Photographic Equipment For Top Quality Images

Photographic Equipment For Top Quality Images

by William Lulow

Just a word about photographic equipment today. Photographic equipment has always been rather expensive for high-end professional gear. The idea of buying a piece of equipment that I will only use once or twice has never really been a good one. If you are in business as a photographer, you should be careful when it comes to camera gear: “Don’t buy it unless the job will pay for it and you can use it at least ten times more!” These days, there are quite a few rental houses that will lease equipment that you need for a specific assignment. In the past, Canon used to have a professional loan program. Back when I was covering golf tournaments for the LPGA, I “borrowed” a Canon 600mm telephoto lens. I used it for several events and that was it. I never had a use for it again. Now, I use a Canon 90D and my older 60D cameras and only a few lenses: the workhorse 20mm f/2.8, the 60mm f/2.8 macro (for products and close ups), an 85mm f/1.8 for portraits and the 135mm f/2 as well. I have decided to go with all prime lenses after a couple of years of using a zoom (17-55mm f/2.8). I have found that the primes are just a bit sharper. Sometimes, if I have a special event where I need to get close up images from a distance, I will rent the 70-200mm f/2.8 Canon zoom lens. But I have found that even that lens, as good as it is, is sometimes difficult to hand-hold and still get really sharp images. The portrait quality I am always looking for is like this example:

It’s really a pore-revealing sharpness that has come to be a sign of the quality I expect every time I photograph a subject. This one was made with my old Canon 60D, an 85mm f/1.8 lens and an exposure of f/11 @1/125th of a second, ISO 100. Here’s one made with my newer 90D, which has a 32MP sensor:

Both these images were made with the camera on a tripod and exposures of f/11 @1/100th of a second and an ISO setting of 100.

I used to own Hasselblad equipment for medium format portraits, 8×10 Deardorf’s and other view cameras for table tops. Today, the digital version of the Hasselblad costs over $30,000. It registers around 40 to 50 MP per shot. By comparison, the Canon 60D which you can pick up in great condition used for about $250, has an 18MP sensor and the 90D a 32MP one. I rarely use both cameras anymore and when the prices come down, I will probably switch to a mirrorless model. But my results have been really top-notch so there is really no need to change anything now.

If you have a business that generates well over $300,000 per year, perhaps the Hasselblad is warranted and would have paid for itself. Personally, I’m not sure that the image quality is better enough to warrant the expense, unless you are constantly shooting ads that will be displayed on the sides of buildings. I get tack-sharp images that have been used on magazine covers, websites, brochures and book jackets. Adding or changing my equipment at this point would only be because I wanted to and could afford it. Certainly not because the business demands it.

I always preferred the square, medium format over the 35mm format. There is something about seeing the image on a ground glass that is easier to look at than through the viewfinder of a 35mm-style camera. As an aside, the current crop of mirrorless digital cameras really gives the shooter a kind of “view camera” viewing experience because it’s far easier to see the entire screen and it’s almost like looking directly at a ground glass.  But, with good quality LCD’s, these days it’s almost a moot point. (Incidentally, there was actually a physical difference between the emulsions for 2 ¼ films and those for 35mm that I think, made the medium format better for portraits). With digital equipment, all you should be looking for is really sharp images. Sometimes the higher pixel count on some newer cameras provides sharper images, but it’s also about the lenses one uses. They really need to be almost top-of-the-line to ensure really great quality images.

So, if you have jobs that will pay for the highest quality digital equipment, great! Do it. For most of us in the business, you should never go into hock for photo gear just as you should never re-mortgage a paid-off house for the sake of a business. It’s just too risky. The quality of equipment these days is still excellent for almost all levels. Even entry level cameras can usually get the job done for most folks. There are ways in which higher end cameras can make getting images easier. One is that it’s nice to have separate controls for shutter speeds and aperture settings. Many less expensive models force one to use menus which slow shooting down considerably. If you are comfortable with whatever gear you are using, it’s fine as long as you know where all the controls are and how to access them quickly. This usually just takes a lot of practice.

I might have mentioned that a while ago I acquired the Canon 135mm f/2 lens. I bought it for doing portraits that create a lot of background blur for use on location. Because it is a relatively long telephoto with limited depth-of-field, it is superb for creating images like this:

Shorter lenses can produce a similar effect but usually only if used with a wider aperture. The above shot was made at f/7.1 with a1/125th of a second shutter speed and an ISO 100 setting. One reason I like to stop down a bit is to make sure that the subject’s entire head is sharp. Here is another example made with this lens:

Note that the background is still very soft but the subject’s features are very sharp. This is the kind of image that this lens produces the best.

The thing to try and make sure of is that you know that each piece of equipment you acquire has a specific job and that you know how to use it just for that. Again, don’t buy equipment just for the sake of having it. Make sure you will use it and that you know how to use it.