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

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p> no working photographer will invest time and effort only in discussing equipment</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you will find that people of all types of career/job/interest will discuss equipment. Guitarists always talk about guitars and amplifiers, painters discuss brushes and paints and carpenters may talk about saws and chisels.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p><em>no working photographer will invest time and effort <strong>only</strong> in discussing equipment</em></p>

<p>Is that clearer?<em><br /></em></p>

[leicaglow]

<p>JDM, Life is all about romance. People blush at the artwork I collect.<g>.</p>

[craigd]

<blockquote>

<p>People blush at the artwork I collect.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe you'd better <em>not</em> go into more detail about that...</p>

[lachaine]

<p>I don't think there is anything wrong with an enthusiast, whether pro or amateur, who likes a finely-made camera to work or play with. I don't buy lottery tickets, but if I did and I won a jackpot, I'm sure one of the first things I would do would be to go out and buy what I've wanted since the day I got my Pentax Spotmatic SP1000 35 years ago... or it's current equivalent. But it wouldn't be to get better pictures than with the camera I use now.</p>

<p>What I dislike is the constant camera namedropping on photo forums about this camera being better than that camera, but wait, this other one does that better, bla, bla, bla, bla.... or the put-down artists with comments about this or that being an "entry-level" or a "beginner" camera. It's all so idiotic. The differences are ALL marginal at best except in very specific circumstances.</p>

[laceyhughes]

<p>Thaaaank you! :)<br>

I use what I use because it's what I like. If or when I choose to upgrade is my choice. It does not mean I'm any less or more of a photographer just because "you" upgrade every chance you get. </p>

[andrew_west5]

I can't stand the constant equipment namedropping either. However, I feel like there's a sort of anti-intellectualism

spreading within the photo community. It seems to be a popular opinion that discussing technique and equipment is a

distraction and a sign of a lesser photographer. I think this is a mistake. It deters many beginning photographers from

learning about the tools of the trade and educating themselves on technique.

[mukul_dube]

<p>Andrew, I don't know if anyone is against learning. Many of us are in fact so anxious to help beginners that we jump to lay down our tuppence worth of wisdom almost before questions are asked. The objection is to such things as the endless discussion, on Leica forums, of the relative merits of the Summiturd and the Craponar.</p>

[andrew_west5]

I know there's no shortage of photographers more than willing to share tips and advice. These forums alone are full of them.

My issue isn't even with topics like this as I agree with the sentiment. It just seems like there's this view, not the only view,

mind you, that <i>real</i> photographers wouldn't waste their time concerned with technical specifics and certainly have no

interest in equipment. People talk like professional photographers transcend the physical world and are only concerned with

some vague concept like the "final image" or whatever else.

[gungajim]

<p>I suppose the entire issue is a bit like having sex with a beautiful woman who is totally frigid. On second thought, maybe this analogy doesn't hold up too well. GJ</p>

[rossb]

<p>I guess I am going to just shoot B/W film from now on. I like B/W a lot. The thing with that in regards to gear is all I need is just a couple basic 35mm camera's. Nothing to brag about or expect folks to go "Wow" over. I like a camera that is compact enough to carry in my bicycle bag or just over my shoulder while hiking or going places. I might pick up a M6 sometime and they cost a bit but once you buy one you are good for decades of shooting. They are well worth it and have an excellent resale value.</p>

[anders_andersson2]

<p>Clearly one can overdo the fixation on gear. Sometimes it does not matter. Sometimes a cheap camera/lens can produce better results than expensive ones.<br>

However, there are pictures you simply cannot take, unless you spend a lot on gear. They do not charge you several thousands of dollars for high end gear just because people think it is fun to pay that much. High end stuff serves a purpose.<br>

Those of us with limited wallets adapt our photography to what we can afford, and those who are good can do stunning things with cheap gear - however, they cannot take all the pictures one can take with high end gear.<br>

I'm sure Yehudi Menuhin could have played wonderfully on a toy violin, but he could not have played Sibelius violin concerto.</p>

[marcsharp]

<p>I made some family portraits for Thanksgiving today. When we got home, my darling wife posted some on Facebook. Within minutes, a friend posted, "Wow, great photos. What kind of camera did you use?" I guess she thinks that if she buys the same camera she will get the same result.<br>

Truth is, if she uses a simple point and shoot, she will probably get a nice picture. If she uses the DSLR, Pocket Wizards, light stands, remote shutter release, flash units, etc., that I used to make the photos she probably won't get even one picture.</p>

[bmm]

<p>I'm a bit surprised by this discussion, the more I come back to it, because I think we are trying to make blanket judgements about an activity that is highly individual. I just don't see why any one of the many types of enjoyment that individuals can get from photography is more or less credible than any other. If one dude wants to be a camera clicking hermit with his 'oh so cool and minimalist 60yo manual kit with a normal prime so banged up that it can only do f/16' then thats cool. If another gets his/her thrills from collecting all kinds of latest gear just to look at and maybe shoot test patterns with for use in online argumentation, then equally cool. Who am I to judge why each person gets into this awesome but illogical little passtime and what they get out of it... and why would I want to judge anyway as long as each individual is happy.</p>

<p>PS: I'm very strongly with Andrew on the idea that there is a kind of intellectual/arty snobbery that is easy to fall into. It surprises me a little as lateral thinking 'artists' should be ok with the idea of non-conformist fulfillement - including that which comes from materialistic aspects like aspiration and status. To me its bleedingly obviously that these facets are one side of any technically-oriented hobby, but their acceptance seems to be a bit 'taboo' I find. I also don't think that we are looking at an 'either-or' model here. Indeed, for me (and again this is totally individual) camera equipment is a tool <strong>and</strong> an end in itself.</p>

[lachaine]

<p>Many people on here, other forums, and some well-known websites talk a good game about it "not being the camera", but then, they clearly own the latest model expensive cameras, and even more expensive lenses. Not too much credibility there.</p>

<p>If there was less obsession about D-this and that-D, and L-whatevers, there would be less need for Photoshop and Lightroom.</p>

<p>This past summer, I was out having fun with my little Beirette VSN 2. It's a cheap plastic 35mm camera with full exposure controls. It's all manual and focusable, but no meter or rangefinder. I happened to come upon a little street performer festival of some kind. I couldn't get close enough for a good shot of anything, I thought, but there I was, standing beside a guy who had 2 DSLRs hanging off him, both with big honking zooms. I didn't think I could get a useful picture from where I was, and certainly, not compared to the big zoom guy. But I raised the Beirette to my eye anyway after making sure that the lens had not slipped off from the hyperfocal I had set earlier, and I shot one single frame while big zoom guy was fiddling with his buttons and menus, probably trying to decide what autofocus mode to use.</p>

<p>I wasn't even going to take that picture, but it turned out to be among the most interesting pictures I've taken since I first clicked a shutter in the 1960's.</p>

<p>On the other hand, equipment does matter to a minor extent. The Beirette has a little light leak that shows up intermittently, and the leak did creep onto the left edge of this picture. If I had taken it with the 1969 Nikkormat Ftn I left at home, I might have the same picture but without the light leak. But D-this, that-D, and L-whatever would not have made any difference at all except ensure the sunny highlights would have been blown by the high-tech, zone-system applying multi-segment metering.</p>

[marcsharp]

<p>A master chef can cook a fabulous meal on the cheapest cookware. However, high quality cookware can drive inspiration and yield better results for those who are serious about their cooking passion.</p>

[swilson]

<p>Continuing on with cooking, even if a master chef could cook a fabulous mean on cheap cookware it is not much fun to do so. I love to cook and have from time to time been asked to cook at other people houses, I really hate to cook when the gear is not good. My biggest problem is with knives that are incredibly dull. </p>

<p>The same is true with photography, can you make a great photo with a cheap camera, sure, is it as much fun as using decent gear, not even close. I have a number of camera the two I use the most are a small point and shoot and a DSLR, in bright light I can get good shots with either but the DSLR is way more fun to use.</p>

 

[mark_drutz]

<p>For many people there is a kind of "toy" factor in photography. They enjoy the art and craft of photography, and they also enjoy the gear itself. It's similar in a lot of fields. To a car lover a car is more than a machine to get you from here to there. Car lovers can talk forever about this engine or that gearbox. My ski loving friends love to talk about this ski or that boot.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<blockquote>

<p>A master chef can cook a fabulous meal on the cheapest cookware. However, high quality cookware can drive inspiration and yield better results for those who are serious about their cooking passion.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Great analogy because it demonstrates perfectly the schism we've got here. Taking up on it a true masterchef gets his inspiration not from his tools but from the different ingredients and spices and what not to create great recipes. No serious photographer that I ever met got inspired by the tools at hand but by his subject and what he could do with it.</p>

[craigd]

<p>Mark, that's true. One difference, though, is that nobody (I hope) thinks that owning a particular gear box makes them a pro-quality racing driver, whereas there seem to be a fair number of people who think that buying a more expensive camera will make them a better photographer (or make other people take them more seriously as a photographer).</p>

<p>I don't think anyone denies that high-quality equipment has technical advantages over consumer-grade equipment. A good picture with minor technical defects (noise in the shadows or corner softness, for example) probably could have been a little better with a newer or higher-end camera or lens. However, a bad picture remains a bad picture no matter how much money the photographer spent on his equipment. The real issue for me with people obsessing over hardware is that they often seem to be focusing on equipment because they have no ability to make art. Furthermore, the communal obsession with hardware encourages newbies to focus on hardware too rather than devoting their attention to learning how to take good pictures.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Craig, you make sense. Obsession with equipment is specially damaging when tools are seen as the end and not as the means to the end.</p>

<p>One further factor needs to be considered. Often people like to believe, and to tell others, that they have "the best", or that the Y they have is "better than" the competing X. In such situations, typically, there is no pictorial evidence in sight.</p>

[swilson]

<p>I think it is a pretty big mistake to assume all photographers are trying to make art, I for one am not. I use photographer to capture the people and events in my wife an my lives. To me a good photograph is one that gives a good sense of the time and place, of what it felt like to be there. In many cases to do this does not take anything more then a cheap point and shoot camera, in other cases it requires a lot more capable gear. The higher end gear might not create a great photo, but in many cases with out at least decent gear I would miss the shot completely. And as I have said before using a good camera and lens is a lot more fun then using a not so good camera and lens.<br>

<br />If someone else only see photograph as art and does not see the need for a good camera then I have zero problem with that, and I really would hope then would not have a problem with me wanting a good camera. </p>

[wogears]

<p>I used to cater Renaissance dinners. Most of the time I was stuck with whatever gear the church kitchen (or wherever) had. (I did bring my own knives and thermometers.) There is no question that I could do a better job when the site had a professional mixer and a vertical chopper and a good selection of pots and pans. But it really and truly wouldn't matter if the mixer was a Hobart or a Gem or a Kitchen-Aid commercial. You can also saute a heap of mushrooms in a half-pan stuck over two burners if you know what you are doing. No absolute need for All-Clad.</p>

<p>Having the gear you need and like is fine, as long as you are getting the end result you want. It's the gear-obsessed who miss the joy of photography. Once you are caught on the endless 'upgrade' treadmill, you are lost. Edward Weston made many of his best images with a lens he bought for five dollars in Mexico; his friends told him he overpaid. If you look at one of his prints with a pixel-peeper's eye, you will note some corner softness. In sixty years, no one has cared. What matters is the emotional and artistic effect of the final image. In the cooking analogy, what matters to the diner is the use of good ingredients in correct proportion, the use of correct technique, and the final visual presentation of the dish. Sounds valid for photography as well.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> Use whatever you want to use. I've personally spoken this year while waiting in line, with an amateur Dad at Disney World who was burdened on a terribly hot day with Nikon D3, a 24-70 lens, plus a huge Billingham full of lenses, all to take pictures of his wife and child in the land of King Rat.... and with pros who were carrying only an LX3.</p>

<p>If owning the latest and greatest makes you happy, go for it. Or carrying a 50 lb backpack full of gear, or a tiny P&S in a coat pocket. I think what's truly important here is to focus on how <em>you </em>work, not how others work, though there is much to be learned from them.</p>

<p> </p>

[craigd]

<p>Seeing a father at Disney World with not only a D3 and a 24-70mm but <em>also</em> "a huge Billingham full of lenses" would make me wonder if he really knew what he was doing, or if he was just trying to fulfill some abstract ideal of what he thought "serious photographers" do. I mean, sure, it's his money and his perspiration and he can do what he likes with them, but really, what's the point? How much fun can you have while toting all that stuff around? If having the D3 and the big bag of lenses is itself "fun" (independent of whatever he actually does with it all), then does it really have anything to do with photography, or is the equipment just a prop that makes him feel like a real photographer whether or not he actually understands how to use it well?</p>

<p>(Or maybe he's just Irish. The essential quality of the Irish was once defined -- by an Irishman -- as "a form of anti-art", "a way of posing as an artist without actually being one." I say this as an American of largely Irish ancestry.)</p>