinct advantage.
However the most important element is actually the photographer and the most important thing to do is to actually just take photos and learn to get the best out of whichever camera you currently use. Strangely enough the more you practice and experiment the better your camera will get! Even the lowliest enthusiast level camera these days can produce images technically better than the top multi thousand pound/dollar professional digital cameras of only 15 years ago which still seemed to produce cover photo quality images OK back then. In truth, for most people, almost any modern enthusiast level digital camera is capable of producing images of more than adequate resolution/quality even for large poster size prints let alone for on-line use for which they are actually over kill and will need to be reduced in size. I have a photo I took of a sheep 50 yards away with my Panasonic G80 camera (a generation before my current G9) using the small 14-140mm Zoom lens which came as a kit lens with my older Panasonic G6 (which is a good lens but not regarded as being as high quality as my Leica lenses). When you zoom right into that photo down to pixel level you can actually read the serial number on the sheep's ear tag, detail you would never even see in a 10"x8" print, so how high a resolution do you really need?!
If you look at my flickr gallery even my old Panasonic G6, which technology wise is four generations older than my current G9 and can be picked up on ebay now for little more than £100, produced some nice looking images e.g. the Arisaig sunsets or the Fladda Island Lighthouse. Even my 2003 4 megapixel Canon Ixus point and shoot camera still produces nice photos! In an art gallery when you see a nice water colour picture do you stand a couple of feet away and admire the artistry as it should be viewed or do you push your nose up against the picture and criticise the fact that you can see brush marks or bare paper through the paint?
In the real world, away from the camera forums, people look and just see a "nice" picture or an artistic image, they don't sit there enlarging a photo to 100% and pixel peeping. So don't be put off, get out there and take photos, even if it is only with a compact camera or your phone!
In addition if your camera is capable of saving photos in RAW format then read my article on using RAW format and how, with post processing, it can unleash the full capabilities of your camera sensor.
A misty dawn on Hickling Broad.
I still like this photo taken in 2003 on my first ever digital camera, a simple 4 megapixel Canon Ixus 400 point and shoot compact camera I bought a month earlier.
The digital noise in the low light from the old small sensor just added to the atmosphere.
I still have this fully working camera today (2020 - 17 years later!). These cameras sell now on ebay for less than £10 including postage!