I don't care what gear you use...

<p>... and neither should you. Hopefully this isn't too inflammatory. I just feel the need to say, seeing so many continuous threads about what lens is sharper than another, which camera is better than another, that these are simply tools - a means to an end. The final image is what matters. This is 99% your timing and composition, not whether you used a slightly sharper lens to shoot it than you had last week. The greats don't list what gear they used to capture the great images. They had what they had and they got the photo. I have taken better photos with the kit lens than I have with my nice sharp primes, and vice versa. Great photographers have taken great images using the most basic of equipment. Of course the tool matters, if you need that to capture the moment - and good gear Can help - but the emphasis should be very much on what you shoot. What matters is that you DO capture the moment. Gear is but a part of the role to get that image that has something to say. <br /><br />The same could go for other technical considerations.<br /><em>"What use is having a great depth of field if there is not an adequate depth of feeling?"</em> - W. Eugene Smith</p>

<p>To clarify - I don't bemoan choosing good gear. I use a K-7 and fast prime because it has stabilisation, is fast and not too noticeable. However I don't discuss it all the time, list it continuously, and feel that is or isn't why I get my images I want.<br /><br />Use what you need to and be done with it! Thoughts?</p>

<p>I predict that there will be few responses to this post, or else terribly hostile ones.</p>

<p>Photography is a multifaceted hobby (or profession), and a big part of it is gear and its technical capability independant of ones artistic endeavor. So there's planty of room for co-existance whether you're a gear wonk or an artist.</p>

<p>I agree with you completely, and I can't stand it when somebody says "That's a great photo, what kind of camera took it?" or anything to that effect - as if that matters nearly as much as, well, pretty much anything else about the image. Give a good photographer any camera that's at all usable and he's going to take good photos, give a bad photographer $20,000 worth of equipment and he'll get bad photos (at very high resolution).</p>

<p>Though I must admit it's fun when somebody's blown away, asks that question I get to say I used a 40 year old camera and lens I got for $20 on Ebay, and annoying when somebody attributes one of my better digital shots to the "fancy" D90. And nobody who's not a complete tool sees the D90, says that's a great camera and starts chatting about it, but people who aren't complete tools want to talk about my Hasselblad and my SRT.</p>

<p>I concur with the underlying sentiment but disagree with the statement "The final image is what matters. This is 99% your timing and composition, not whether you used a slightly sharper lens to shoot it than you had last week." Remember that "photography" literally means "writing with light" so I would argue that lighting, whether it is existing or manipulated, is a major factor with composition and timing playing key roles as well.</p>

<p>couldn't agree more, or as Don McCullin so aptly put it:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em><strong>I only use a camera like I use a toothbrush, it does the job.</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Cameras and lenses (and lights, filters, etc.) are just tools. Some tools are better than others, and some are better suited for particular tasks, but just having nice tools doesn't make you a good photographer. A good photographer can take good pictures with his cell phone, as Chase Jarvis has demonstrated nicely (though I'm sure Chase still pulls out the D3x for paying clients!). A bad photographer can't take a good picture with anything except by accident. So tools matter, but the mind behind the camera matters more. People who have nothing meaningful to say about art obsess over the technology because that's the only way they can relate to photography.</p>

<p>A high-end pro camera in the hands of a gear wonk is like a middle-aged management guy in a suit and tie commuting to work in rush-hour traffic in a Lamborghini. (I have actually seen this.) That sort of car, and the money that went into buying it, is just being wasted. Same for the camera.</p>

 

<p>Not me. I want the good stuff. I want it expensive. I want it shiny, in a pristine box with crisp edges, locked tightly in place with the cardboard flap. I want to OD on that new camera smell. I want to sleep with the box next to me so I smell ALL the toxic printing and packaging before it goes away. I want to hear the squeak of the styrofoam as you pull it--along with camera or lens--away from the box. I want to hear the swish of air being sucked in past it, replacing the native Japanese, German, or Swedish air with that of the air around me. I want to pull it out of its neat little nest and be the first to feel that new metal and rubber after unwrapping it from its plastic bag. I want to feel the cotton of the desiccant gel bag, with the light blue writing on its side. I want to stare at the bright optics and become mesmerized by the blue, green and golden lens coating. I want to see the etched letters and enamel filling, and marvel at how they can engrave it so precisely into a metal ring--the more colorful the better. I want to hear the tight click of the lens as it locks in place. Oh, wait; my Holga doesn't have interchangeable lenses. Never mind.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I could argue that an FM2 and a couple of prime Nikkors is all any one truely needs to to take almost any shot. It likely would make no difference if the FM2 was swapped for Canon A1 and a couple of prime Canon lenses. A wedding photographer could make the same shots with a Hasselblad or a Bronica SQA. However the wedding photographer would likely not want to shoot with Kodak Brownie and would not get the same quality of images. Thats not to say that somebody could not use the Browie and create good images with a rather vintage snap shot look.</p>

<p>It's easy for us to say today that gear does not matter but if we had the money for the a top of the line camera we would consider very carefully, look at sample images and try out the camera in stores before we buy it.</p>

<p>The Nikon D3s was/is considered a game changer for shooting in low light ask all the wedding and sports photographers to give up their D3s bodies and go back to a D2h or D1h. I'm sure they will be queing up to change :). How about the comercial photographer shooting with hi end medium format digital backs. They don't need speed and gear doesn't matter so why not a D70.</p>

<p>If a piece of gear enables you to get the results that you need then gear matters, if the gear you use feels nice in the hand compared to another brand then gear matters. If the gear you use is smaller in size than another set up and allows you to get shots you may not normally get with larger gear then gear matters.</p>

<p>Gear matters alot to many people. It makes the difference for some between getting a good shot and getting a great shot or maybe not getting any shot at all.</p>

<p>Does gear make much difference to me? Yes and No, I take same shots most of the time regardless of what camera I use. I don't need a stealth like setup. I don't need a D3s. I usually take the same shots with film or digital. Do I have cameras I prefer? Yep you bet. Does that change depending on what I am shooting? Yep of course it does.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Gear matters alot to many people. It makes the difference for some between getting a good shot and getting a great shot or maybe not getting any shot at all.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And for us non-professionals, it makes all the difference as to our enjoyment of the process.</p>

<p>It's like saying it doesn't matter which guitar I use as all that matters are the notes I play. Nonesense, it has to be a Gretsch!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The final image is what matters.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>A platitude, obviously untrue if the referent is technical photography or people for whom equipment matters. Moreover, since every image is ‘final’, in the sense it does not change before our eyes after it’s been taken, it’s fair to say whoever repeats the platitude is smuggling in the word ‘final’ a judgment about merit. Well, OK, but here’s the thing about that. If you compare “final images” with people’s actual photographic output, it’s clear that the final image matters hardly at all. That’s not surprising, right? Many people, I am one of them, enjoy one or more aspects of photography that occur before the final image. Being outdoors, being a voyeur, being in danger, shopping, measurbating, whatever. For them the journey counts for more than the destination (another bromide) and influences their own ideas about photographic merit (e.g. this business about “the moment” is bs from my perspective). I mean --- final image? Who cares! Buy a DSLR, take a thousand pictures during lunch, print the best one. Big deal. I wouldn’t buy it for the price of the ink. Because, to me, other things also matter: process, medium, how you got the picture, etc.</p>

<p>I don't care what gear you use, and I don't care that you don't care what gear I use, but I do care what gear I use.</p>

I feel like I'm in an interesting position to comment on this. I'm a 22 year old photo major in the process of trying to build

a strong, consistent portfolio using limited resources. I'm taking a semester off because of financial issues, so I don't

have access to school equipment nor do I have stacks of cash to pour into strobes, triggers, modifiers, or anything else.

I have homemade ringflash adaptors, diffusers, softboxes, and reflectors lying around my house and my lighting setup

currently consists of an SB-600, optical slave, and a little Minolta hotshoe flash limiting me to only the most simplistic

lighting setups. No, I don't own any stands.

 

It's been said many times that a master photographer can create great photographs with even the most basic equipment

(analogies are also often made to music in this respect, which I find to be entirely inaccurate). I consider myself to be a

competent photographer. I know my way around a camera, I have a solid understanding of composition, and I know how

to use light... available light. Outside of bounce and fill-flash, my understanding of studio lighting is pretty rudimentary. You see, it's hard to experiment with studio lighting when you don't own any. I'm even limited in my forays into off-

camera flash due to my reliance on optical slaving.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment that photography shouldn't be all about the equipment. I've seen enough of

Pop Photo and the like to know what happens when the equipment takes precedence over the craft. However, for

professionals, and those of us working towards becoming professionals, equipment is far from a nonissue. When I can

afford it, I intend to invest in lighting. I'd prefer my entire portfolio to not be limited by my equipment or lack thereof.

<p>If you don't care why post this thread? I routinely do not post many, many questions I don't care about - every day. Just get on with what you do care about.</p>

<p>Equipment is important, but i don't care what you use; photographers are my friend...</p>

<p>I'm with Michael Chang (response # 2), Steve, Leo, and Stuart to some extent. <br /><br /><br>

Judging that any one of the sources of enjoyment one gets from photography - and they are very broad and not all directly image-related - is or isn't 'care-worthy' I think is silly. Photography is essentially an individual passtime, so each to their own. Apart from pro's who have an incentive to think of gear tools in cost/return terms and as a means to their product (which is the final image), we're in this photography caper for all manner of illogical reasons.</p>

<p>Bottom line is that if "its the final image that matters" <strong>to you</strong> then thats totally cool. If its discussing and getting some particular camera or lens lineup that matters to someone else then thats equally cool. Who am I, or anyone else, to judge... and why would we want to anyway.</p>

I don't mean to sound cynical or overly critical, but I do find it paradoxical that the OP chose to say what equipment he uses in a post about one's choice of equipment not being important. I totally agree with the premise, though. You can capture some great images with a consumer grade DSLR and kit lens.

<p>"...and neither shoud you"?<br>

Why shouldn't I?<br>

Seeing a 12x20 inche hand poured carbon print, an 8x10 hand coated pt/pd or a 20x24 polaroid original... I enjoy knowing what tools were used. All understanding the images are top quality work it is iteresting to see what those who make excellent work use. Not the throw away photography we see too often, the copycat junk from those who travel and take the same picture/different park.<br>

Knowing the basics of what was used helps at times when learning how some images were created. It can help in understanding why some images look the way they do. But then, I am looking more at traditional and now alternative processes than the current crop of spray'n pray style photographers. There will always be those who love tne gear and others who don't care. What does it matter if the final photos are lousy? It still matters to those who spend all that money. Some don't really care about the image, they like the equipment. If that works for them, fine. They will not be the next Paul Caponigro.</p>

<p>Here is what I said earlier: "I predict that there will be few responses to this post, or else terribly hostile ones." I am glad to have been proved mostly wrong. Early responses were thoughtful, while some later ones were malodorous. This sort of thing is only to be expected anywhere in the world.<br /><br />As for Photo.Net, among us are members with all kinds of interests and motivations. Specifically, there are these two extremes: those who are interested only in looking at photographs; and those who are interested only in discussing equipment. I suggest that the bulk of members fall between these two extremes.<br /><br />As has been said by many, cameras and lenses are tools. All working people -- carpenters, tailors, welders, guitarists and so on -- want the best tools they can have. They can work, and work well, with tools that are not the best: but having good equipment makes it easier for them to do their work. Good tools are dependable, and good work is difficult if one does not trust one's tools or if they are not easy to use.<br /><br />In nearly every photographic application, there is no single "best". I have taken photographs of equivalent quality, good or bad, using Leica and Canon RFDR cameras on the one hand and Canon, Pentax and Nikon SLR cameras on the other. While there is no absolute best, valid for all, for every photographer there may well be an individual best. Personal preference and familiarity are the chief reasons why I now use a Leica M3 and not a Nikon F. I also use a FED-2, which gives me results as good as the M3's because I use the same lenses on both: but that is not the camera with which I am most comfortable. In particular, framing with reasonable accuracy takes an effort with the FED, while with the M3 I have no worries on that account.<br /><br />Of course equipment is important: but no working photographer will invest time and effort only in discussing equipment because, in the end, results are what matter. For those for whom photography is a hobby, the rules are different.</p>

I do care in as much as there may be properties of the lens or capture medium that add to the final

image; but the image itself is all that really matters.

I started my aviation career in a pre WWII trainer. Some twenty or more airplanes and forty years later I was flying the modern jet aircraft with LCD or as we called them glass cockpits. I had fun and loved everything that I flew. I learned as much about the equipment as I could. It is the same with my photo gear. However, like my airplanes, to name one, the DC3, I find it all interesting. I did weddings with Bronicas in the nineties. They gave as good a picture as I get now with my current gear. It is just that like the DC3 that the Bronicas took a lot more work (call it sweaty, smelly darkroom) to produce in hours what I now do with modern gear today in minutes. That is the technical side of photography that I really am interested in.

 

As far as the continuing arguments like whether Full Frame or crop bodies are better, I think it does not make much difference because as I said in another forum the best is the enemy of the good and in most cases it would take a loupe to determine which was better in a given situation. What I cannot understand is the vehemence of some these inconsequential arguments. Sides are taken, factions are formed and these factions jump in and occasionally hi-jack a rather benign PN forum to prove their point of one side or the other. Modern gear is so good that I believe one can do a good job with several different equipment options both full frame and crop and possibly four/thirds. Last winter I taught photography for beginners where everyone brought their own equipmnent. Some was expensive, some was P&S. I had to half learn about Sony, Nikon (I use Canon not because I think it better but because I have been locked into L lenses for about fourteen years) and several other brands my students had. It's amazing but we got good pictures from all levels of price and size. If I had to go back to the Bronica I know I could get good pictures for large enlargements but like the DC3 it takes a long time to get there. My plea is that given that neither full frame or crop is life critical nor anything else discussed here in PN is that we all, including me, remain respectfrul of other points of view and respect the OP who is sometimes very innocently just seeking information and really not wishing to start the same debate that has been running for sometimes years on PN.

<p>Even the question 'What gear have you got' can have different motivations. If I see a great shot of a bird in flight or a really good macro shot I am often interested in knowing the gear used so I can work out if/how getting that gear may help me get shots of equivalent standard. Unsurprisingly, in many, many cases the answer is 'save the money and just learn to do it better/properly'. But that doesn't mean I won't ask - it is often the photographer who misinterprets the question.<br>

And I own some gear (not only in photography) for the sheer 'pride of ownership'. Knowing you have the best can sometimes be fun in itself (as with the Ferrari commuter).</p>

<p>But I think one difference between a pro and an amateur is that amateurs often buy what they can afford and its photographic merits is not always the strongest reason. Professionals buy things that give the best return on investiment for the photography they do. And this often escapes the professional when someone asks them 'what gear have you got'.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Jeez, Michael's "response" finally puts a more exact meaning to the term "camera porn"</p>

<p>slowly, so slowly, the CF card went into the slot, then .....</p>

<p>I like to use gear the works well, and is within my budget. I am probably going to stick with Nikon gear and I prefer 35mm to other formats. It is just perfect for my hobby shots. I agree that I do not care what gear other's use. I just hope they have good luck with it and snap off some great pics. </p>

<p>I select gear based upon a number of criteria because all of them are important to me:</p>

<ul>

<li>Reliability</li>

<li>Affordability (I'd love to have a Phase One system, but that ain't gonna happen!)</li>

<li>Quality of output</li>

<li>Flexibility</li>

<li>Portability</li>

</ul>

<p>Notice that the opinion of other photographers is not on the list. In other words, <em>I don't care that you don't care</em>.</p>