jonneymendoza
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,530
- Edit My Images
- No
he seems to disagree.
i kind of agree with him to the point on how gear actually does matter
Are you sure that gear doesnt matter?
- Thread starter jonneymendoza
- Start date
he seems to disagree.
i kind of agree with him to the point on how gear actually does matter
OP
jonneymendoza
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,530
- Edit My Images
- No
Basically says gear does matter. outlines the reasons why in two types of photography ie wildlife BIF shots and sports shots.
rpsmith79
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,796
- Name
- Rich
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well yes, in certain circumstances and for certain subjects, then yes gear does matter, if your current kit can't shoot quickly enough, or your lens isn't fast enough, then buying better gear will help get the shot
But there are also many other circumstances where high burts rate, fast lens, high ISO performance are not required, therefore the exact same shot can be taken on cheaper/lower grade (whatever you want to call it) equipment
skysh4rk
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,134
- Name
- RJ
- Edit My Images
- No
Gear is meaningless without the skills or knowledge to exploit any advantages that better kit may or may not offer.
TimmyG
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,775
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Just watching this, he says he wants to do large prints, so yeah, camera sensor is important here (in the digital world at least).
He's now talking about a certain amount of sharpness, so again, yeah you might need decent glass for that (but you'll still need good technique). It seems he is speaking specifically about some certain requirements (really high shutter speed, amazing ISO performance and to be able to print big) so, of course, you need to buy the equipment capable of delivering those things.
There's plenty of techniques you can adopt to get the most out of your current gear though (using a tripod for low light for example) and these aren't the requirements of most photographers, let alone new photographers.
Of course there are restrictions with low end equipment. This is why amazingly talented photographers use expensive gear. It's misleading (and bad form imo) to suggest to new photographers they need to buy new equipment in order to improve their photography. As a photographer you will come to understand the limitations of your equipment in achieving what you want. It's a good idea to splash some cash at that point, unless you are willing and able to adapt your technique to compensate. Until then, or if you aren't sure, stick with what you have.
If you have the budget for it, knock yourself out. Just be aware the better gear won't necessarily make you a better photographer, and what you are mainly paying for is convenience (and perhaps a higher hit rate, depending on what you are actually buying).
I'm not sure what this guying is arguing for tbh.
Oh wait... I've just got the end of the video and he slips in right at the end "If you are new to photography, don't worry about the gear." So now I'm not sure what his point was in the first place...
He's now talking about a certain amount of sharpness, so again, yeah you might need decent glass for that (but you'll still need good technique). It seems he is speaking specifically about some certain requirements (really high shutter speed, amazing ISO performance and to be able to print big) so, of course, you need to buy the equipment capable of delivering those things.
There's plenty of techniques you can adopt to get the most out of your current gear though (using a tripod for low light for example) and these aren't the requirements of most photographers, let alone new photographers.
Of course there are restrictions with low end equipment. This is why amazingly talented photographers use expensive gear. It's misleading (and bad form imo) to suggest to new photographers they need to buy new equipment in order to improve their photography. As a photographer you will come to understand the limitations of your equipment in achieving what you want. It's a good idea to splash some cash at that point, unless you are willing and able to adapt your technique to compensate. Until then, or if you aren't sure, stick with what you have.
If you have the budget for it, knock yourself out. Just be aware the better gear won't necessarily make you a better photographer, and what you are mainly paying for is convenience (and perhaps a higher hit rate, depending on what you are actually buying).
I'm not sure what this guying is arguing for tbh.
Oh wait... I've just got the end of the video and he slips in right at the end "If you are new to photography, don't worry about the gear." So now I'm not sure what his point was in the first place...
sk66
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,557
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes, better gear makes getting difficult shots easier... but it's not really that big of a difference.
Sometimes I photograph Eagles at a popular location... on weekends there may be 100+ photographers there w/ very expensive gear (D1x 800/5.6) shooting at 11fps. They (almost) all stand along the fence near the parking areas ~ 30ft above and away from the water. They shoot long bursts of just about everything that happens, easily recording 100 images/hr.
I usually shoot with a D810 in FF mode (5fps) although I can switch to DX (7fps) and I also have a D4 I can use (10fps, usually only use it when the light is bad). But I scramble through the rocks and boulders to sit at the river's edge and I'll sit there for many hours. I'll pick a position for the activity/light and move as the light moves. I choose my shots and I time my 3 frames as well as I can... It doesn't matter if I use 10fps or 5fps... if the timing is off, the precise moment will be missed. I might finish the day with 70 images.
My keeper rate is much higher, but more importantly, my images look different from the other 100 taken from 30ft higher/farther. And I could probably do the same with my Nikon1 (w/ somewhat lower success rate due to slower AF lock).
Sometimes I photograph Eagles at a popular location... on weekends there may be 100+ photographers there w/ very expensive gear (D1x 800/5.6) shooting at 11fps. They (almost) all stand along the fence near the parking areas ~ 30ft above and away from the water. They shoot long bursts of just about everything that happens, easily recording 100 images/hr.
I usually shoot with a D810 in FF mode (5fps) although I can switch to DX (7fps) and I also have a D4 I can use (10fps, usually only use it when the light is bad). But I scramble through the rocks and boulders to sit at the river's edge and I'll sit there for many hours. I'll pick a position for the activity/light and move as the light moves. I choose my shots and I time my 3 frames as well as I can... It doesn't matter if I use 10fps or 5fps... if the timing is off, the precise moment will be missed. I might finish the day with 70 images.
My keeper rate is much higher, but more importantly, my images look different from the other 100 taken from 30ft higher/farther. And I could probably do the same with my Nikon1 (w/ somewhat lower success rate due to slower AF lock).
Last edited:
Just watched this - what he is saying (I think) is that for 'general' photography you can use 'general' (IE normal, entry level) equipment, but as you try to take more 'specialised' images you may well need more specialised gear to achieve the best results - in his case, he is shooting martial arts in low light with the intention to sell large prints - so he needs to have sharp images at speeds of 1/500 or higher (to minimise motion blur from the subject movement) - this in turn means sharp, fast lenses, and a body with high ISO to minimise noise - for what he is trying to do, the gear does matter.
It's a counter to the widely stated "It's not the gear, it's the photographer" argument - basically that being a good photographer on it's own may not be sufficient to get the best results (IE You sometimes need a good photographer AND good gear).
It's a counter to the widely stated "It's not the gear, it's the photographer" argument - basically that being a good photographer on it's own may not be sufficient to get the best results (IE You sometimes need a good photographer AND good gear).
- Messages
- 21,370
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 21,370
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
Wrong.. Or very very wrong.. You make a sweeping statement with no exceptions..
Look at the exif on these two pics.. first is iso 25600 the second one was ISO 51200 at f3.2 and a 640 shutter ... Te/l me how my old canon 10d that only went to iso 1600 could have got the second shot let alone the first... I sold the first as a perfect A3 pic BTW ...
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/football-extreme-lighting-conditions.607092/#post-7137196
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
Gear matters up to a point. Past that point of ability, it makes no difference at all.
e.g. I Wouldn't use a Volkswagon Polo to deliver a grand piano* but I could do it with an old Bedford TK. A modern Scania could do it too but the delivery would be the same.
Most cameras are more than most photographers need. Once the camera exceeds the plateu of the photographer's competence, anything else is superfluous.
(* I once saw a piano on a roof rack on a Volkswagon Polo. I have no idea how it managed to go round corners without falling over).
Steve.
e.g. I Wouldn't use a Volkswagon Polo to deliver a grand piano* but I could do it with an old Bedford TK. A modern Scania could do it too but the delivery would be the same.
Most cameras are more than most photographers need. Once the camera exceeds the plateu of the photographer's competence, anything else is superfluous.
(* I once saw a piano on a roof rack on a Volkswagon Polo. I have no idea how it managed to go round corners without falling over).
Steve.
- Messages
- 21,370
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
I think the guy has it right in the video.. a good photogrpaher can use his equipment to get a good picture.. but even a good photogrpaher will fail under some circumstances if his gear isnt good enough..
I just dont like sweeping statements that its this or that.. theres always exceptions and reasons why blah blah
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
Sometimes a better piece of equipment can be inspiring or allow someone to do something they couldn't do before.
It doesn't alays have to be technically superior equipment though. An old Box Brownie could inspire someone to do something they wouldn't normally do and it could turn out to be exactly what they needed.
Steve.
It doesn't alays have to be technically superior equipment though. An old Box Brownie could inspire someone to do something they wouldn't normally do and it could turn out to be exactly what they needed.
Steve.
- Messages
- 21,370
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
Juts another example then.. But there are examples from the other side.. a box brownie couldnt get the shots required for my work...
I dont think anyone has said betetr equipment gets better shots.. what i am saying is that in some.. only some.. instances better equipment is needed to get the shots.. sweeping statements that better equipment just makes it easier are wrong..
OP
jonneymendoza
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,530
- Edit My Images
- No
well said
OP
jonneymendoza
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,530
- Edit My Images
- No
or sweeping statements saying gear doesnt matter...
itsdavedotnet
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 5,864
- Edit My Images
- No
I sure wish it didn't. I wouldn't have to spend so much money or lug so much weight about the place.
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
its not that gear doesnt matter per se - as obviously there are instances where good gear makes a difference.. its more a case that gear won't make you a better photographer if your ability or understanding is lacking.
ive mentioned before the time when i was at marwell with andy rouse and we conducted an experiement on this where we both took a picture of the fossa with our respective equipment (at the time a 300D for me and a 1DSmk1 for him ) then swapped cameras and did it again
both his shots were better than both my shots which came as no surprise , but the margin by which is was better was greater with the 300D , and equally both shots taken with the 1DS were better than our respective shots taken with the 300D , his shot with the 300d was still better than my shot with the 1DS though
from which i take away that having a better camera would probably have improved my photography , but so would having greater ability (also this was a while ago and the 300D was very basic, it would be interesting to repeat it some ten years later and see how my 70 or 6D fared against a 1DX
ive mentioned before the time when i was at marwell with andy rouse and we conducted an experiement on this where we both took a picture of the fossa with our respective equipment (at the time a 300D for me and a 1DSmk1 for him ) then swapped cameras and did it again
both his shots were better than both my shots which came as no surprise , but the margin by which is was better was greater with the 300D , and equally both shots taken with the 1DS were better than our respective shots taken with the 300D , his shot with the 300d was still better than my shot with the 1DS though
from which i take away that having a better camera would probably have improved my photography , but so would having greater ability (also this was a while ago and the 300D was very basic, it would be interesting to repeat it some ten years later and see how my 70 or 6D fared against a 1DX
- Messages
- 105,684
- Name
- The other Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
At one end of the scale a person without at camera can’t take a photo, at the other end of the scale a camera without an operator can’t take a photo, so guess what? The truth lies somewhere in between these two ridiculous points.
Like most things in life there are a range of people doing a range of different things in photography and this skills vs. gear debate always seems to me to be comparing very different things, like trying to argue that an oil painting is better than watching football. At the very least you need some gear and once you accept that you need some gear then it is just a question of whether different gear would make a significant difference to image quality for the particular type of image you are trying to capture.
Like most things in life there are a range of people doing a range of different things in photography and this skills vs. gear debate always seems to me to be comparing very different things, like trying to argue that an oil painting is better than watching football. At the very least you need some gear and once you accept that you need some gear then it is just a question of whether different gear would make a significant difference to image quality for the particular type of image you are trying to capture.
Last edited:
jamiebonline
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 194
- Name
- Jamie
- Edit My Images
- No
The statement ''gear doesn't matter'' sounds like saying you can shoot wildlife with an 8mm lens on full frame. Naturally, it matters. It should be specified that what he really means is, more expensive gear doesn't matter.
Anyway, yeah, I have often thought about this one. So, saying it doesn't matter is like saying you can cook and it doesn't matter what the ingredients are. Sure, if you have only one egg and a few veggies you can make a great omelette IF you are talented and have the experience gained through hours of practice. However, it is limited. If you want to do more, you need more ingredients. Shooting sports and wildlife today and making money from it in a competitive market, you may need more expensive and better gear.
There is one caveat to this. 30 years ago we didn't have fast AF and guess what? sports photographers did actually exist and so did wildlife photographers.They got great shots too. Of course! It was just damn harder with the hit count being lower. In 30 years from now it will be the same, everything will be faster and low light performance in a D4s now will be in entry level cameras or smart phones in the future. The debate won't end either. For some types of photography, it matters less. Some softness is not a crime against humanity. Can't shoot very good IQ images in low light? Then don't shoot in low light or use a tripod and slow shutter. There are workarounds. I have no doubt whatsoever, from an artistic perspective, you can create a masterpiece with a disposable film camera worth a tenner. I also have no doubt, too many beginners and amateurs of a certain level are obsessed with gear and think it is the be all and end all. Meanwhile, the big companies are raking in the money. Good for them.
PS
Some people get defensive when you say the gear they have spent thousands on and read reviews about and drool over everyday, is not as important as they think. Maybe they don't want someone with a D3300 and a 55-200 kit lens taking a much better picture than they did with a D4 (again) and a 70-200. So they say better IQ (and sharpness) means a better picture.
Anyway, yeah, I have often thought about this one. So, saying it doesn't matter is like saying you can cook and it doesn't matter what the ingredients are. Sure, if you have only one egg and a few veggies you can make a great omelette IF you are talented and have the experience gained through hours of practice. However, it is limited. If you want to do more, you need more ingredients. Shooting sports and wildlife today and making money from it in a competitive market, you may need more expensive and better gear.
There is one caveat to this. 30 years ago we didn't have fast AF and guess what? sports photographers did actually exist and so did wildlife photographers.They got great shots too. Of course! It was just damn harder with the hit count being lower. In 30 years from now it will be the same, everything will be faster and low light performance in a D4s now will be in entry level cameras or smart phones in the future. The debate won't end either. For some types of photography, it matters less. Some softness is not a crime against humanity. Can't shoot very good IQ images in low light? Then don't shoot in low light or use a tripod and slow shutter. There are workarounds. I have no doubt whatsoever, from an artistic perspective, you can create a masterpiece with a disposable film camera worth a tenner. I also have no doubt, too many beginners and amateurs of a certain level are obsessed with gear and think it is the be all and end all. Meanwhile, the big companies are raking in the money. Good for them.
PS
Some people get defensive when you say the gear they have spent thousands on and read reviews about and drool over everyday, is not as important as they think. Maybe they don't want someone with a D3300 and a 55-200 kit lens taking a much better picture than they did with a D4 (again) and a 70-200. So they say better IQ (and sharpness) means a better picture.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
It's a bit like the kid with a hand line catching the fish standing next to the fisherman with all the gear catching nothing.
Steve.
Steve.
sk66
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,557
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Push the exposure 4 stops in post... that's all that ISO is doing anyways.
Other than the 1Dx being much newer generation (and having a little less CF), the results would be very similar. In other words, it doesn't require a 1Dx to reasonably achieve those images...
BillN_33
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 13,952
- Name
- Bill
- Edit My Images
- No
Thats because your not getting close enough
that's what they keep telling me ........ I could get closer if I had an 800mm
maybe I should start taking photos of Melopsittacus undulatus
Last edited:
TimmyG
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,775
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You can! You just need to change your approach to do it, and expect a particular style or "look" to your images. You might need alternate gear if you are hoping to achieve a different look.
Anyway, I take your point, I was just being a pedant
sk66
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,557
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have a friend who shoots wildlife/BIF like I do. He recently switched from using a D810 w/ 600/4 to using a D5200 w/ the 200-500/5.6.... it's made no appreciable difference other than in the ability to make really large prints... which he doesn't do.
BillN_33
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 13,952
- Name
- Bill
- Edit My Images
- No
so you are saying £1500 gets you all you need for bird photography - £500 body + £1000 lens
that depends - I have a D750, (plus a D300, D700, D7100) and a 300mm f4 AF-S...... 300mm f4 PF ...... 300mm f2.8 VR a 600mm f4 and a zoom and a couple of TC ........ not bragging ....... I just need the kit, but I'm just a mere mortal
obviously the D300 is now not used much ....... but I can think of situations in bird photography when every combination is appropriate ...... too near with the 600mm ..... always have a 300mm/420mm on another body ...... walking about, the 300mm f4 + and - TC ........... certain hides the 300mm f2.8 is perfect .. again two bodies/lens combinations are always handy
I need two bodies/lens combinations - we spend all this bloody time, hiding, waiting, getting cold etc., driving here and there ... setting up hides and feeders...... then that shot comes along and you have a few seconds
I'm not into zooms
Last edited:
sk66
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,557
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm saying it gets him all he needs... and looking at his images online and smaller prints (up to 16x24) I can't really see a difference. Occasionally I see an image where the small sensor/pixels has caused some issues, but sometimes I have that w/ the D810 (and he did to).
Me on the other hand... I use gear that costs and weighs a lot more for wildlife/BIF. And it's not making me rich... actually, if I just look at the wildlife side I'm probably $15k in the hole at this point... maybe more.
BillN_33
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 13,952
- Name
- Bill
- Edit My Images
- No
I wish that it was that simple
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
So.. some laughing fool who takes snapshots of people hurting each other needs 1000th @ ISO6400, so we all do?
Certain stuff needs the right gear. Most doesn't.
However, in one way, he's right, because he's saying what many others, including myself have always said. Do you print big? If not, then you probably don't need that 36 or 50mp full frame camera. So many people crave these latest high resolution cameras and never even print at all.
Wildlife, sports.... err... pretty much it really... are the only things I can think of where gear can give any measurable advantage. Anyone who consistently shoots in very low light for some reason may benefit from a modern body maybe, but almost anything can perform well in low light these days and faster lenses would be of more help. I'm pretty confident no one could tell an image taken at ISO 6400 on a D7200 from one taken with a D810, or even a D4 without directly comparing identical studio test shots.
The vast majority of people could happily do what they do with very simple gear and it would make no difference to what they shoot whatsoever.
Certain stuff needs the right gear. Most doesn't.
However, in one way, he's right, because he's saying what many others, including myself have always said. Do you print big? If not, then you probably don't need that 36 or 50mp full frame camera. So many people crave these latest high resolution cameras and never even print at all.
Wildlife, sports.... err... pretty much it really... are the only things I can think of where gear can give any measurable advantage. Anyone who consistently shoots in very low light for some reason may benefit from a modern body maybe, but almost anything can perform well in low light these days and faster lenses would be of more help. I'm pretty confident no one could tell an image taken at ISO 6400 on a D7200 from one taken with a D810, or even a D4 without directly comparing identical studio test shots.
The vast majority of people could happily do what they do with very simple gear and it would make no difference to what they shoot whatsoever.
jamiebonline
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 194
- Name
- Jamie
- Edit My Images
- No
As I said and I still think a lot of people are not considering the history of photography. Forget 30 years ago. What about 15 years ago? The flagship DSLR from Nikon or Canon, as examples, were clearly inferior in low light and speed to today's... but ... photographers existed! Some of them are you Pictures were taken. Some were good and some not. The only difference I can see is that it was harder to get a usable picture than now. That's it. Nothing more. It's harder to get a lyrical and nuanced sound out of a piano from 1900 than one made today, but the result is still music and great music, if you know what you are doing.
Having the right tools is a different point. That is, if you want to shoot close ups of players from the side of a football field, you physically need a longer focal length and so on. Nobody can dispute that. I think we are talking more about latest tech and whether that is needed.
Also printing. This is given a bit too much attention since the vast majority of us, don't print any size, let alone a bigger one. I agree that 36 megapixels is not necessary for an average-sized picture in your average-sized living room. I think 24 is probably more than is needed also. I don't know the numbers but I do know of photographers who printed large prints from 8 megapixel cameras back in the day and it didn't bring about the apocalypse.
Pictures were taken. Some were good and some not. The only difference I can see is that it was harder to get a usable picture than now. That's it. Nothing more. It's harder to get a lyrical and nuanced sound out of a piano from 1900 than one made today, but the result is still music and great music, if you know what you are doing.Having the right tools is a different point. That is, if you want to shoot close ups of players from the side of a football field, you physically need a longer focal length and so on. Nobody can dispute that. I think we are talking more about latest tech and whether that is needed.
Also printing. This is given a bit too much attention since the vast majority of us, don't print any size, let alone a bigger one. I agree that 36 megapixels is not necessary for an average-sized picture in your average-sized living room. I think 24 is probably more than is needed also. I don't know the numbers but I do know of photographers who printed large prints from 8 megapixel cameras back in the day and it didn't bring about the apocalypse.
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
Yep. In 2003 I wasted £1500 on a 6MP Nikon D100. At the time, in an interview with a couple of top wedding photographers, an article in Amateur Photographer stated that the D100 was the ideal wedding photographer's camera. I wonder how many would agree with that now?!!
Some of the best photographs ever have been taken with huge, clunky boxes with no automation or ergonomics.. People confuse need with convenience.
If you don't print, 1MP is plenty.
I won a competition with a large print from a 6MP file. As far as I remember, the earth did not stop spinning.
Steve.
Last edited:
FujiLove
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,923
- Edit My Images
- No
Obviously gear matters if you require certain equipment for a particular type of photography such as wildlife, astro etc. It also matters if, like me, you take photographs partly for the pleasure of being out with a camera you enjoy using. The pleasure of ownership and use doesn't have much of an effect on the final image, but there is more to photography than that. I could use a modern DSLR and upload files to an online service to produce final prints, but I deliberately choose to use an old Leica, Rolleicord etc. and develop everything at home. It's much slower, probably more expensive and maybe my final shots would be 'better' (whatever that is) with the DSLR. But for me, the pleasure and point is to use these lovely analog tools and processes to craft a photograph.
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Don't bet on it. Some of the best work I've ever done was, and still is on film. Since getting back into film I'm even more convinced that going back to basics has many advantages. Digital seems even more sterile and boring to me now. It's just too easy. I think this what's fuelling the revival in film lately... a backlash against the onslaught of homogenised, cookie-cutter images that the internet is awash with.
jamiebonline
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 194
- Name
- Jamie
- Edit My Images
- No
There is an ease about it, in ways. I shoot film now too as well as digital but it is not for the processing so maybe purists would think I am missing the point. I do it cause I like the old cameras and I love the look of the final images printed or scanned and online.