Peter Truman Photography

David DuChemin's blog strapline is "Gear is good. Vision is better." His point is that whilst the cameras and all the other paraphernalia we use to create photographs are important, it is having the vision to make a picture that has much more value and will contribute so much more to the finished image. Of course, he is absolutely correct and his writing and book do a lot to explain what vision is and means for a photographer. Highly recommended.

If that sounds like a lame excuse for this piece about cameras, then you have seen through me very quickly. Whilst I completely subscribe to his view about vision, I do not subscribe to an alternative view that "the camera doesn't matter." Of course it does! If anyone says you can get just as good a picture from the Apple iPhone camera or latest Canon or Nikon DSLR they are probably talking complete nonsense, although clearly the amount of "goodness" needed depends on the final use of the picture. If it is to be used only on a social networking site like Facebook then chances are the iPhone or other phone-based camera will do the job perfectly. But when the image is to be used in publications, printed or require other critical examination (and I don't mean just anorak-clad pixel peepers) then something different is required.

I'm fortunate enough to be using high quality equipment that quite frankly I am really happy with and do not have a lust for greater megapixels or faster frames per second or the latest widget and feature that can be crammed into the software. However, I am of course fascinated by the technology - just like everyone else who denies caring about it and then po ntificates about why it's one pixel better than another make or model.

Excuses and apologies over, what is the point of this article then? There have been a number of announcements and rumours from several major camera manufacturers that I have more than a passing interest in and I'm fascinated to see what they are up to and what they could do for my photography. Don't fret - this is not an article about details and specifications; you can get that elsewhere. Mind you, you can also find many opinions too!

First of all, Leica.

Leica is the brand when it comes to cameras. They are expensive, somewhat exclusive as a result, but the image quality is just so fantastic. Whether it is better (a relative and rather subjective term in the context of photography) is difficult to say, as with the M series viewfinder cameras it is rather difficult to compare them against anything else. I did use a Leica M8 digital rangefinder with several lenses for a while and thoroughly enjoyed using it. It is an experience unlike using any other camera system and the image quality from those amazing Leica lenses is just superb. However, I found myself using my Canon DSLR far more for the sort of work I do and so stopped using the Leica and eventually sold it (which paid for some building work I was having done!) The Leica just didn't suit my kind of photography.

Now Leica have recently released the specifications for their new S2 camera which is due for release later this year. This is an entirely new camera system, and not a 35mm film derivative. It has a sensor larger than the 35mm negative form, it has a resolution of 37.5 megapixels, a new range of interchangeable lenses that have the most amazing technical specifications, and it is still a SLR. I have never seen or handled one, but one of the things that most struck me about the M8 was the handling. It just felt right. If Leica have done the same with the S2 then it is no longer just a camera with high megapixels and some of the best lenses in the business, but an experience. However, the S2 system is frighteningly expensive. It starts at £16,000 for the camera body only. A standard lens will set you back another £3,000. This is a camera system that you cannot afford if you need to ask the price... Despite the eye-watering costs, I do believe the S2 will be an awesome camera system to use in some environments or circumstances. It doesn't have all the features of the DSLRs from anyone else and it isn't the fastest camera available. The price is higher than the nearest medium-format system. It certainly shouldn't be directly compared with either the leading DSLRs or medium format systems because it is neither of these, it's different. Whether it will sell in the quantities needed remains unknown, but as noted above, Leica is an exclusive brand and so could easily mop up sales and rich or celebrity customers to help keep things afloat. I'm certainly not one of them and could not possibly justify that! The S2 is a new format, just like the original Leica cameras with 35mm film many years ago. Just maybe the S2 will start a new trend? No, probably not. But then, just maybe it might.

Which brings us on to the rumoured Leica M9. The M8 had some flaws when originally released which were eventually corrected. It has become a camera that people love with a passion, but it's sensor is not full frame 35mm equivalent. This means that lenses used on the previous M-cameras do not behave the same (their focal length is 1.3x longer) and many people have been quite clear that the only way forward is to use a larger sensor, a full frame equivalent. As of today, it is still a rumour, but there is a lot of noise about a new M9 with a full frame 18 megapixel sensor. The film-based M cameras were wonderful to use, quiet and relatively small. Handling is sublime. The digital M8 was fractionally larger but still a good size and again, handling is sublime. If my reading is correct, to put a full frame sensor into the M9 will require another small increment in body size. There are of course the normal know-it-alls on the interweb that know exactly how Leica will have or should have made the M9 (assuming it is after all real) so we will have to wait and see. Something that contributed to me selling the M8 was the increasing costs. When the M8 was originally released it was about £3,000 for the body only. Now an M8.2 (essentially the same beast but with a new shutter mechanism, a scratch resistant sapphire crystal LCD cover, auto mode and a number of other tweaks and improvements) costs about £3,700. Add the least expensive 35mm lens (roughly 50mm equivalent) for another £1,000 and you're in very high end DSLR territory from a cost perspective. Given the S2 prices and the trend with the M8, I cannot imagine an M9 will be less expensive (Update, 24th August: the rumours are $8000!). Such comparisons are inappropriate, of course, as a digital M and a DSLR are two very different things. The Leica is an experience, a lifestyle brand and fashion symbol. A DSLR is a tool for getting the job done. Really?

Now to the Leica R. The Leica R SLR system has always been a first class system with fantastic lenses. It has always been behind the rest of the crowd in features and has never gone fully digital. A digital back was available for some time, but it was just that - an interchangeable back rather than a dedicated digital system. R-system users are rather like M-system users in their passion for the brand, but have been asking for a digital R for some years. There have also been rumours for years which seem to have become louder again just recently. Time will tell whether they have any substance (again).

And now to Canon (and Nikon, and Sony)...

Nikon managed to surprise many when they introduced the D3. Here was another "professional" DSLR body with a full-frame sensor but it had an ace or two up its sleeve. The image quality at high ISO is superb and surpassed anything seen before from any of the mainstream camera manufacturers. It is also very fast indeed. The price was to be expected and on a par with Canon's nearest equivalent - the 1D Mark III. For some work it is simply better than the Canon system and quite a few people migrated from Canon to Nikon as a result. That's quite an upheaval, not to mention expense when it comes to replacing multiple camera bodies and an armoury of lenses. Several well known photographers made the switch, Andy Rouse and Scott Bourne being two high profile examples, but there are plenty others. Nikon then released the D700, a "normal" sized body containing virtually the same camera guts as the D3 but at a price that makes it an "enthusiast" camera (i.e. its quite a bit less expensive than the D3). It appeared to sell by the lorry-load given it's capabilities. And all the while this was going on Canon continued with it's 1Ds Mark III, their flagship model - 21 million pixels, full frame, sealed body, etc. Their 1D Mark III and the 5D bring up the middle ground. But they didn't catch up in the specification race.

Then late in 2008 Canon released the long awaited 5D Mark II. The original 5D was a massive success for Canon and hugely popular (I had one too!) It's resolution is adequate (12 million pixels) and image quality is truly excellent. The 5D Mark II leapt ahead again in terms of specifications (see plenty of other websites for details - 21 million pixels, blah...) and image quality, including low light/high ISO performance is superb. Since launch it too has obviously sold very well indeed.

The gap exposed in Nikon's line-up was a very high resolution camera to take on the likes of the Canon 1Ds Mark III (and now the 5D Mark II). They released the D3x - much the same as the D3 but twice the resolution and somewhat slower. By all accounts an amazing camera but the cost was high at nearly £5,000, roughly equivalent to the Canon 1Ds Mark III. People appeared to baulk at this given the downward trend (and recessionary pressures, of course). And Sony had also entered the fray, almost from left field with their A900 DSLR with a sensor very similar to that in the Nikon D3x, lower cost (less than £2,000 for the body) and some really great reviews. Again, this seems to have had some destabilising effect as one or two well known figures have moved to the Sony instead of sticking with Canon or moving to Nikon.

Now Canon are under pressure again as Nikon and Sony have changed the game. Specifications and price ("bang for buck") are as important as ever and the marketing machines, press, industry and the omnipresent noise on the internet demand more and more. As far as Canon are concerned all we have right now is rumour. Rumour has it that a 1D Mark IV will be announced in September, rumour that a 1Ds Mark IV will be in 2010. There's rumour that Canon will introduce a camera that is between the 5D and 5D mark II, rumour that it is called a 7D. But nothing is yet confirmed, so we will have to wait and see.

What does all this mean for taking pictures today as I walk into another garden? Precisely nothing!

It's all speculation, partly informed opinion and much noise on the various internet forums. But it's all good and relatively harmless fun to predict the future. A lot of people discussing detailed specifications do appear to get enormously worked up over it, something I personally find rather daft. Yes, of course I'm interested in the advances in camera technology, but will not spend much time fretting over it. I do believe it doesn't matter a great deal anymore as the cameras, lenses and other technology we have available to us is so much better than anything we could even foresee just a few years ago. It will get better and offer more features, resolution, higher ISO capabilities, speed, handling and so on. And of course I'm excited at the thought of a new shiny camera, but having to learn all those new features? My hope is that all the new features just work without me having to think about them. It takes time to get to know how to use any technology, and all the fancy features and specifications are irrelevant if they are not used properly. The camera needs to become an extension of the person using it, something that is intuitive and easy to use and handle.

Going back to the point about gear and vision. Will the gear make my photographs better? Not really, but having the right gear makes it easier to express my vision. I want to make photographs, not operate a camera.

But I will still continue to read the gear reviews and discussions...