Given the wealth of new camera features that manufacturers have brought to market in recent years, the question arises: “How much more do we actually need?”

Over the past 7+ years of writing for this medium, I’ve been able to rant about an endless number of topics. Some are better than others. One particular truth that became apparent early on, and that may not surprise you in the least, is that articles about gear invariably get more clicks than any other topic. This is not surprising. Everyone, including me, is a fan of new technology. Then there’s the persistent misconception that newer cameras mean better photos, which camera manufacturers aren’t going to dispel anytime soon. This is nonsense, of course. You don’t think the Sistine Chapel is any less of an achievement just because it wasn’t built using modern construction equipment and painting techniques. So why think that the aesthetic value of photographic art is in any way directly related to the tool used to create it?

Still, there’s an insatiable hunger for more and more content that suggests gear can change your career. And as someone who writes about the world of photography and film, part of my job is to write about new toys as they come out. While I personally try to avoid conversations about gear whenever possible and instead write articles about running a successful business or honing your artistic craft, I still write about the latest and greatest product releases quite often.

I’m not complaining, by the way. The cameras coming out today from many different brands are truly capable of amazing feats that we would have considered fan fiction in years past. It’s truly an honor to be able to test new gear, be privy to soon-to-be-released products, and be able to share that information with readers. So, as both a photographer and a technical writer, I hope that manufacturers continue to improve stills specs. That can only be a good thing. But today I want to look at things from the perspective of a buyer who wants to make the right investments for their business.

Something interesting has happened in the last few years. As both a professional photographer and director and a writer for Fstoppers, I get asked quite often what cameras I would recommend they buy. Sometimes it’s just a friend looking for a new hobby. Or someone going on vacation and looking for something to photograph their spouse and kids on the trip. Sometimes it’s someone just starting their career and looking for a serious work tool to help them run their business. But in all of these cases, I tend to mostly recommend the potential buyer avoid the new products altogether and focus on the used market. Is this because I think the newer cameras are worse than the old ones? No. Rather, it’s because it seems clear to me that in camera technology we long ago passed the threshold of meeting the basic “needs” of 99% of photographers. While there are new frontiers to be explored, which I will discuss in a moment, we are no longer at a point where an honest photographer can say to himself that the reason he is not reaching his full artistic potential is because technology is not sufficient.

Yes, there are certain features that are relevant to certain specialties and can be helpful and even necessary for certain types of photography. Take burst rate, for example. If you’re a sports or wildlife photographer, for example, the number of frames a camera can shoot per second is an objectively important feature. And thanks to mirrorless cameras’ merging of stills and video, modern photographers have access to 20fps, 30fps, or even 40fps to ensure they capture every fleeting moment. Of course, I personally always wonder at what frame rate we go from capturing the decisive moment as a photographer to essentially just shooting video and pulling the perfect image in post-production. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with shooting as fast as your camera allows. It’s objectively the right decision to get the job done. But I wonder if we’ve already reached the point where most cameras on the market over the last five years are already fast enough for almost anyone. Even at 20 fps, you’re essentially shooting video. Not quite, but almost. So if camera manufacturers just keep adding more frames per second in the future, that would be nice, but would that really be necessary? Are there really so many things that can’t be captured in a single frame when shooting 20, 30, or 40 frames per second?

The same goes for megapixels. I love megapixels as much as the next person. I’ve owned cameras up to 100MP and can objectively say there is a difference in the files themselves. That being said, do 99% of photographers actually need that many megapixels? One could argue that most photographers don’t even need 45MP. This isn’t a criticism of the photographer’s artistic quality, or an attempt to presumptuously claim that only “real photographers” need lots of megapixels. Rather, what I’m saying, and this can’t be said enough, is that more megapixels doesn’t equal a better photo. It means a higher resolution photo. It’s a photo that can be cropped more and printed larger. But it’s not inherently a better work of art than something taken fifteen years ago with a 12MP sensor. Even if one were to argue that “professionals need more megapixels,” which may or may not be true depending on the type of professional, the world as a whole is becoming more digital. Your finished image will be viewed far more often on a digital device than in print. Even if you’re creating an advertising campaign for a major brand, there has been a clear shift towards digital versus out-of-home. That’s not to say those jobs don’t exist anymore. In fact, there are fewer of them, and the most important jobs are more focused on digital platforms for which a high-megapixel image is less useful. While you may still want to hire a high-megapixel monster for certain jobs, it’s fair to say that the vast majority of those looking to buy a new camera can easily complete 99% of the jobs they’re offered with existing technology.

These are just examples. And there are no doubt a whole host of use cases that would disprove everything I just said. But I think you’ll get my point. While the new cameras being announced industry-wide for photographers are objectively great, for the most part I feel like we’ve crossed the line where all of our needs are now well met. And many of the new improvements are more or less of little use than things we can classify as absolute necessities. To return to my constant suggestion that most new photographers should look at the used market first, primarily to save money and get more for their money: we’ve had what we need to create beautiful images for over a decade. More recent updates try to add value by addressing some conveniences that may or may not be important to your own workflow, that help sell cameras, but are hard for me to use as the basis for a clear recommendation for photographers looking to get the most for their money.

That’s not to say these improvements are negative. And it’s not to say there’s no room for improvement. For example, I think the main focus of camera manufacturers in the coming years should be on improving dynamic range. Dynamic range has been relatively the same in cameras for years, with the exception of one f-stop. While there have been improvements, the evolution hasn’t been as rapid as, say, areas like burst rate. Particularly since dynamic range is important to photographers and cinematographers alike, I’d like to see camera manufacturers put their heart and soul into this aspect of the technology. Dynamic range is pretty good now, but it’s an area that can always get better. And cynically, dynamic range, like megapixels, is the kind of thing that can be marketed with an easily understood numerical value. So, manufacturers, as you read this, think of the opportunities for all those new sales.

I would also like to see advances in the area of ​​flash sync speed continue. As someone who uses flash fairly often, I admit that I always get excited when a new camera is announced that can sync beyond 1/200th of a second (without high-speed sync). I haven’t upgraded my camera specifically for this reason yet. But I really crave a fast sync speed that will allow me to block out the sun to my heart’s content.

Related to that, I’m curious to see where global shutters will go in the coming years. Since global shutters are more of a problem for videographers than stills, as they struggle with rolling shutter artifacts, the move to global shutter systems could have practical implications for stills photographers as well. Oddly enough, this could address both of my earlier queries. Global shutters should theoretically make flash sync speed a thing of the past. But from what I’ve read (but not tested myself), global shutters can also have a negative impact on dynamic range. I can’t tell you exactly why. But that’s definitely a problem that still needs to be solved.

Now, I want to acknowledge two things. First, I’m a professional photographer who uses my camera as a tool for my business, so I judge the value of a camera by how much it costs and how many benefits it offers me that actually impact my bottom line and productivity. It’s not just about whether a camera has objectively better specs, but also whether those specs are worth the extra cost associated with purchasing it compared to a previous model. So, when we’re talking about practicality, there’s nothing a modern camera can offer me that my older Nikon D850 DSLR didn’t already offer me seven years ago. Yes, with the mirrorless camera, I now have edge-to-edge focusing capabilities, face detection, faster burst rates, and video. But if I’m honest, the improvements I’ve made as a photographer over the past seven years have less to do with switching from DSLR to digital and more to do with pushing myself creatively and working on improving my craft. Something I could have just as easily done with the D850. The main reason for switching to mirrorless cameras, and the benefits that have objectively proven to be significant, are in the video space. And I think if you’re a videographer, there are still valuable improvements to be made in that space that could be worth upgrading. But when it comes to stills, I feel like the technology is already there. It may be the right decision to upgrade to the latest and greatest technology if it makes a noticeable difference to your final product. But remember: when it comes to painting the Sistine Chapel, the painter is far more important than the brush.