Are you sure that gear doesnt matter?

[redsnappa]

Of course gear matters, manufacturers would not pay so much to advertise their goods if it did not matter to them.

 

[Faldrax]

...Wildlife, sports.... err... pretty much it really... are the only things I can think of where gear can give any measurable advantage...

It depends on how far you extend the term 'gear' - tripods (a £15 special from Asda will not be up to the job in many situations...) are one example, the PC and software you use are another (and where it's equaly true that you need BOTH the equipment which CAN perform the required task and the skill to use that equipment to achieve the desired result).

 

[Pookeyhead]

It depends on how far you extend the term 'gear' - tripods (a £15 special from Asda will not be up to the job in many situations...) are one example, the PC and software you use are another (and where it's equaly true that you need BOTH the equipment which CAN perform the required task and the skill to use that equipment to achieve the desired result).

A PC does not improve your photography though. It may make your processing faster, but it won't make it better. A decent monitor is one concession I'm prepared to make in this argument, but ironically that's the one thing people never actually budget for, and when they do, they can't be arsed going a little further to calibrate it.

While a decent tripod can make a difference with heavy cameras or high winds, you;'d be surprised what a cheap one can do in terms of aiding your creativity. Besides... people still upgrade tripod when something new and sexier comes out. I'm still using the same Manfrotto 190 I bought back in the mid 90s... battle scarred, heavily abused. I've no intention of replacing it to save 100grams or just because it's got that carbon fibre look to it.

The vast majority of camera upgrades I see on these forums will have no measurable impact on the photography of the people upgrading.

I've nothing against upgrading and buying nice things BTW... I just wish people would be honest and say they just want to. I can respect that.

 

[Steve Smith]

While a decent tripod can make a difference with heavy cameras or high winds, you;'d be surprised what a cheap one can do in terms of aiding your creativity.

I remembe rmy father telling me that a lightweight tripod can be made more sturdy by putting a heavy camera on it. As long as it doesn't collapse under the weight, it will be fine.


Steve.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I remembe rmy father telling me that a lightweight tripod can be made more sturdy by putting a heavy camera on it. As long as it doesn't collapse under the weight, it will be fine.


Steve.

'tis true!

 

[RichardTaylor]

Peronally I liked.

(1) upgrading from a camera that did not have a rangefinder, a lightmeter, fixed lens, and had parralax error wne you looked through the viewfinder, to camera where you looked thorugh the lens. had a range finder and you could chage lenses..
That solved the parralax problem and a lot of the focussing problems.

(2) Upgading to camera that had through the lens metering.
That solved a lot of the exposure problems.

(3) Upgrading to a camera system that had autofucus lenses.
That solve some more focussing problems

(4) Upgrading to a DSLR where I now had a histogram, a "dark room", and a "motor drive".
A big step for me when shooting sport.

(5) Slight improvement going from am entry level DSLR to a mid range DSLR - got more keepers.

(6) "Upgrading" to a full frame DSLR (in hindsight I proably should not have done it).

(7) Sidegrade to a system with easily manageable, and priced, fast lenses (including long ones) and a live histogarm (that just about solves all the exposure problems when used correctly)..

 

[davholla]

Peronally I liked.


(6) "Upgrading" to a full frame DSLR (in hindsight I proably should not have done it).

Why not?

 

[RichardTaylor]

It was a bit of an impulse buy (they had kjust been reduced by 20%)
Would have been better off spending the money on a lens (or two).

 

[owenb]

Gear Defo matters in his iso and low light if you have no flash.....

 

[rob-nikon]

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.

I agree with what David says here. Wildlife is one area where good gear can aid but only in difficult conditions like in low light where ISO is high and you need a faster aperture to keep shutter speed high. If you shoot wildlife during the main daylight hours gear is not as important. Peter Richards recent award winning fox shadow image is a great example and one Peter said in a recent talk didn't need high end gear to get.

 

[rob-nikon]

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.

It's very dependant what your friend uses it for and if he previously needed the benefits of the 600/4 and d810. The 200-500 doesn't focus as fast and doesn't perform as well as the 600/4 in low light..... It's whether is worth the extra outlay and whether the user notices the differences.

 

[droj]

Sigh. Yet another thread about shopping for the fetishists.

 

[sk66]

It's very dependant what your friend uses it for and if he previously needed the benefits of the 600/4 and d810. The 200-500 doesn't focus as fast and doesn't perform as well as the 600/4 in low light..... It's whether is worth the extra outlay and whether the user notices the differences.

And the D810/D5200 et all don't really perform that well in low light either.
I haven't used the 200-500, but I would surprised if the 200-500 performs worse in low light... It's probably either just worse, or it's camera dependent.

Keep in mind he's now using a kit that costs ~ $1500 to replace a kit that cost ~ 10x that... for most this is just a hobby. Are the few extra keepers really worth $13k?
And I do mean "few"... if the situation is really demanding 10fps and other advantages won't make all that much difference.

 

[ukaskew]

I love this kind of discussion. It is however, very, very subject and user specific, there is no catch-all correct answer to it.

Motorsport is the subject where I personally come across this the most. Mainly (being brutally honest) people saying they need better gear to improve their motorsport photography, then sharing photos to 'prove their point' where it's absolutely clear that the kit is not the issue. Better kit makes life easier, sure, and it's up to individuals if they want to spend their own hard earned on expensive gear, but for the majority of us not shooting professionally, it's absolutely not a an requirement.

I know from experience that sharing shots like this, taken with a Fuji mirrorless camera, really, really annoys a surprising number of people (not on here, I might add)...

Japfest 2015 by Chris Harrison, on Flickr

 

[davholla]

I love this kind of discussion. It is however, very, very subject and user specific, there is no catch-all correct answer to it.

Motorsport is the subject where I personally come across this the most. Mainly (being brutally honest) people saying they need better gear to improve their motorsport photography, then sharing photos to 'prove their point' where it's absolutely clear that the kit is not the issue. Better kit makes life easier, sure, and it's up to individuals if they want to spend their own hard earned on expensive gear, but for the majority of us not shooting professionally, it's absolutely not a an requirement.

I know from experience that sharing shots like this, taken with a Fuji mirrorless camera, really, really annoys a surprising number of people (not on here, I might add)...

Japfest 2015 byIC%DAT% Chris Harrison, on Flickr

I think gear might not matter. However one photo does not prove anything either way. Surely it is the number of good photos you get in time x? My wife has got some good photos on her cheap smartphone, but the percentage is sadly very low. (BTW if anyone would like to fund the cost of the equipment (about £20k). I will undertake a study using different cannon models/lens to see how many keepers I get for free.)

 

[Pookeyhead]

I love this kind of discussion. It is however, very, very subject and user specific, there is no catch-all correct answer to it.

Motorsport is the subject where I personally come across this the most. Mainly (being brutally honest) people saying they need better gear to improve their motorsport photography, then sharing photos to 'prove their point' where it's absolutely clear that the kit is not the issue. Better kit makes life easier, sure, and it's up to individuals if they want to spend their own hard earned on expensive gear, but for the majority of us not shooting professionally, it's absolutely not a an requirement.

I know from experience that sharing shots like this, taken with a Fuji mirrorless camera, really, really annoys a surprising number of people (not on here, I might add)...

Japfest 2015 by Chris Harrison, on Flickr

That's actually quite a simple shot technically though. As you're panning, it's hardly a stress test of the AF system is it

BTW.. I agree with you. I'm all in favour of simple equipment whenever possible. Yes, I have a D800E but I often print big. If not for that, I'd happily use the simplest equipment I can find. However... the above shot is not a great demo of how simple equipment can produce great results, simply because it's not that demanding. The car is moving laterally across the frame, and you're panning. Easy pickings for most AF systems. The panning itself is a result of skill however... so I suppose it makes your point... as skill is something you can't buy.

 

[ukaskew]

That was indeed my point. People see technically 'good' motorsport shots and think they need better equipment to achieve it, bigger buffers, more AF points, faster FPS, better glass etc.

The vast majority of motorsport stuff posted is very undemanding on equipment, but the good stuff is often technically quite difficult to achieve, requiring lots of practice. You can't 'buy your way' into it, which doesn't sit well with many these days.

 

[XA2inmypocket]

My take on this question - coming from someone that has made low budget photography a project (the 50p Camera Project), and who embraces lovely old gear:

1. For those of us that do not rely on our photography in order to make a living - in other words, for all of us that are amateurs and photography enthusiasts, there is one thing that is important to us - happiness. If money is not much of an object, if you can truly afford it, then sure, buy whatever you want - but ask yourself first - will I get good value in terms of happiness. If a new upgrade costs, say £750, then do you get value in terms of happiness in your photography? Say that you spent that £750 on a new lens. As an amateur, what did that new gear allow you to do, that you could not do before. Imagine putting a value onto the images that you can now create. How much did they cost, and was it worth it? Has anyone else created similar images, and have they already done it better, with an even more expensive lens?

2. As was stated within a few posts of this thread. Some schools of photography are far more gear-centric than other schools. I am quite happy to shoot my meagre street / photography by wandering round, using a compact 35mm film camera - even with my 50p camera. However ... if I wanted to capture a passenger pigeon two hundred metres away, then I would prefer to use something more appropriate. Sure, good cutting edge hardware can give benefits to wild-life photography, as it also can to sports or some low light occasions. However ... not for all schools of photography. This is where new enthusiasts can get it wrong, and feel pressured to upgrade when they would be better off spending more money on sex, drugs, and rock n' roll. Okay, spend it on travel then.

Bringing the two points together - if you are really attracted to a school of photography that demands cutting edge gear - then you may find that buying it may give you reasonable value in terms of happiness. However, if you are simply feeling pressured to upgrade for the sake of it - or for one-upmanship, then you are wasting your money. I'm most probably happier with my 50p camera.

 

[droj]

I know many people who enjoy riding a motorbike, but who often (I've noticed) also enjoy standing & admiring their machine, especially after a wash & polish. Maybe that's because they can see their own reflection in the side of the petrol tank. (There's an idea for a picture.)

It seems to me that people on these forums fall into three camps - those that need stuff for a job & strive to have it, those that just acquire stuff haphazardly & use it productively anyway, and those who acquire equipment because they like shiny things (& their own imagined reflection in them).

The value of a photograph is what it communicates, full stop. Which is a story in itself with many dimensions.

 

[PMN]

It seems to me that people on these forums fall into three camps - those that need stuff for a job & strive to have it, those that just acquire stuff haphazardly & use it productively anyway, and those who acquire equipment because they like shiny things (& their own imagined reflection in them).

I don't fit into any of those groups and I'm sure many others won't either. I have a 7D and 5Dmk2 which I've had for years, neither of which are going to be replaced until they fall over and die simply because they do everything I'll ever need them to do. 'Upgrading' to a 7D2, 5D3, or anything else isn't realistically going to give me much more than I have already for the kind of things I do in photography so there's no point in doing so. Your categories seem largely based around people continually acquiring gear and I'm not sure why, some of us are quite happy with the gear we've been running for 4-5 years.

 

[Chris J]

Its the user of the camera, that takes the 'photo'. Not the Camera. Thats just the tool. The Camera, by itself cannot take a photo.

 

[Steve Smith]

1. For those of us that do not rely on our photography in order to make a living - in other words, for all of us that are amateurs and photography enthusiasts, there is one thing that is important to us - happiness.

Whilst that should be the case, I think there are those who like to be seen to have the best gear. I suppose that might make them happy but it's a shallow sort of happiness in my opinion.


Steve.

 

[XA2inmypocket]

Whilst that should be the case, I think there are those who like to be seen to have the best gear. I suppose that might make them happy but it's a shallow sort of happiness in my opinion.


Steve.

Indeed! Hence my mention of the futility of one-upmanship Steve. I do appreciate that some schools of photography are going to be more gear-centric than others. But I despair when I see young and new photography enthusiasts being brainwashed into spending money on upgrades that they don't need, and that do little to improve their photography. Marketing isn't anything new to photography, it's been around ever since George Eastman advertised his Box Camera Mk II. If you remember the Olympus Trip 35 TV marketing campaign, you'll remember David Bailey being told that his 35mm film p&s wasn't a serious camera. He needed something with a better lens. Shallow? Totally.

 

[KIPAX]

Whilst that should be the case, I think there are those who like to be seen to have the best gear. I suppose that might make them happy but it's a shallow sort of happiness in my opinion.


Steve.

Indeed! Hence my mention of the futility of one-upmanship Steve.

Oh give over.. theres nothing wrong with wanting or owning the best gear.... if they can afford it then why not..a ferrari only gets you from a-b like a pushbike does.. but some people like to have the best.. if they have the money then good luck to them... I certainly wouldnt pull my face at them unless it was a green one..

 

[XA2inmypocket]

Oh give over.. theres nothing wrong with wanting or owning the best gear.... if they can afford it then why not..a ferrari only gets you from a-b like a pushbike does.. but some people like to have the best.. if they have the money then good luck to them... I certainly wouldnt pull my face at them unless it was a green one..

I think that I clearly stated in my previous post - "If money is not much of an object, if you can truly afford it, then sure, buy whatever you want". I don't think that neither myself nor Steve are the sort of photographers to give a hoot about a rich kid buying a new Phase One. There is no envy. I am not craving for new cutting edge technology. All that I express is concern for new photographers that are brainwashed into spend, spend, spend mode by the markets. They often forget to ask themselves what it is that they enjoy about photography - what it brings to them. No-one points that out to them in the photography media and it's sponsored Upgrade Culture. Instead it's 1) buy a Canikon DSLR, 2) buy a better lens than the kit, 3) shoot in RAW, 5) subscribe to Adobe software, 6) buy a nifty fifty, 7) but a Canikon carry bag, 8) buy more lenses, 9) buy even more lenses, 10) buy a power grip, 11) your camera is so old - UPGRADE! 12) ugh, you should have gone full frame, 13) your camera doesn't have enough IQ (WTF is that? I can't even get my camera to fetch).... and so on it goes until the enthusiast is burnt out and bankrupt. Their images probably look just like everybody elses, as they've followed the same tutorials and guides in the same magazines. Only some other photographers have taken even better (sharper, closer, higher IQ?) photos by spending even more money on even higher end gear.

They forgot enjoyment. They might have also forgotten eclectic creativity. They might have forgotten that the joy is in photography, not in spending money.

I keep having to state this - because I see how these discussions always go on here. Some schools of amateur photography are more gear-centric than others. I repeat, I'm not criticising people for consuming high end products. I'm glad that they are, in the Age of globally declining camera sales. I just wish that people would not see photography as being all about technology and ker-ching.

 

[Ed Sutton]

For some the gear obviously matters.

It might not matter to them to use the latest and most expensive. It might matter that it's a camera that cost 50p and film from the pound shop. If it didn't matter they wouldn't bang on about it so much.

 

[Faldrax]

...They forgot enjoyment...

Of course, for some, having a 'better' camera will increase enjoyment - a high end camera will (generally) have a superior viewfinder (bigger, brighter), easier access to a wide range of settings, vertical grip, etc - all of which mean that (once familiar with body) it is more 'natural' to use, allowing the photographer to concentrate on 'taking the photograph' rather than 'operate the camera'.

For others, the idea of carting about several thousands worth of kit would prevent them leaving the house

 

[redsnappa]

Of course gear matters, it gives Lowepro the oppertunity to buy a £25 quid suitcase, stuff a bit of foam in it, put their logo on it and sell it for £300.00