The gear wars have started....

You can try to take the best possible picture with what you have or you can try to get the tool to take the picture you want to take.

I.E. candle lit scene in a restaurant would be impossible with ISO100 film and a f4 lens, and a beach scene in bright daylight won't work with ISO1600 and max 1/500th shutter speed.

On the other hand, with slow film and lens you can wait for better lighting in the restaurant and with fast film and slow shutter you can wait for a thunderstorm at the beach :)
 
NickTrop said:
So gear does matter. But format and film (black and white vs color) matter most. Lenses and camera bodies the least.
Click to expand...
I agree, to a point.

My first caveat is that in the world of consumer SLRs (digital or film) there's a substantial difference between cheap consumer zooms and more "top-end" lenses (or even cheap primes). Its easy to forget that by that standard, pretty much all RF lenses are very good.

My second caveat is that cameras matter more in the digital world. With film its same format, same film. Top and bottom end cameras all share the same sensor technology. Not so in the digital world, and this can matter.

...Mike
 
@adeoh - if interested in nikon digital gear, i would suggest bythom. i am sure there is someone for canon gear but i don't really follow their stuff.
 
Why don't we post a poll?
Simple:

1.Gear matter
2.Gear does not matter

I dunno how to do it... sorry.
Rob.
 
The only purpose a tool has it to make a particular task easier to perform than it would be without the use of that tool.

As a poor student, I once replaced the clutch in my car using the car's jack and blocks of wood to lower the transaxle. It worked, but I wouldn't want to go into business as a transmission shop using that method.

The point of Ken's article, I think, is that it's too easy to become obsessed with the tool itself. Find a tool that "gets out of your way" and get on with the task. All this obsessing about the 'special' qualities of this tool v. that can become a real distraction.
 
That’s what I understood the point to be, get something that is “good enough” and use it rather than waste time finding “the best there is” because the no one can tell the difference in the real world.
 
I really believe that there's a certain, although fuzzy, threshold of quality, above which any "improvement" in the gear results only in insignificant improvement of the images.

Almost all vintage RFs, classic SLRs, modern SLRs, etc. exceed this threshold. Many of the modern P&S cameras do as well.

When operating above this threshold, it's really the skill of the photographer and not the gear itself that determines the quality of the results.
 
NickTrop said:
The bulk of camera gear is very good. "The best" buys only incremental gains, not visible to the naked eye in the print. MTF graphs that show on curve slightly higher than another at working apertures are not worth paying for. Where there are obvious gains is in format (in the film world), not the lens. You will struggle to identify a photo taken with a Jupiter 8 and a 'Cron. You will not struggle to see the difference between any 35mm and anything shot MF. It's the image captured, not the means on which it was captured, with one exception. Black and white film. For people photography - generally, it is more evokative than color. If you shoot people, MF, with black and white, and make a larger print, what would have been a mundane "snap" you give a second of attention to, becomes "something else". A little window to a moment in the past, charged with emotion.

So gear does matter. But format and film (black and white vs color) matter most. Lenses and camera bodies the least.
|
Click to expand...

I agree to a point. I do agree that most lenses are very good, and that the difference between 'very good' and 'excellent' is miniscule.

I would argue that there is a time and a place for that miniscule difference.

I don't own any of the 'excellent' versions of certain lenses. No Canon L glass, no long 'white' telephoto lenses, etc. I wish.

Nor do I pine after them and sigh and say I can't possibly shoot as well as they do, I don't have the gear those guys have. I will make do with one or two rungs down the ladder, and I'll do just fine.

But the uber-expensive lenses do offer that tiny bit more. Less CA, for example, at the extreme end. A slightly faster f-stop at full zoom. These things can (and do) matter to professionals who need that 'little bit extra'. I suppose that is why you never see anyone bucking the trend at a sporting event - all the photogs are shooting more-or-less the exact same kit. They're not into showing off to each other - these are the tools of their trade and they need them.

Can I produce photos that are 95% as good as theirs? I think so, at least technically speaking. Whether I have the ability is another question, but yes, I think a cheap lens that is merely 'very good' would give me most of what they have. So I aim a couple rungs down, save the money, and I'm generally happy with the results I get.

But I recognize that if I wanted to pony up thousands of dollars more, there is 'more' quality to be had.

Such lenses also tend to be better made - and to come with a lot of personal love and attention from their manufacturer, who recognizes that when a famous sports photographer who uses their gear has a problem, it is THEIR problem too. They won't jump to attention when I mention that my $125 zoom isn't all it ought to be.

So I accept that there are reasons for the uber-uber-expensive lenses and such. Perhaps not for you and I. But the tiny differences in quality they represent mean something to someone, and if they are willing to pay the cost, they may as well have the best tools.

Personally, I like Snap-On tools. But I own Craftsman. 95% of the quality, maybe 10% of the cost. I'm very OK with that.

Besides, I love a bargain. When I can try a $5 Sears zoom that I bought on eBay, and discover to my delight that it is quite sharp and very well-made, I'm thrilled. But no, it still is not going to be the same as Canon L glass side-by-side.
 
dmr said:
I really believe that there's a certain, although fuzzy, threshold of quality, above which any "improvement" in the gear results only in insignificant improvement of the images.

Almost all vintage RFs, classic SLRs, modern SLRs, etc. exceed this threshold. Many of the modern P&S cameras do as well.

When operating above this threshold, it's really the skill of the photographer and not the gear itself that determines the quality of the results.
Click to expand...

I think I agree with you, but I would argue that what you and I see as 'insignificant' is actually significant to the very few who claim professional status and use that gear as part of their jobs. I am thinking particularly of sports photogs and ultra-high-end lenses. I suspect they need every last ounce of quality that can be wrung from their lenses.

A lot of wealthy people who don't need that tiny amount of quality increase buy them too, of course...
 
Let's look at that in anoter way. Lets imagine 99% of your audience will not notice the difference on a small print between a $5000 and $150 and 1% will see it. If your audience is the 99% (family/friends), than Ken is right, get the $150 gear. If your audience is the 1% remaining (ad agency/RFF members) than you probably are right going for the $5000 gear. And if you are yourself part of the 1%, than it is a no brainer.
 
But then Bill, you don't really think that Rockwell's piece was addressed to pros, right?

And Reichmann's article looks like cliche answer to cliche statement. One gets to hear "right tool for the job" at least as often as "camera doesn't matter". And arguably, it is easier to indulge to uncontrolled tool acquisition than uncontrolled asceticism :)
 
I haven't read the articles yet, but I don't value Michael R.'s opinion at all. He seems to be the sort of guy that is soooo gratefull we are now in the digital age, and shooting film is for dinosaurs and so glad don't have to put up with that. I got this impression from the Oscar Peterson interview, btw. I just find that totally ridiculous, makes you wonder why that person got into photography in the first place, since film is such a drag ! Anyways, the point of my post is not to go off topic into a film vs. digital debate (I use both and enjoy both), it's just the explanation of why I don't value his opinion.
 
ZebGoesZeiss said:
This one is easy: I agree with whoever is opposing Ken Rockwell. Don't even have to check what either of them wrote. Easy.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you must have been raised in Cuba .... :)
 
I am thinking particularly of sports photogs and ultra-high-end lenses. I suspect they need every last ounce of quality that can be wrung from their lenses.
Click to expand...

Yes, everything has to be taken in the context of the right tool for the job.

The point of the whole "gear does not matter" argument is aimed at those who obsess over very picky hardware issues or assume that expensive gear will make a great photographer.

I think we've all lost count of the "which is better, the 35mm f1.8 lumacrux or the 32mm f1.9 fnordaron?" threads that appear here and on the other boards.

Quite a few people just don't seem to "get it" that concentrating on things like composition and technique will improve one's photos far more than the Latest And Greatest DSLR will!
 
I think to even call either "article" an "article" gives them both too much credit. They're just basically posts on the net, so niether guy is terribly credible. Any guy that points to his self proclaimed "great" work with a digital point and shoot gets me suspicious, not because he used a point and shoot, but because he is so sure the images are "great." And any guy who can't make his point without swearing in the text isn't a very good writer.

By the way, since we are endlessly debating it I'll throw in my unimportant vote - gear does matter, but moreso for a pro than an amateur. And moreso for the craft of photography than the art of photography.
 
"The cliche online is that there's nothing wrong with an older digital camera since it still takes pictures the same as it did the day it was new, and just because something better comes along is no reason for it to become obsolete. Ya right! Tell it to the judge. No pro is going to show up on a shoot with gear that's two generations behind the competition, and few except the most skint amateurs are happy to sit on the sidelines while better tools become available."

picked from there: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nikon-d3-d300.shtml

The guy is a moron, Hands down, period, bar-none!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom