Equipment envy or latest technology for better photos?

<p>I have to say, as a younger photographer I am still along the same lines as the original poster. Even at 27, I am able to understand how photographs used to take time. Even when I was still in high school, digital was just getting onto the scene, and was much too expensive to access. Photos used to take "time" where you set things up, waiting for the right expressions.</p>

<p>Too often I find myself "machine gunning" and need to step away from digital for a bit. That is when I set my 1D II down for my OM-1. We just have to remind ourselves to take some time. Especially when you have a camera that can focus at the blink of an eye and shoot at 9FPS.</p>

<p>As far as "equipment envy" I think it may be more pronounced today due to the Internet, but you can't tell me that people with 35mm cameras didn't have equipment envy when they saw someone with a Hassy or other MF or LF camera step up to the same scene. The equipment envy has just stepped it up a notch, with the faster upgrades of digital, and everyone thinking they are a professional photographer when they purchase the newest 60D. </p>

<p>Some valid restrained points made above. I have succumbed to the gear acquisition syndrome idea too and am eligible for geezerhood, but don't call me that in person if you please. Meaning if you live long enough you want to try out some new gizmo that does something you think you might want....<br /> Instamatic reflections. I have been scanning a lot of Instamatic format slides last year. Many many. From the time when my only real camera was a Kodak Instamatic 500 with a fixed Xenar lens of F2.8. Some of the photos I look at now were not great but not half bad. I used the selenium meter to center on what I thought was middle gray. I used a bulb flashgun and I was careful of what volume I shot, because 126 chrome slides and bulbs were a cost item. I fell easily for a square format, my little mini ersatz Hasselbladnik from Stuttgarty for sixty bucks at a drugstore closeout. No it was not rain proof, nor was I...)-)<br /> Now I think nothing of doing as many shots via digital machine as I like and bury my mistakes on the spot with that little red trash can. Great. I now think tho about options such as white balance, where before I just watched for colored walls. Easy use of P mode where the program is smarter than I usually am in the AM time... Lenses, I have a few mostly zooms, all sharp as a samurai sideburn. Does my gear lust falter even as I have too much for my hobby needs? Hell no.<br /> BTW, Every time I open this site, Adorama knows me and sidebars a shot of the lovely Olympus ED 150 mm F 2.0 lens, only 2500.00 bucks, um no way Jose...unless the tax refund is bigger than this year's. <br /> Now I have a flash so sophisticated the manual is 35 pages. And it does tricks unimaginable. <br /> What I perceive in some younger or newbie photographers is that they have not fully thought about getting the basic understanding of how exposure is affected by f stops, relying on the automation and fix it later. They do not seem to dig the squares rule or the way meters work or what incident light is all about and even why it matters. They think,-- and who am I to say they are <em>misled</em>, that the little doohickies you strap on to the shoe flash make a great light. Maybe for them maybe for a facebook page....If the standard of facebook photos shows where the standard for good is then we here are super great all of us...true.. the bar has never been lower IMO but the potential is correspondingly unlimited. The number of books has never been greater. Who is reading them I wonder.<br /> They the declared newbs, and I see this on PN some seem willing to spend uberbucks for the ultrasharp 0.95 lens and then want to murky it up later on in photo shop. Is a puzzlement. <br /> People who use long lenses for nature photography often spurn the purchase of a tripod or a monopod. Funny to me. Out of the thought process in some way so it is an acquired taste habit, from whence who knows. Or just Uncool and Unhip.<br /> We are talking nature here...walk and go to the mountains but carry what you need like the crampons the climbers bring. Like John Muir's backpack...<br /> And what get me is the wish list definition of lo-o-o-o-ng lenses to die for it seems, - now <em>there</em> is an arguable way to spend some bread. Must be lust from the media white lens lineup..You know I thought telephoto was medium 85 to 135, used to be way back. And long was 200 to 300 mm. Now they go for length that defies imagination. <em>Hubble</em> lengths. And growing like pinocchio's shnozz the reach of teles. <br /> But hey don' t spring for a tripod unless it comes in under 200 bucks with head. see what I mean..I "get" the gear lust, I see how equipment helps, sometimes makes for speed and safety, but I find it is the <em>little stuff</em> that is worth seeking. Like what? Like a bunch of Super Clamps. And lest I miss something more important, dare I reinforce the OP theme and suggest new seekers seek a workshop before entertaining or saving for that new optic. Actually get to work with someone who can show you what to do with what you got.<br /> Not a curmudgeon sentiment either...I find a lot of youngsters have creative juices and combined with modest budget can now do stuff unimaginable thirty years back. Digital has great learning opportunity, and I love it. I can play back a session like I just did via a USB to my HD TV...imagine that 30 years on...the Blu Ray even rotates the buggers....the feedback. Ahh..so pleasant and gratifying.</p>

<p>I don't think anything's been done that's "unimaginable" historically, nothing important anyway. I do find 10% of HDR worthwhile, but not worthwhile enough to want to bother with it. I'm more interested in certain kinds of approaches to people, certain kinds of relationships with my environment. The only reason I shoot DSLR rather than film has to do with time...I don't have enough of it so find myself lacking enough time to most properly follow the bread crumbs into the deep woods that still seem to hold whatever it is that I'm after.<br>

I do wish my local E6 labs hadn'd gone away...color seems to me to be the only real reason to shoot DSLR, since I'm happy with my B&W processing, my own scanning, and my own printing. In fact I think I was stupid when I sold a pair of Canon P with lenses a year ago. SLR has never been the ideal form factor, IMO. Earlier, I was stupid to sell my Toyo G and before that was stupid to sell my 8X10 Agfa Ansco. Such is life.</p>

<p>Maybe we all need a trip down memory lane to compare gear old and new. So when I get the two T90 bodies back from Steve in Reno I will actually use them, I have so vowed, John. As for the medium format rig, well we will see. Do we have to send 120 off to get it done and where and how much. No home lab but a Meopta enlarger still in a box... Do I still remember how to load Nikor reels and have the dexterity. And if not, can my sinuses now take the smell of sodium hyposulfite in the morning?</p>

<p>Bravo Howard Vrankin (@4.10pm), you wrote what I was thinking.</p>

<p>I take a quote from the original poster:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>When the equipment becomes the focus rather than the photography then it is time to re-evaluate.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My response is lets not be so closed-minded as to assume that the result of that re-evaluation won't be a positive one. It is a perfectly legitimate way for some to enjoy this passtime called photography to focus on the gear. Just as, for others, the challenge is some seach for artistic and technical excellence.</p>

<p>I personally think both can be enjoyed in parallel (one can wish for gear while also working one's skills with what one has). But the starting point of the thread, which is that people spend thousands 'to improve their photography' is the part that does not necessarily hold. The reasons for my photographic investments are certainly far more complex than that, and include a fair dose of 'gear-geek' motivation.</p>

<p>I think the most important thing is that we all enjoy the fact of this community and don't spent too much time judging the motivations for other individuals to do/buy/desire things when whatever they do doesn't in reality impact us one bit.</p>

<p>Warm regards to all.</p>

 

<p>A wise old man once told me as a young man, "Don't confuse liking sex with liking women." This has some applicability here. I think it's fair to say that the <em>camera</em> hobby can easily be distinguished from the photography hobby. (Professionals have a different set of values and purpose).</p>

<p>You wouldn't have to hang around long to know that magnificent, great, timeless photographs can be made with a camera that was made in 1950, and purchased at a flea market last weekend. You also wouldn't have to hang around long to know that there is a billion dollar modern global industry feeding a consumption-obsolescence cycle with a never-ending panoply of exciting playthings promising to make you a better photographer.</p>

<p>Put a new state-of-the-art camera in the hands of a dilettante, and put an Instamatic in the hands of a photographic master and see who comes back with an interesting photograph. Yes, sometimes the dilettante will get lucky, but I'd put my money on the former.</p>

<p>@ m stephens: Thanks for posting!</p>

<p>I think that the benefits of modern equipment is very clear in pro sports, news and some event photography (ie, where the photographer MUST produce technically acceptable images quickly in fast-moving uncontrolled environments), compared to fine art and hobby photography where one can fuss with the equipment, re-shoot, miss many shots without serious (eg, loss of your job) penalty, etc.. </p>

<p>For pros, features of modern equipment make the probability of a technically decent photo in these types of photography much higher than if that shot was attempted on an older camera. Specifically, I'm thinking about fast transfer of images from the camera to the client; fast, accurate autofocusing (especially for older folks whose eyes are no longer quite as sharp as they once were); burst shooting to nail a good expression or the peak of the action in sports; higher ISOs to allow reasonable shutter speeds and apertures (depth of field) in dim locations; the use of Photoshop to open the range of acceptability of images which have moderate exposure, excess contrast, or color balance problems, etc. That being said, there are many amateur photographer Soccer Moms and Uncle Bills (at weddings) that also enjoy the same benefits from the modern equipment. </p>

<p>Of course, lots of these shots could have, in principle, been taken on a 1930's Zeiss folder, but the probability of coming back with as many well focused, well exposed, decent quality, well timed shots is vastly lower with the older technology. The proof is in the equipment used by pros: How many TLRs and Speed Graphics do you see at presidential news conferences?</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p>m stephens - great post in reply. But surely the issue is that liking sex and liking women are not mutually exclusive. And - if well managed (!) - are indeed quite complementary to each other.</p>

<p>To my mind it is the same with this hobby we call photography (I like your subset of the 'camera hobby' by the way). The good thing is one can be both a 'camera hobbyist' and a 'photography hobbyist' at the same time. I freely and delightfully admit that I'm in that camp.</p>

<p>The only minor worry is that a puritanical minority gets their knickers in a twist every time there is an admission that the camera/gear enjoyment side has some validity, alongside the photographic art and technique side. There seems to be some kind of taboo against admitting this, which I must admit to finding bizarre and naive, not to mention a little frustrating as someone comfortable enough in my own skin to be able to admit that I enjoy both aspects wholeheartedly.</p>

<p>Depending on your needs, better gear will absolutely provide the ability to acquire better images. In the pre-digital world, some people lusted after 8x10 cameras in order to get the shot they envisioned.</p>

<p>It all depends on which direction you view this from. If I simlpy purchased an 80 MP MF Digital back just because I wanted it then I would fall into this despised 'gearhead' category. Did we have these same conversations in the 80s about large format cameras and who was buying them, and why? But then again, if I could afford it, and wanted to own the 40 thousand dollar MF back, why the heck is that bad?</p>

<p>Is it bad that I want an old Chevy SS 396 just to have it? It has no real purpose in providing transport over my daily driver... Or is my allegory irrelevant?</p>

<p>Some time ago I taught a class on photography and had each student use a single use camera to get pictures. While there were some duds there also were several "keepers" and many of the students were surprised at their own results. Meanwhile, back at the camera store, I bought digital cameras which are way better than I need because I love the nifty features. I took pictures of my granddaughter performing in a show choir with no flash and had good results. Then I got out my really old Minolta S414 shot some kid pix. Had good results on 4x6 size which is what I usually get and was struck by the thought that for MOST of my amatuer photography, the Minolta does great. However there are those times when the low noise, stabilized features get data that the Minolta can't. Also for those few times when I want an elargement of a cropped picture the resolution of 18 Mp is way better than that of 4Mp. I still use the minolta but I also use the newbie. I am a camera junkie.</p><div></div>

<p>The problem of owning the most and best gear that money can buy is that if your work is still garbage, where do you go from there ?, what excuse do you have ?</p>

<p>Why would you value what you do based on some hypothetical opinion? If that is your driver in life, you just might have other issues that require work... ;-)</p>