In terms of equipment, I mean. Over the years, I have been fortunate enough to be able to use some of the finest camera gear ever available: Leica, Hasselblad, Olympus, Nikon and Canon. I've been spoiled by great ergonomics and incredible glass. These tools helped me do my job as well as I could.

But, at various times in my life, my cameras were not my primary source of income and so during those times, I lowered my investment and, at the same time, lowered my expectations from my "consumer" camera gear: Ricoh, Pentax, Minolta. Good cameras with decent glass which in no way handicapped my creativity but were also never put in situations where they had to make a living for me and my family.

At the end of 2011, we did our typical year-end review of the business and projections for 2012 and based our capital budget for camera gear on what was on tap or under contract for the year. And, based on that, the first quarter was looking a bit slow with volume picking up over the course of the year and a strong 4th Quarter under contract. Just recently, we signed up another big show for the 4th Quarter so those projections have actually gone up. But that slow first Quarter forced us to look at what additional business we could generate and what gear we absolutely needed for that work. My priority was a camera change from the 40Ds and so, in December, I sold the 40Ds and bought a 7D. It's a great camera and I'm delighted I made the decision when I did. I also analyzed what I needed vs. what I wanted in terms of lenses and ended up selling my primes and my 17-55 F2.8 zoom. With more event photography and weddings on the schedule, and less studio portrait work, the primes were a vanity that would not earn their keep in my camera bag. Maybe later. But not now. I needed two good zooms to cover semi-wide to semi-long. Basically, 24mm to 200mm.

January started putting some financial pressure on the household as we discovered that two of our dogs required surgery. We also decided that it was time to send Moxie away to pursue her AKC Championship. These un-planned-for expenses needed to be factored into our business plans and the end result was elimination of our First Quarter Capital funding. So, there went that big white zoom lens I lust after . But with a couple of Herding Trials on the calendar, some candid show requests, a christening and a wedding on the docket, I still needed lenses that would provide the basic coverage range described above. L lenses were out of our current budget range. So, what was a reasonable solution?

I had picked up an EF 28-135 F3.5-5.6IS lens when I got the 7D and it's a lens I've owned before that has decent IQ, very good color and contrast and covers a reasonable range. I'd like something wider but this is a reasonably decent lens. But I needed something longer. I researched all the Canon lenses going back into the 1980s and found that Canon manufactured a 70-210 F4.0 zoom in 1987. It was only manufactured for a few years and it had received some reasonably decent reviews. I looked online and found a sample at KEH that was rated EX+. If you've ever done business with KEH, you understand that EX+ means pristine and so I ordered it with the understanding that if it wasn't good enough, I could return it for my $160. I'm now in the process of testing it and, so far, it's not too bad. Here are a few samples from my first day with it -- cold, drizzly, windy.









These are basically "macro-type" shots and don't necessarily reflect the capabilities of the lens for what I normally shoot but, so far, I'm reasonably happy with it. It's a push/pull type zoom which I'm not overly thrilled with but it works and the lens is in amazing condition. Is it as sharp as that big white zoom I want? No, of course not. But is it sharp enough? That's the key question and I'll have an answer for that over the next few days. What it does do is give me the reach I need and it fits my current budget. By April, I'll be able to upgrade both lenses to the Ls I'll need for the rest of the year so this is just an effort to cover my equipment needs in the short term. If it doesn't work for me, I'll rent the glass I need but this lens costs approximately what I'd pay in rental fees and, when I replace it, I can sell it for what I paid. It makes tremendous rational sense. If it can do the job . And that is why I have to test to make sure this lens is "good enough" to create images that will never get blown up larger than 8X10.

A lot of folks on this forum don't make a living from their photography. For many, "good enough" means being able to create images that meet their creative goals. For me, that is one of my objectives as well but my equipment has to be "good enough" to meet my clients' expectations and the media uses for the images. And my budget. I'll let you know how this works out.

Jim

LOL, "Good Enough" seems like a moving average. I typically think of "Good Enough" in reference to parenting and good childhood development. :P Having said that, I think that "Good Enough" is a where I have spent most of my working career. By that, I mean that I have never had the 'best' equipment. I go out and help Steve Kossack with these groups and almost everyone is much better heeled than I am with fancier gear.

I also know I am not the best photographer on the planet (don't get me wrong, I want to be...and I am not saying I am not very good...just not the best). It is something I am developing every day.

The next question is - when is the gear good enough and do you actually need more given your current ability. Here is the blunt truth...and I realize this is not categorical, but a pretty broad generalization. ALMOST NONE OF US EVER have to upgrade a camera that was made in the last 36 months. I know that no one wants to hear that, but it is probably true. 12 megapixels will handle most situations just fine. 21 sounds like a lot more than 12 megapixels and that sounds like a lot more than 9 or 6 or 3. But camera resolution is measured in squares. i.e. to double a 3.14 megapixel camera, you don't need 6.28 megapixels. You need 9.856 megapixels. To double that, you need nearly 100 (yes, that is right) megapixels. 22 or 38 is not so much significantly better - though it is.

Most of my frustration with my 5dii has not been about resolution. If they eventually announce a 5diii that is the same resolution, I am fine with it. What I want is better autofocus, perhaps some better exposure latitude and cleaner high ISO noise (and lower isos as well). The biggest problem is how hamstrung the camera is compared to a 7d or even a 40d in low light. Once that issue is covered, I honestly don't see myself upgrading for a long time...unless stock companies start requiring higher levels of resolution. But wait - I am not currently stocking or re-selling my images...yet.

So, back to the concept of "good enough" - I think that for most folks they have the toys necessary to be good enough. If you want to do pets, it is typically a camera and a few nice lenses. For the landscape guys, you absolutely need a tripod in addition, but that is about it. Everything else is just bells and whistles.

James

James,
I agree. Especially when it comes to mpx, I think between 12 and 15 is going to meet 99% of the needs of most photographers. I went for the 7D primarily because I thought the autofocus system was significantly better than the 40D (and it is) and I wanted the video capability. Plus, I felt it was a much more substantial camera than the 50D. All in all, I upgraded the one piece of equipment that I felt was falling behind the technology curve -- the camera.

Now, to do so, I had to make some compromises on lenses. That was just fiscal reality. If the bulk of my business was studio/environmental portraiture, I'd have stayed with the primes. But, at the moment, it's more event-oriented so I need the flexibility of zooms and I'm willing to sacrifice some IQ to get it. Also, my products are pretty much files and prints no larger than 8X10. That's the nature of what I'm going to be shooting for the next few months. So the lenses I've selected are adequate (I hope) to meet those product requirements. By mid-year, I'll be doing more studio work and I'll revisit my studio lens but one thing I have noticed is that the primary lens I used for dog show formals and studio work had much too much barrel distortion at the wider settings in the studio and you could really see it with show shots like Stud Dog and Brood Bitch which go very wide with 4 dogs, handlers, a judge etc. The ends of the frame were noticeably bowed. So I'm planning to stick with no wider than 24mm in my primary zoom and if I have to move back further from the subject, I will.

And, finally, I've concluded that I can go with a fixed aperture of F4.0 on my telezoom as long as it has IS. The higher ISO performance of the 7D gives me back that extra stop in static situations. For indoor show candids -- which I will not be doing a lot of -- I'll rent the 135mm F2.0L. That's a great lens! And, if I can cost-justify it, maybe I'll actually purchase one before the end of the year.

But for now, what I have appears to be able to meet my requirements for what I need. If I find that it doesn't, I'll change my mind . And if I win the lottery, I'll get the Leica S2 system and retire to do landscapes and travel photography . In the meantime, back to work testing that 70-210 lens.

Jim

I like the 21mp spot that the Canon 5DM2 gives me. Basically it gives me cropping room. My subjects are not always predictable.

But, I agree with the message. I have an L collection, but I like to think it is a practical one that has high value for the cost. For instance, I have a 70-200mm 4.0L...no IS no 2.8. It is wonderfully sharp and is good for portraits. I also have a 200mm 2.8L prime for available light work. Both of them together are about half the price of the 70-200 2.8L IS. For macro work, how many people really need the 100mm 2.8L IS vs the 100mm 2.8? It goes on and on. The one thing I've learned is to not jump on every new body that comes out. My glass retains much of its resell value, but the bodies are like driving new cars off a car lot.

Preston,
having just completed a fairly thorough testing of the lens I've concluded that it's just not "good enough" . I put everything in the context of the Ls I've owned and that's probably not fair but I also put the criteria on the lens that an 8X10 had to look good and this lens had some issues. It was pretty sharp at close-focusing distances at almost any focal length and aperture and very soft at infinity at almost every focal length and aperture. Strange. But, an issue since I shoot my long lenses at infinity 90% of the time so it goes back to KEH this morning.

The lens I want is the 70-200 F4L IS. The lens I can afford is the non-IS version which I've owned before and loved. But with a birthday coming up soon, I'll be able to get that IS. So the question is: do I simply save and wait renting what I need in the interim or buy and sell when I can afford the IS? Decisions decisions .

As for macro lenses, I'm actually thinking I may get either the 100 F2.8 or the 60 F2.8 strictly for macro work. Yes, I've gotten great images using extension tubes. And, yes, I've always maintained that my equipment has to be able to pay it's own way, but I love macro photography and I do it strictly for me. And I can make the case that either would make a great studio lens.

"Good enough" is always tempered by "good for what" which tends to push the envelope into L territory because of the printing and magazine reproduction applications of what I shoot. And I've begun to realize it's not simply a vanity. If I had never shot L glass, I probably would be less picky. But I have; and I am. And when it comes to bodies, I think you have to match that with the work you do. I'm not a National Geographic photographer. I don't need 36 mpx. I do need a camera that can capture action but I don't shoot Agility so it doesn't have to be a 1D. And I like my cameras to last at least 3 years if possible. I resisted getting the 50D because for what I shoot, it wasn't that much of an improvement over the 40D. But the 40D had gotten to a point of diminishing returns on the used market so it was time to move up and the 7D seemed to me to be the right answer. The more I shoot it, the more I'm convinced it will meet my professional needs in the relative near term.

And that, to me, is the objective. To match your tools to the task at hand and not simply the desire for the latest and greatest. My equipment has to be cost-justified. Just as it was when I ran a corporate photo department. And, ultimately, that's what I mean by "good enough".

Jim