Equipment envy or latest technology for better photos?

<p> I have reached a point of no return. The only reason to buy a new piece of camera equipment is to replace a broken and unrepairable item. If I had only......banked or properly invested the money I have spent on equipment in the last 50 years...I would be wealthy! Call me an old geezer but I cannot believe that spending 2, 3, 4 or even $5000 for a camera is going to improve my photography. Yes...I am trained and retired professional photographer who also taught photography for decades and I know what I am doing but there is no justification for equipment envy. I use to have my students go out and shoot a roll of film with their 35mm camera and then develop & print. I would take an Kodak Instamatic and expose and print. The students could not understand how I could get great photos with such a cheap camera. Therein lies the moral, it is the skill not the equipment. Did you master your equipment whatever it cost? Did you take the time to compose you photo? Is the photo a worthwhile subject? Why did you take the photo? How can you improve your photo given the same opportunity? With the digital age, taking hundreds of photos to hope one will be a keeper lowers the incentive to develop your knowlege and skill as a photographer. Like a fine meal, savor the opportunity and taste all the depth of what is being served. I am not advocating going back to fillm. I am just asking young and new photographers to develop skill that was more of a focus during the days of film when you didi not see your results until it was developed in a real darkroom. Think of the camera as an extension of your eyes and mind not an adjunct to your computer to be worked to death. </p>

<p>I agree with you to an extent, but camera technology is currently evolving so much faster than film technology did in the last 20 years before digital came onto the scene. Some of the benefits of digital technology (high ISO capability, improved IS, improved video for those who want to do that, faster and better in-camera processing...) are making the tool better. I think the notion that the camera doesn't matter relative to the skill of the photographer is a tired cliche; both have relevance, IMO, even though I'd place greater emphasis on the skill of the photographer. As for your last line, I agree completely, but such a statement is like blowing into the wind to get it to stop, I'm afraid.</p>

<p> I made a few mistakes buying camera's. It never really seemed to matter much what camera I used as long as it worked properly. I guess if I could do it all over again I would just buy a Leica M and use that one camera throughout life. I think I would have saved some money on camera gear with simple and durable gear like that.</p>

<p>From another old geezer's perspective, well said and amen. I think some of what we're seeing is inspired by the almost exponential advance in technology, photography and otherwise, since the 1960s, coupled with marketing frenzy, resulting in an "It's new - I gotta have it!" attitude. We see a lot of it of it here: "Should I buy the Canon 5D2 or wait for the 5D3" kind of question that's posted frequently. I'm also sort of dismayed by references to the 5D1 as a "classic". Classic? give me a break - how long has the 5D1 been around? If you want a classic, look at the Speed Graphic, or 500-series Hasselblads. But, no one ever seems to ask how buying new equipment make him or her a better photographer, I guess the assumption being that the camera takes care of all that.</p>

<p>OK, enough ranting. But, I do have to say that I regard both wet darkroom work and digital darkroom work as two sides of the same coin. They're just different tools to accomplish the same purpose. But, the digital darkroom is a lot cleaner and smells better...</p>

<p>One of the reasons I incorporated digital photography into my tools is the ability to experiment with greater ease and more quickly than I could with film alone. While I can achieve more or less comparable results in terms of print quality with either medium, I profit from the ability of a digital camera to make changes before I decide on the final image, with rapid feedback. My traditional darkroom (for B&W) now benefits from a computerised enlarger light source that facilitates the preliminary test print stage of the long and absorbing process of making a print. While good equipment helps the photographer, many very fine images have been made with very inexpensive and basic equipment. The experienced amateur or professional photographer does recognise that certain situations benefit from more extensive (variable capability) and precise equipment. You are right in mentioning that photographic education and approach are very important. Some of that may well be overlooked in the fast moving digital age and in marketing of improved and expensive equipment, but hasn't that always been part of the situation in a consumer society since the industrial revolution?</p>

<p>I just recently upgraded from a Rebel XT to a 7D -- and the difference was amazing. Before a picture at ISO 400 showed visible, but not distracting noise. 800 and 1600 weren't really usable except in special circumstances. And the scale didn't go higher than that.</p>

<p>On my 7D I have gone out doing night and low-light photography that would have been utterly impossible on my XT. I imagine that in a decade more I'll be yet again amazed at the gapbetween my 7D and whatever is out there then.</p>

<p>Gear matters. That's all there is to it. But by the same token, my images will never equal those of a professionally trained artist with decades of experience. Because experience and knowledge matter too.</p>

<p>I think that ultimately 'gear envy' is about getting gear so you have "the best" equipment comparable to what a pro NEEDS to get the images the pro is envisioning without having the required skill and knowledge to use that equipment to it's full potential. And everyone suffers from it to some degree. It is not about obtaining gear that gives you capabilities you didn't have before that you need to achieve the images you know how to produce.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think the notion that the camera doesn't matter relative to the skill of the photographer is a tired cliche</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br />It is true for as long as the camera is better than the photographer needs it to be. Which is most of the time.</p>

<p>Just think about how photographers' pictures must have improved in 1971 when they traded in their Nikon Fs to get a shiny, new Nikon F2!</p>

<p>Until the brain-transplant is perfected, only 40 to 50 percent of "better photos" can be attributed to the latest, greatest camera body that is advertised to do everything better.</p>

<p>Lighting, luck, and being at the right place at the right time have photography value that cannot be upgraded to the next version.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>We all suffer from it to some degree, and in different fields. Some folks lust after the latest Porsche while others are content with their ten year old Buick. Camera gear is much the same, and relatively cheaper. I couldn't, on a student's resources, afford a new car every three years, but a new camera? Sure, why not?</p>

<p>But I agree with what you're saying. I put away my 5D Classic when I realized I was no longer treating each image as if it were special and was merely machine-gunning with the camera. I don't shoot for a living, nor am I answerable to anybody else; I now shoot with an assortment of manual gear, including some 1950's folders, and I am much happier. </p>

<p> I know that for myself I have been getting better photos with a better camera, lens, tripod. Or at least I like the photos more, which is what matter to me. So for me the gear does make a differance. Just a simple thing like a cable release makes a big differance in many cases, sure it is simple and cheap but it is still gear and it improves photos a lot, as does a better body.</p>

<p>Thank you for all your input. Some may have gotten the wrong idea. I am not against whatever equipment that works for you and gives you good results. It would be silly for me not to recognize the leaps in the abilities of today's camera equipment...I have a degree in engineering. My point was that we are allowing the technology to overwhelm our work and how we see the work. When the equipment becomes the focus rather than the photography then it is time to re-evaluate.</p>

<p>I want a better body (not camera) and better photos. I will have to work at both to achieve the desired results. If use of equipment helps (weights, treadmill, tripod, remote trigger, an upgraded camera or lens), so be it.</p>

<p>I agree about the gear in general. I own fancier, newer model cameras, but m experience has been that people really can't tell the difference between large prints from the DSLR I bought 7 years ago and the mst recent one with three times the megapixels. The newer model sure is nicer to use though: much nicer LCD and menu organization.</p>

<p>As far as advice to others though, it appears that gear obsession has been part of photography for a long time. Here's a quote from a photographer using collodion plate gear, but it sounds like it could have been said yesterday.</p>

<p>"The lens is always considered the most important of all the tools the photographer employs. So it is, but I should like to say boldly that, within limits, I do not care what make of lens I use. It is as well to have the best your means will allow, but there has always been too much made of particular variations in the make of lenses. It has been the fashion to think too much of the tools and too little of the use made of them. I have one friend who did nothing last year because he had made up his mind to buy a new lens, and could not determine whose make it should be, and he was tired of his old apparatus. His was of the order of particular and minute minds that try to whittle nothing to a point. I have another friend who takes delight in preparing for photography, and spends a small fortune in doing so, but never takes a picture." -H.P. Robinson, Letters On Landscape Photography, published 1888</p>

<p>I agree with your basic statement that many (but I would add "not all") are allowing technology to overwhelm their work. But I say that with having learned photography back in the '60s and '70s with film. Back then, I got to know my camera's capabilities and limitations. I could see like my camera. I knew how its meter was reading the scene. I could use a light meter to read a scene perfectly. Those skills have largely been lost, I think, among a younger generation with instant feedback, the financial ability to use a machine gun approach to photograph a scene, and to use a computer to alter what is initially gotten from the camera. The computer has become just as important (often more so) as the camera in producing many images. And when all of that happens, equipment does become a primary focus among many photographers.</p>

<p>Myself, I've spent far more on digital photography than I ever did on film photography, including processing. The rate of change in digital technology has been astounding. My approach to photography is basically the same as it was when I was using film, but I have wanted to take advantage in the significant improvements to the basic tools. I wouldn't say technology has overwhelmed my work, but it is a much more significant component in my photography now than it was 20 years ago.</p>

<p>Matt, that was a great quote -- you posted while I was writing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>With the digital age, taking hundreds of photos to hope one will be a keeper lowers the incentive to develop your knowlege and skill as a photographer.</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>But wasting the time to process them is a huge incentive to learn those skills. On the other hand with digital tools you can make mistakes and hopefully, if you are smart enough and inclined enough , learn to get past them faster and stay fresher.</p>

<p>I keep wondering where it is all going to end (or is it?) Technology keeps on marching along at breakneck speed. From a marketing perspective, I totally understand.."better, bigger, faster, sharper, lower light, etc" but even if we get a 30mp camera body and lens for 399 bucks are my 50 year old eyes going to be able to discern any more "sharpness or resolution?"</p>

<p>I do not really believe the gearlust is all that new. Internet is making it a lot more visible, though. Seeing totally gearheaded photo forums (and this site here are not one of those), and the level of photos there (and all the critique-less praise) may draw a picture of an industry obsessed with megapixels and edge-sharpness at f/1.2 for uninspired photos. But it is just a vocal minority; they are not the entire market.<br>

The mass market still buys fixed-lens compact or entry-level SLR cameras with kitlens (or 2) and are happy. No different from the 80s with film. There are still people looking to grow creatively, people looking to squeeze the last bit of detail out of their film/sensor, people who simply do not care at all... I do not think it is that massively different.</p>

<p>And frankly, let people have their gear-lust, it's their money.</p>

<p>D. Weissman: "I would take an Kodak Instamatic and expose and print. The students could not understand how I could get great photos with such a cheap camera."</p>

<p>As an old geezer who never tried anything of the kind, I'll be happy to see a few of these great photos.</p>

<p>I consider myself a weekend warrior since my main income does not come from photography, but you would be surprised how this technology thing is affecting other fields. I had a supervisor once who was so dependent on the newest and fanciest accounting software, that he spent more time trying to figure out how they worked or how to fix them, instead of trying to figure out why the books were not balancing. </p>

<p>I am also a geezer, but I disagree with the notion that young students should cut their teeth on film. Forty years ago when I learned 35mm, medium format and even large format, I never imagined any reason to learn tintype, ferrotype, daguerrotype or even pinhole photography -- the ancient systems of yesteryear. We have advanced far enough in digital that we no longer need to force that (film) learning on young folks. I know there are many staunch supporters of film here who disagree with me, but that's my stance and I stand firm on it. I was recently asked if I wanted to revive a long-dormant photojournalism class at the university where I teach journalism writing courses. I said I will be happy to do it, but if I do, it will be all digital. I have the green light on that aspect of it, but we're not yet sure if we are going to launch it.</p>

<p>Mukul, I too was able to do decent work with a Kodak Instamatic in the days when I couldn't afford anything more esoteric. This photo started life as a 126 square Kodachrome slide (1971). Using Photoshop in this modern age I was able to improve the image and put the subject on a different background.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.willdaniel.com/restore/0113_0907_360d.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="480" /></p>

<p>I am chasing low tech like FEDs and Zorkis. I just tend to take the same photos regardless of what I use so why spend lots of money for a new camera when I can get a cheap one from the flea market :)<br>

From my latest Zorki 1e....<br>

<a title="img587 by photogsjm, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5022/5626977470_80f3765071.jpg" alt="img587" width="323" height="500" /></a><br>

To be honest it depends on what you are photographing and what you needs really are.<br>

A large number of photographs really don't need a hi tech DSLR to make them but that is not to say that you can't use a hi tech DSLR if you want to. Personaly I am happy to use hi tech cameras or very basic cameras.<br>

One from a FED3</p>

<p><a title="img517 by photogsjm, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5293/5543910792_89d54ac995.jpg" alt="img517" width="500" height="322" /></a></p>

<p>Even the one from the once hi tech Nikon D1h looks just like the others.<br>

Ok the D1h isn't hi tech anymore....</p>

<p><a title="painting by photogsjm, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1136/5114342129_1a0ffbccce.jpg" alt="painting" width="500" height="328" /></a><br>

A modern DSLR like a D3s must be wonderful for those that have to make shots in low light though. Oh no now I am getting gear envy :)</p>

<p>I have great technology, that means film cameras from 35mm to LF. I'm not envious, not looking to the digital world because I don't want to read a 700 page manual just to handle the camera.</p>

<p>I don't need 'fast' results, I know my equipment is extremely reliable, so why change the technology, just to move a step back? Shooting and scanning film (with dedicated film scanners) I get 48 bit off the 'sensor' - something no other 35mm digital camera delivers as per today. Only the latest PhaseOne delivers 48 bit off the sensor without a Bayer pattern, but it's far too expensive.</p>

<p>Would I produce 'better' images with new equipment? I doubt it. Traveling the world and training my eyes is a much better investment into my future.</p>

<p>I think the original post implies two subjects and I have a love for both. First, I love the appearance, tactile features, even the smell of cameras! I love them as toys to be admired and played with before bedtime. I love to dream of owning them and then to brag about them after purchasing. I love to sell them so I can buy more! All of this, without ever mentioning taking a picture. Second, I love the way my favorite cameras capture and process in the digital workflow. I love to view and enhance the photos downloaded to my computer. I love to post them, print them, give them away, and to see them admirably published once in a while. I think I'm a better photographer partly because I've been viewing and making photos seriously since 1967, and partly because frankly, the engineers who've designed my most recent cameras have given me the gift of technology that makes my work look better. Much of this is in ways I don't even understand. I just get to enjoy it. Recently I started playing with HDR conservatively. It fulfills the dreams I had many years ago, but never accomplished in the color darkroom. Why would we need to carry on a dialog pitting the quality of technology against our skill level with it, when the answer lies in enjoying both?</p>

Skill and vision are the most important ingredients in good photography, but there are some things that only modern

cameras can do. The Nikon D3 provided high speed, low light shooting opportunities that could not be matched by

any previous technology. Sometimes the revolutions are all hype, but sometimes they are very real.

<p>I am still shooting film since I love it and love printing. My youngest camera, Leica M6, was made in 1989. In medium format all my equipment, Rollie TLR, and Mamiya RB7Pro-S, are consideralbly older. i have only 2 lens bought and made in the last 2 decades both Voightander lens in focal lenghts that are used infrequently, but are still high quality lens. I am extremely happy with the results my equipment produces, any failings in my photography are mine and mine alone, not related to equipment.</p>