Does equipment matter?

Equipments matter when you are serious about becoming a better photographer. But if you just want to play around, then equipment is *all* that matters.
 
Dead on Roger! It's largely how it matters to the individual. Great thread.

Best regards,

Bob
 
Papa Smurf said:
I agree that ones' equipment does play an important role in the final outcome, but only if we use them correctly. Knowing what ones equipment is capable of is the beginning. It separates the novice from the experienced amateur from the expert. Only knowing how to use it to the fullest limits of its limitations (and beyond), will produce outstanding results.

My Grandfather's wisdom did and still amazes me. He had a favorite saying, "A craftsman does not blame his tools for shoddy work, but even a craftsman can only do so so work with shoddy tools." A Kodak Brownie camera could be used to take pictures of a high profile wedding, but would it be a professional wedding photographer's first choice?
Click to expand...


Years ago, in Pop Photo or Modern Photography, the editors gave cheap point-and-shoot cameras to the 10 best (their choice) photographers in NYC. Among these were the likes of Penn, Avedon, Stern, etc (Bill Pierce may remember this) the results were amazing. They did this to prove a point. I don't think you will find this happening today with all the remaining publishers needing the $$ from high end camera vendors.
 
The stunt of getting good pics from disposables is just that - a (substantially pointless) stunt. Bert Hardy did it for Picture Post in the 1950s wth a Box Brownie. Of course a good photographer can produce good pics with an extremely limited camera, working within its limitations. This is one of the points I make in my 'Does Equipment Matter' article on the site. But so what? As soon as you need different focal lengths, or faster lenses, or controllable shutter speeds, or control of depth of field, or even rapid wind-on, the stunt is exposed for what it is.

Cheers,

R.
 
Not to me it doesn't. I have several nice cameras, and I love them, but the best picture doesn't necessarily come from the best camera, my P&S digital has made some very nice shots lately, but then again so has my xpan.
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
What is funny is how little gear matters, and how many people with bad photographs, as next step buy more expensive gear instead of finding out why their photographs are weak...

That's why internet galleries are full of thousands of mediocre photographs made with Leicas and Hasselblads... Gear doesn't matter at all in my book (if we talk about brands) as long as the camera used can technically do the job...

Several concepts, skills and experience are a lot more important than gear, to the point of making gear secondary:

1. To know how to be in the right place, and be there.
2. To be unobtrusive.
3. To have the camera as prepared as possible.
4. To have technical skills (light, previsualization, media, camera controls and meanings...)
5. To hit the shutter in the best possible moment.
6. To decide very well the point of view.

With those well covered, it doesn't matter the camera or lens used. Decades ago all brands have enough quality. What matters in photography has NEVER been image quality or gear used, but the strength of the visual narrative an image has for emotional communication... No gear is better than other gear there: that's why it doesn't matter...

Basically there are people who look at gear and tests and reviews, and people who look at what an image conveys... When you go deep in any of those two visions, you don't care too much about the other one... One of those visions crowns brands, and the other one crowns photographers. One is related to engineering, crafts and precision, and the other one is related to creation, feelings and art.

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

Juan; Ernst Haas when asked about his Leica use (he used SLR Leicas) said "Leica-Schmika, just get a camera that works" p.
 
As we all know, some say it doesn't matter at all. The real artist shoots a great photo with the cheapest cam.
OK, but how does the "real artist" shoot a lion on a safari with a 35mm lens on a plastic compact cam? OK, you might say, he doesn't, he doesn't need to. Well...

I think that you do not need the best equipment available in order to shoot great photos, but without a decent equipment shooting fantastic images is very hard if not virtually impossible. Sometimes you might get an amazing shot but not on a reliable basis.

But then, I am a gearhead, I cannot be objective with such a question. ;)

Now, I'm off to read Roger's article...
 
Roger Hicks said:
The stunt of getting good pics from disposables is just that - a (substantially pointless) stunt. Bert Hardy did it for Picture Post in the 1950s wth a Box Brownie. Of course a good photographer can produce good pics with an extremely limited camera, working within its limitations. This is one of the points I make in my 'Does Equipment Matter' article on the site. But so what? As soon as you need different focal lengths, or faster lenses, or controllable shutter speeds, or control of depth of field, or even rapid wind-on, the stunt is exposed for what it is.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

So, you're saying it was a "stunt" and didn't prove anything? Naturally no one thinks a point and shoot is going to do the job of 5 radio-remoted cameras at a sporting event. I don't think these folks are foolish. You know many of those stunt guys worked with a minimal amount of gear. Penn and Avedon used 8x10 and fixed lens (Avedon had a Mamiya c330 too) TLR cameras. For commercial work you take what you need for the job. No argument. I think for most of the equipment guys, the time and money would be better spent in a gallery looking at paintings. p.
 
PKR said:
So, you're saying it was a "stunt" and didn't prove anything? Naturally no one thinks a point and shoot is going to do the job of 5 radio-remoted cameras at a sporting event. I don't think these folks are foolish. You know many of those stunt guys worked with a minimal amount of gear. Penn and Avedon used 8x10 and fixed lens (Avedon had a Mamiya c330 too) TLR cameras. For commercial work you take what you need for the job. No argument. I think for most of the equipment guys, the time and money would be better spent in a gallery looking at paintings. p.
Click to expand...

Well, the only thing it 'proved' was something that everyone knew anyway, viz., that a good photographer can get good pictures working within the limitations of the gear. So yes, it was a stunt. And pointless unless you'd never seen the same stunt performed before, which it has been, many times, back to the dawn of snapshot cameras in the 1880s.

Very few 8x10 cameras have a fixed lens (in fact, even those with 'fixed' lenses do allow the use of other objectives) and of course the Mamiya C-series aren't fixed-lens either.

Looking at paintings? It's certainly a good idea, but I'd back looking at photographs as being a lot more important, because the lighting is a bloody sight more difficult (the vast majority of paintings are, in photo terms, 'HDR').

I'd completely agree that a trip to the Rencontres Photographiques d'Arles will do most photographers more good than spending the same money on yet another of the same camera (replacing last year's Nikon with this year's Canon, Gandolfi with Deardorff, etc.) but then again, this assumes they are photographers. There are plenty of people who, despite their protestations, are more interested in acquiring more gear than in becoming better photographers. And who are we to deplore their choice? Click on the site link in my signature and for a week you'll see the current Short Schrift about the 'one camera, one lens' fantasy (it'll be accessible in the back issues after that). For last year's Arles, see http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/arles 2009.html. I'm still working on this year's report (I got back on the 12th of July).

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Gear matters...

but a moment captured is a moment captured

We could wish that photos of the Tank Man could have have been a little more perfect with better equipment but it simply cannot be
 
Roger Hicks said:
Well, the only thing it 'proved' was something that everyone knew anyway, viz., that a good photographer can get good pictures working within the limitations of the gear. So yes, it was a stunt. And pointless unless you'd never seen the same stunt performed before, which it has been, many times, back to the dawn of snapshot cameras in the 1880s.

Very few 8x10 cameras have a fixed lens (in fact, even those with 'fixed' lenses do allow the use of other objectives) and of course the Mamiya C-series aren't fixed-lens either.

Looking at paintings? It's certainly a good idea, but I'd back looking at photographs as being a lot more important, because the lighting is a bloody sight more difficult (the vast majority of paintings are, in photo terms, 'HDR').

I'd completely agree that a trip to the Rencontres Photographiques d'Arles will do most photographers more good than spending the same money on yet another of the same camera (replacing last year's Nikon with this year's Canon, Gandolfi with Deardorff, etc.) but then again, this assumes they are photographers. There are plenty of people who, despite their protestations, are more interested in acquiring more gear than in becoming better photographers. And who are we to deplore their choice? Click on the site link in my signature and for a week you'll see the current Short Schrift about the 'one camera, one lens' fantasy (it'll be accessible in the back issues after that). For last year's Arles, see http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/arles 2009.html. I'm still working on this year's report (I got back on the 12th of July).

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...


Roger;
I’m new here.

When I began posting to this thread, I knew that you spawned the thread. I didn’t, at the time, realize that you were “in the business of reviewing photo equipment”. In the light of that knowledge, I think it would be foolish of me to continue our exchange.
I understand that you like photo equipment. I have nothing against photo gear; I own a bunch. When the cases are packed and stacked, they are about 5 feet high. Again, the guy behind the camera makes the photo. The gear is a means to an end. Most the work I generated over the years was made with one camera and 3 or 4 lenses. Now with zooms, it would be one camera and one lens. I wonder what kind of brushes Vermeer favored? How many did he have?

I advocate people taking photos with whatever equipment they may have or can easily afford. You say “Of course a good photographer can produce good pics with an extremely limited camera, working within its limitations”. I would think that unless you’re taken with rubbing up against your photo gear for fun, one would spend ones time striving to become one of those “good” photographers.

Spend your money on film-digital capture materials and museum and gallery visits. You don’t have to spend a lot of money on the latest camera gear to get great photos you can be proud of, though many photo equipment manufactures will disagree. Cartier-Bresson cautioned his friend Koudelka to take care of his eye, not his Leica.

Cheers to you we just disagree, p.
 
PKR said:

Roger;
I’m new here.
...[/SIZE][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

As you are new, I have a suggestion. Do not try to over ride the default color/size/face selections when posting. It makes your posts difficult to read in color schemes (they are user selectable) other than the one you have.

I'm sure your latest rebuttal is salient to the discussion, it's just that, for members with light backgrounds, it is nearly unreadable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom