Need versus Want. And all the gray space in between.

this image was taken with the Leica Q2 at 28mm. It's "native" focal length.

It's a Jpeg...

This image was taken with a Leica Q2 at it's "cropped" 50mm focal length.

It's a Jpeg.

We live in odd times. We have so much choice at our fingertips that our only limitations are if producers can get us the products we want in a reasonable time frame, and, if we can afford to acquire them or are crazy enough to go into debt for yet another item.

Earlier this year I found myself reflexively considering a new Leica Q3-43. But after playing around for a couple of days with my current Q2 I came to the conclusion that while the newer camera would be fun to have and fun to play with it's not "mission critical." Not for my business clients nor for my own photographic hobby. It would be just another choice to make before heading out the door. A shiny object of the moment.

I could make the argument that the new lens is so great and wonderful that it would amaze all my clients and my hobbyist pals if I were to use it. An argument for having the "best of the best." But then, if having the best optical performance is really the hinge point for the purchase should I not consider instead the SL3 coupled with say three of the SL APO lenses? I'd get a more flexible system and, at the longer focal lengths more resolution. At the shorter focal length(s) I'd get, yet again, more choices. But currently those lenses may be "the best in the world" for 35mm formats...

It's easy to imagine that the new camera would trump my existing Q2 at all the longer focal lengths and this occurred to me over and over again. But I sat down and went through my actual use of the Q2 and came up a bit perplexed. You see, I use the in-camera crop with that camera often to get to both 35mm and 50mm frequently but almost 99% of the time, when I am using the Q2, I end up posting the resulting images to Instagram or this blog. Here I post them at 3200 pixels wide. On Instagram I think they end up being 1600 pixels wide; after the application smushes them down...

In 99% of my use cases for that camera resolution at longer focal lengths has no quality impact for the images I post. If I did need longer focal lengths at the highest possible resolution I would reach for one of the SL2 cameras and use the lens that provided the focal length I wanted. But really? It never comes up. 15 megapixels at 50mm is perfectly fine for just about anything and 30+ megapixels at 35mm is perfect. What would the newer camera buy me except for a dent in my savings account?

Any number of brilliant photographers spend a massive amount of time justifying to themselves and to the world why they need to upgrade to the newest technology within their chosen system or, why they must change systems in order to "keep up." As if there are some clients somewhere acting as judges when it comes to camera specs. As if...  I work with ad agencies. No one cares what camera you use. They just don't. Maybe you work for a sports magazine and the photo editor is a former photographer who blew out his shoulders and got tired of hauling around gear. Once a photographer, always a photographer! He might have very emphatic ideas about camera gear and he might has some minimum standard he enforces but that's pretty darn specialized. The legions of art directors I've worked with over the decades only mention cameras when something about the image fails because of a camera spec. Usually it happens when someone is trying to repurpose an older, 4 megapixel image from the stone age of digital but the client is trying to use it to do a point of purchase poster that is 24 by 36 inches and which can be viewed up close. Then maybe more modern specs do matter --- but the one's that would work include nearly every digital interchangeable lens camera made since around 2010. 

People chase lower noise. But my Sigma fp from 2019 is equally good at high ISOs, shooting in the dark, as the latest Panasonic, Canon or Nikon. It has a sweet 24 megapixel BSI sensor in it and it is still perfectly competitive. Need lower noise than your 2010 camera? Even the Panasonic S5 which sells for about $800 used is a low light monster by comparison. Is the latest camera a need or a want for low noise performance? Very much just a want. Add in the state-of-the-art, post production, noise reduction and I imagine even those 2009 camera sensor images would be just fine for most clients and, maybe even your own picky nature. 

The problem with the whole "need versus want" situation comes down to the burden of having to make too many choices too often. Which camera? Which lens? What to do with that camera that was last season's charmer but this year's dud? And which camera bag do I pull out of the closet to put all this stuff in?

Any time I mention buying a new camera someone pipes in with "instead of spending that money on another camera you should spend it on a shooting trip!!!" I guess that all depends on your budget. If the "pie" you are working with is small and you have to choose between one slice or the other I would whole-heartedly agree. But not everyone operates (voluntarily or out of necessity) on a small, fixed budget. While income disparity is growing by leaps and bounds in the U.S., and more people are falling into poverty, the 2000's have also minted quite a few households with over one million dollars of net worth. About 18% of U.S. households according to federal stats. Most of whom can afford both a new camera and a new vacation on which to shoot photographs. And the average camera purchase is significantly less expensive now, when inflation and wage increases are taken into consideration, than compared to three or four decades ago. You know, when our generation first started buying cameras.

But again, want and need come into play. I want stuff that isn't always practical. I want a 50mm APO Summicron for my M cameras. Do I need one? God no. The two 50mm lenses I have for that system are both better (by far) than the operator using them. But in the back of my mind the shrewd marketers have planted the seed that says, "just think how much sharper your images could be at f2.0..." Would they be? Oh, maybe. Maybe if I put the M camera on a tripod (not really what they were made for...) and used motion stopping electronic flashes in a controlled, studio environment, I might see a small difference in performance -- maybe. But unless I get my eyeglasses prescription updated while I'm updating cameras I probably wouldn't notice. I do shoot brick walls occasionally. But I don't care if my brick walls are bitingly sharp in the corners at f2.0. Doesn't ever really matter. 

Need = two camera identical camera bodies that you really like to shoot with. Could be two Nikon D700s from the early digital days or two brand new SL3s from the now days. Doesn't really matter for the vast majority of photographers. Really. It doesn't. Especially if the web is your target.

Want? = Every variation of Leica M digital rangefinders from the M (typ 240 ) onward --- and a full complement of Leica M lenses as shown in their current catalog. The downside? Way too much cash outlay and way, way, way too many choices. Where to store them all? How to use them up before they are obsoleted by newer lenses of desire.

Need= One zoom and three prime lenses for the two cameras in the need column above. Whatever your most used focal lengths are. Nothing new necessary. Choose from as far back as Canon FD lens and Nikon AIs lenses if you'd like. They still work great. So do third party lenses. So do recent lenses that aren't top of the line...

Want? = A variety of Gitzo carbon fiber and titanium tripods for various uses. One for the car. A heavy duty one for studio work. A light weight tripod for hiking. A tiny one for travel. 

Need? One $250 tripod that can handle just about anything. 

Want?  A Bentley Bentayga SUV to haul all the cool stuff around in. 

Need? Pretty much any reliable car or SUV made in the past 20 years and graced by regular service. 

The biggest problem with the "WANT" side of the equation is that a lot of times you think you really want something so you buy it and then, after a couple months (weeks? day?) of use you realize that the product didn't make your photos (or life) better, sharper, sleeker or photographs easier to capture. No one other than your small circle of fellow photographer friends could tell your 50mm APO Summicron from uncle Bob's standard zoom lens or Gen. Z cousin, Zachary's adapted Canon FD nifty fifty. And none of the lenses old, new, pricy or cheap-as-free turned out to be chick magnets... tragic. And the money is spent. The opportunity cost prevails...

I have a friend who is way, way, way into cars. He's got no kids. He's got a high net worth. He just bought his third Porsche. It wasn't one of the cheap SUV ones they make for suburban moms. It was a GT3 RS. He drove it by my house. I "admired" it. He asked me, "if money was no object and you could have any car you wanted, what would you buy????" I thought about it for a moment and replied, "A Subaru Legacy Sport." He thought I didn't understand the question so he asked it in a different way. Got the same answer. He asked, "why?" I told him that at 69 years old I no longer have the reflexes to race cars. Or to drive agressively. That reliability was more important to me than specs. That the maintenance of a finely tuned sports car requires more down time for maintenance. More time sitting at a dealership's maintenance facility. That ultra-low profile tires, in conjunction with super tight suspensions, make for a much less comfortable long distance auto journey. And mostly, because cars aren't much of a priority for me. We can both write checks for our favorite cars. In his case it's a really big check. For mine it's small fraction of that amount. He'll move on to the next cool car in a short amount of time. I might also. But I'm pretty sure mine will be a basic "need" car and not a "want" car. 

So, if you've made it to here I have to say that all of what I wrote above was inspired for me by the flurry of excitement around the new Fuji GFX 100RF. And the recent influencer flood of reports about the Hasselblad X2D cameras. (most of which they got for free...). And the new Panasonic S1R2 camera. But mostly the GFX 100 RF. Because every one was talking about using the in-camera cropping mode to get a bunch of different focal lengths directly out of the camera; mostly as Jpegs. 

I wondered if I was missing something by not lungeing for the pre-order button for the big, compact Fuji camera on my fave camera commerce site. So, I did what we should all do. I took out the camera that most matched that new camera in spirit and shot with it. That camera, for me, is the Q2. It's got a basic 28mm lens that, with in-camera cropping, can serve as a 35mm, 50mm and, in a pinch, a 75mm zoom lens. One push of a button on the back of the camera and you can toggle between the four focal length crops to your heart's desire. Was I missing something? Did I really need more resolution? (Q3? GFX100RF?). Was I missing out on immediately obvious image improvements? Would my life be fuller and richer? More bounce in my steps?

One way to find out was to go out photographing the stuff I like to photograph with my Q2. Street life. Decor. Architecture. Casual stuff. Images targeted at my blog and social media. 

And what did I find out? That what I already have in hand is perfectly fine. It fills the need and the want and does so nicely. No sale here. Not today. 

Here are some images taken at various in-camera cropped focal length settings with the Q2 in Jpeg mode. Minor to no processing involved. Man! That lens is something else....

Does anyone who doesn't do commercial fishing really "need" a fancy boat? How about a hobby aircraft? A svelte mistress? Seems like a lot of weird "wants" and not a lot of needs. And remember that most of this stuff has to be garaged or otherwise housed... And some of it  you WILL regret having purchased.