One Camera To Rule Them All?

A case for owning more than one camera system

My 8x10 Ansco “field camera” with 13 inch lens. The oldest camera I own.

I’ll be the first to concede that almost any modern camera from any of the brands currently producing camera systems, will be sufficient to make photographs of anything, anywhere, at any time. For now let’s restrict the above camera systems to those that are general-purpose systems that all provide resolution, frame rates, autofocus, movie modes, and lens coverage that for the most part are equivalent. I’m referring to APS-C and full-frame cameras from Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Panasonic, Sony, and even Leica SL systems.

Sure, there may be a feature, a lens, or one little nit of differentiation at any given moment but they are all sufficient to shoot any subject to a high degree of quality. One may ask, why would anyone consider owning more than one system? More so, why would anyone opt for a more specialized camera that cannot compete across the entire realm of subjects that we point cameras at? Why would one want a camera that is slow, has a limited set of focal lengths in its lens line-up, compromised autofocus, no movies, etc?

The Case Of Technical Optimization

Maybe you are optimizing one particular aspect of a camera such as resolution. If you print and make large prints requiring the best detail you may opt for a medium format camera that has 100 megapixels. More resolution is great and will allow you to print a bit larger but what are you giving up? Should you give up other operational characteristics or features of a 50 or 60-megapixel camera for that extra resolution?

That question can only be answered based on any given photographer's specific use. I’ll venture to say if you shoot a lot of 4:3 vertical or square pictures you are better off with a 4:3 camera of less resolution than a 3:2 camera. Conversely, if you shoot a lot of 3:2 or 2:1 horizontals you may be better off with a lower pixel count 3:2 camera. I’ll leave the math to you as an exercise but trust me that resolution advantage goes by the wayside quickly and will be negligible in print.

Sure there are technical optimizations that may be critical to a large portion of your work. One example might be flash sync speed. This one is near and dear to me, when using strobes 1 stop is immense let alone 4, 5, or 6 stops when it comes to how much flash power is needed. It’s one of the reasons I never owned a medium-format camera with a focal plane shutter. It’s one of the reasons I’d never consider a Leica M for strobe work. For ambient light, a stop or two is not that relevant given today’s camera capabilities. One stop with strobes is giant, as in twice the cost and weight when it comes to gear required.

Another example could be perspective control. This may be a make or break for a specialized need. Yea, focus stacking… Let’s pretend you are in a controlled environment like a studio and need front-to-back sharpness. Theoretically focus stacking will eliminate the need right? Sure if you like the amount of time it takes to make one picture. How about in the field? Good luck with the real world that moves, oh and there’s that time thing. If multi-photo merging was a viable substitute for single shots then we’d all be done with resolution and just stitch panos for as much resolution as we’d like.

The Psychological Case

I have a general-purpose camera system, Technically, it satisfies all my requirements. There is nothing I cannot shoot with it and produce quality that rivals or exceeds the quality of far more specialized cameras. It’s a Canon system. Yes, I own a new R series, I use it for video but the truth is my DSLR system has been perfectly capable since 2016 with the 5DsR and 5Ds along with my stable of EF lenses. Even today I use that system more than any other given how fast, versatile, and convenient it is.

Why do I own two other systems? Technically three other systems but I’m merging my Hasselblad X and V system into one as that’s how I use it but more importantly how I think about that system. The other system I own is a Fuji X system. I’ll state up front that there’s nothing either the Fuji or the Hasselblad can do that I cannot do with my Canon. Sure one of them may have slightly better dynamic range or betterhigh-ISO, or whatever. That has nothing to do with why I own them.

I’ve made the same mistake more than I’d like to admit. The mistake of trying to build ”one system to rule them all”. Trying to take a specialized camera that I loved and turn it into the one camera I used for everything. I learned this was counterproductive in the film days. Back then it was impossible to substitute 35mm for medium format and impossible to substitute large format with medium format. Yes, there are areas of overlap but the technical considerations alone brought me to owning all three.

Fast-forward to digital. I tried and tried and tried with digital to consolidate my specialized cameras into one system. You could say I have with the Canon system. I could use the Canon system for everything but there is a massive difference in results that are not measurable technically between my photos when I use the Fuji vs. the Hasselblad vs. the Canon. How can this be? Why? Am I saying I could not make three identical pictures with each?

If I set out to make identical pictures as a contrived demonstration of course I could, especially if the subject was static and I was attempting to compare ”image quality”. The point is that I make very different pictures and have a very different mindset when using each camera.

Let’s take my Hasselblad system. I call it my Hasselblad “V system” just like Hasselblad themselves does. Isn’t it really the V system film camera and the X system digital? Technically it is given that the digital part is the 907X which mounts X-system lenses.

Hasselblad calls the 907X “the V system” because it looks a lot like the 903SW film camera and because the heart of the camera mounts on the back of any 500 series film camera, just like a film magazine. In use with any of my 500 cameras, it’s the same. I use that digital part attached to my 500 series cameras and that’s how I intend to continue.

How does that translate to actual use? First up is that I mount it on a tripod 90% of the time. I have to manually focus it on a subject that is either static or has a very limited range of movement. I have only a few prime lenses and have to choose my perspective and framing carefully. Best of all I have to wind the camera after every shot. My shot breakdown is 50% 4:3 horizontal pictures, 40% square pictures, and 10% 4:3 vertical pictures.

Could I shoot like this with my Canon or even my Fuji? Theoretically yes, in practice I don’t. How long for winding the camera? A few seconds minimum but in practice much, much slower. I shoot at a far more leisurely pace. I’m more careful when hitting the shutter button. In portrait settings, there’s a night and day difference in how I shoot. My interaction and direction with whoever is in front of the camera are completely different. The camera is never covering my face. The person I am photographing also reacts differently to the entire equation. I shoot film and the digital back when using my 500 cameras.

The results are completely different based on my shooting mindset. This is huge with portraits but is also evident in static subject matter no matter if outdoors or in the studio. What camera I start with makes a giant difference in how I treat a given subject.

Is there a technical advantage to the Hasselblad? Sure, there’s that flash sync thing that does make a difference but it pales compared to my approach and the mindset differences. I have no desire to buy the very hand-holdable X-system bodies as that would be a temptation to transform what I love about using the 500 cameras into an X-system “to rule them all”. That’s also why I only own two very small primes for my Fuji X camera and always will. I use an X-Pro model as a poor man’s substitute for a digital Leica. It literally mirrors my use of M cameras in the film days. It’s why I have no desire for an XT-4 or XT-anything.

How Does This Apply To You?

I am not suggesting in any way that my particular specialized cameras are a recommendation for you. I am suggesting that if you have a do-it-all system be happy with it. Don’t think about a “new camera” having some feature, capability, format, or je ne sais quoi you desire, as switching systems. Instead, approach it for that ”one thing” and see how it affects your picture-making. Don’t make the mistake of turning a more specialized system into a system to rule them all.

If I have to cover a lot of ground quickly it’s the Canon. If I am venturing out but not specifically to make photographs it’s the X-Pro. If I am doing more formal portraits or want to take a slower more careful, contemplative approach to my subject matter it’s my V system and tripod. For you, it may be a Fuji XT-5 for everything except landscapes which could be a Leica S3. Maybe the Nikon Z system when you are specifically going out to make photographs of a planned subject and a Leica Q for everything else. Maybe it’s a Canon system with a Leica M and 135 for studio portraits of active people with strobes. Certainly not optimal by conventional wisdom with the 1/50th sync speed and manual only focus that’s iffy beyond 50mm but I assure you will make very different pictures.

One more thing to consider, especially when you are away from home. Taking a more limited, more specialized camera with you can be a godsend in terms of focus. You’ll not be pursuing every subject you could. Instead, you’ll be limited to the scope of that more specialized camera. Les made this decision a few years ago when ditching his Nikon system completely. Maybe your specialized camera will end up being your primary camera with your work far more focused?

I’d love to hear from those that maintain more than one camera system. Which systems? Why? What’s your experience? I am sure more than a few of you have had an itch for something different than your do-it-all camera system. Don’t think you need to dispose of your workhorse to try it.