A good read for the gear obsessed...

[bjornkeizers]

I think I've seen a dozen articles just like it, and usually stop reading them about the fourth paragraph in.

To me, it sounds very… judgmental to say how someone should or shouldn't be enjoying their hobby. I started shooting film because I wanted to. I shoot digital too when I want or need to. I own about forty cameras, some of which have never seen film - but then again, I do develop my own Minox 8x11. I also switch between polaroid, 35, 120, 110, and Minox depending on the day. I also shoot what I like and make images the way I feel they should be made. How would you rhyme all that with each other? You can't. Because it's MY journey and MY hobby.

Outright dismissing gear talk as useless and 'you should be talking about images instead of gear' is really off-putting to me. It's gear discussions that got me interested in some of these delightful cameras and aspects of this hobby.

If he doesn't like talking about gear… he's more then welcome not to participate in gear discussions. I certainly don't feel a need to 'come clean and do some soul searching' as the author suggests.

 

[jsrockit]

To me, it sounds very… judgmental to say how someone should or shouldn't be enjoying their hobby.

Yes, this is true. I have the disease of trying to tell others how to spend their own money and how they should use their own camera... I have to stop with that nonsense... and I wish these articles would too. However, maybe some people do find them useful, so... I guess I shouldn't judge the writer either. :bang:

 

[Mcary]

The only thing worst than someone obsessing over gear is someone that obsesses over other people's gear to such a point that they feel the need to write about it on the internet.

 

[Prest_400]

Interesting.
IMHO equipment does matter up to the point where further improvement is marginal, and of course; The photographer skills matter even more.

Most times, what Thom writes hits the nail right on the head, but this piece was credibility challenged.. How can you claim that for everyone else simple/consumer gear 'is good enough' if in the very next line you say you're the exception and can't do without use of a D800E? Reading this, there's only one conclusion to be made: gear matters.

Yes, and that happens with many people writing about it online.

There's always room for improvement, and equipment wise I'd prefer to rearrange it accordin to preferences. I don't need a D800, but better adjusted gear would be nice (a high quality compact for day carry and MF film for "serious" stuff).

I'd take a FF DSLR if it were given to me, but I don't needed and it doesn't adjust to what I want/need.

The natural tendencies, therefore, are: (1) to cheat and find a way to “goat” an image; or (2) just redirect your focus from images you create to the equipment you create it with.

Argh, so my submission to my college's competition of a photo shot on Kodachrome in the OM-1 fits the description? Darn, I fell into the trap. 😀
Well, it does stand out by itself without saying on which media it was made...

 

[hepcat]

I have salivated over a LOT of gear in my day. I've bought and sold a ton of cameras (by weight) at least. Certainly large aperture glass has a different look wide open. Medium format and large format have distinct looks of their own. So-called "full frame" has a different set of characteristics from APS-sized sensors and smaller. I don't think that anyone could deny any of those things.

Unfortunately what I read in many threads on many forums and certainly in reviews of equipment are the discussions of details made to sound like they're a huge difference from lens to lens of similar focal length and aperture... when in fact, the differences are so small as to be irrelevent in use. The writers have to make the issues appear big, or they don't have anything to write about since most current camera systems are so on-par with one another. No one wants to read that Brand A and Brand B all perform to the same standards and that Brand C's revolutionary new idea really isn't that big of a deal. No writer would ever get new gear to test, and they'd be pariahs in their chosen craft. And then there are discussions ad nauseum about the pros and cons of this and that... and then someone is compelled to sell the lens they have to try the other one... and the cycle goes on and on. I think that's what Thom is addressing more than mere GAS.

Folks who play golf amaze me. They have a terrible game, so in order to improve their next round, they buy new clubs. And lo and behold the new clubs are great, but they can't figure out why their game hasn't improved... after all the new driver is advertised to able to hit that ball twenty yards further than the old driver, and the writers in Golf Digest raved about how long their tests showed it could do!

We see much the same thing in photography... folks expecting this lens or that body to provide the defining image. In my golf analogy, the driver may in fact be able, under ideal circumstances with the right player, to give extra yardage; but if the player whiffs the ball at the tee marker, does it really matter which driver he uses?

I'm not suggesting that playing with new stuff isn't fun; I'm just suggesting that there are more important things in imaging than lens comparison charts. If the cameras themselves are what do it for you, then have a ball. If you're trying to make images, though, and your gear is competent to make the image you want, replacing your gear with other gear isn't probably going to improve the image much.

That's what I got out of my read of the article anyway.

 

[dct]

Agreed fully.
As long we are conscious new gear is for our good feeling & not for better images it's all right. But, speaking of ergonomics & user interface: using a camera I feel comfortable is definitely an enhancement for my photographic output!

 

[pvdhaar]

Peter... I'm sorry, but I think your post is exactly what he's talking about. As a pro who has shot MANY weddings with Mamiya C330s and Hasselblads, and all kinds of sports with manual SLRs over the years, I can tell you that frame rates, pixel counts, and fast AF are highly over-rated...

Fair points, but then again, you're a pro, so you know how to work around the limitations of the cameras you're using.. plus, you're choosing the gear that fits the job, you wouldn't shoot formals with a 35mm and sports with a C330 given the choice. But somehow, we're expecting less experienced shooters to do just that.. using cameras that are sub-optimal for a challenging task.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that an expensive camera fixes composition problems or that high pixel counts make unfocussed images sharp. What I'm saying is that beginner's cameras aren't [particularly good beginner's cameras].

If you're shooting for a living, you've basically got 24 hours a day to hone your skills (yeah I know, you gotta eat/sleep/do business and what not). If you're a casual shooter, like a parent chasing the running kids around when the light gets low, you need all the help you can get; a D4 will get you that shot, a Coolpix-S01 won't. Extremes maybe, but this is the essence; top of the line cameras serve pro photogs and beginners alike.

A photog who calls for honesty in an article should acknowledge that even for a less experienced shooter, the camera can be the limiting factor..

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

I think reviewers and owners like to make out that their review or ownership is in some way unique and so justify their money (being paid it or spending it). Would a reviewer be paid for saying a lens or camera is no better and no worse than any other and that no normal* user would ever notice any differences? Although there could be some mileage in that...

So the trivial become important, like not having a noise free sensor at 3200 ISO (he typed thinking of the film speed of slide film years ago).

And some trivialities cover faults in the gizmo and then become important selling points. Especially for lenses with haze inside and scratches outside, which become an important signature of the poor old lens.

Just my 2d worth.

Regards, David

* That means prints at 4" by 6" and 36 megapixels resized to 1024 x 768 and 72dpi to view all the time.

 

[hepcat]

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that an expensive camera fixes composition problems or that high pixel counts make unfocussed images sharp. What I'm saying is that beginner's cameras aren't [particularly good beginner's cameras].

A photog who calls for honesty in an article should acknowledge that even for a less experienced shooter, the camera can be the limiting factor..

You're right about high pixel counts making OOF images sharp, and that dollars fix composition... yet that's exactly what camera manufacturers tout. If you really think about it, in the 1950s Brownies captured kids moving quite nicely. Instamatics did the same thing in the late '60s and early '70s. It wasn't until the early '70s that marketing over-sold folks on SLRs that they couldn't learn effectively. Camera manufacturers have learned that great advertising campaigns sell LOTS of cameras, lenses and flashes... and that AF and AE and all those other things turn a DSLR into an Instamatic for most folks. Except that the programming isn't as foolproof as a fixed lens, single shutter speed camera. The smart phone today is the modern equivalent of the Brownie and Instamatics of the past.

For those of us who are a little more advanced, we start looking first at adding lenses; first maybe a telephoto to get 'closer' to Johnny's soccer games. Then a wide-angle for family gatherings. Then we want them to be faster... and budget plays a role too. The manufacturers understand that an entry level camera will sell lenses, and then if they advertise a compatible body with some other must-have feature... and then lens upgrades...

And the photo press has found a niche to take their part of the pie. They're an integral part of the marketing process... so in order to get new stuff to review, they write glowing reviews and make insignificant stuff sound amazing and wonderful and must-have. The "art filter" function comes immediately to mind, or a single f/stop improvement in ISO performance, or a ten or fifteen percent increase in pixels. And they refer to charts and graphs and esoteric math... none of which really has any impact on the fundamentals of composition and exposure, and usually actually gets in the way.

And yet folks lust after the next iteration of whatever because of the marketing that convinces them that these relatively insignificant differences are really important. The new Kia luxo car ad with Laurence Fishbourne comes immediately to mind... where they're selling the idea of luxury... not any particular feature. That's kind of the ultimate in marketing.

Leica has mastered that sales technique... "brand marketing." The Noctilux and CV Nokton aren't significantly different in performance, yet the Noctilux commands a $9,000 premium over the Nokton. And folks queue up to buy them. Sorry, but I've got the Nokton.

I like what I can do with an f/1 lens, but in looking at images produced by both, there's not enough difference to lure me into spending $9k more for what is essentially the same performance. I'm not knocking those who do... more power to them... I'm just saying that I think Leica has mastered marketing; but in use there's little to distinguish most of their lens products from the competition. If I were a reviewer, do you think I could write that and get Leica to ever send me another thing to review?

So... if in actual use, there is often little difference between similar item A and similar item B, why do consumers buy item B even though they already have A in their arsenal? Because B is "new and improved." "The test charts show item B to have significantly improved performance. Blah blah blah. What they don't say is what "significantly improved" means in terms of how I use it. That's for the consumer to have to wade through... and frequently we just blindly buy the new gizmo based on the advertising and reviews... and with photo gear and golf clubs, I find that many folks didn't bother to learn how to use item A to it's potential, and item B isn't going to improve anything.

Lest I be misunderstood, I recognize that I am the recipient of an avalanche of amazing equipment brought about by competition-driven innovation. I am grateful that I don't have to shoot with a view camera or even a Barnack. I appreciate the advances in optical, mechanical, and electronic technologies that have given me the extraordinary gear I use today. But when I buy a piece of gear, it's because it fills a need that I have; a hole in my lineup. And I find the best piece of gear to fill that niche at absolutely the cheapest price I can find. And then I use it. And I don't sell it unless it doesn't fit the way I thought it would or I change systems; usually about every ten years or so. I don't worry about the latest and greatest. In fact, I only changed from Olympus digital to Leica digital because Olympus stopped making OVF cameras.

Again, if playing with gear is your thing, then by all means have a ball. There's nothing wrong with that at all. But as far as making images, the bottom line remains that it is the skill of the photographer that gets the job done. The gear is only important insofar as it's competent to capture that vision; but most modern gear today, even the consumer kit gear, is significantly better than the photographer's ability to use it. And frankly, people on this forum show us every day that gear that is 75 years old still gets the job done in a stellar way.

 

[pvdhaar]

You're right about high pixel counts making OOF images sharp, and that dollars fix composition... yet that's exactly what camera manufacturers tout. If you really think about it, in the 1950s Brownies captured kids moving quite nicely. Instamatics did the same thing in the late '60s and early '70s. It wasn't until the early '70s that marketing over-sold folks on SLRs that they couldn't learn effectively. Camera manufacturers have learned that great advertising campaigns sell LOTS of cameras, lenses and flashes... and that AF and AE and all those other things turn a DSLR into an Instamatic for most folks. Except that the programming isn't as foolproof as a fixed lens, single shutter speed camera. The smart phone today is the modern equivalent of the Brownie and Instamatics of the past.

First of all, in case I should be seen as a contrarian just for contrarian's sake, I really appreciate the exchange of ideas here.. well thought out and challenging!

Here you've got the bull by the horns, and it's exactly what's my main beef with the whole beginner's camera concept and having to upgrade while learning.. The greatest of the cameras you list are straightforward to operate: hardly anything gets in the way of shooting with them (the Brownie included). Current beginner's cameras get lots of extra fluff and endless lists of custom settings at the expense of their utility; custom settings that are needed because the product's interface and operation is flawed.. Who needs 11 point AF with all kind of configurations, if the motors that are running it are underpowered to save some money or differentiate on performance? Why is there 5x button function overload? As you say, it's tick box marketing. But it prevents the user from getting the best results..

Go beyond the beginners camera, and less and less gets in the way of shooting. A D4 goes when you press the shutter, just like a basic manual SLR of decades ago did (as did a Brownie). It's the mediocre stuff in between that's the problem.

The article is unfair in that it suggests that a camera that torments its user with all these hurdles is good enough for others but not for the author himself.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

The article is unfair in that it suggests that a camera that torments its user with all these hurdles is good enough for others but not for the author himself.

Are you suggesting that someone who publishes an article on the interweb could possibly get it wrong? 😱

 

[airfrogusmc]

This should be a required read for anyone who frequents forums and complains about gear. The truth hurts.

Thanks for the link.

A great quote by Ernst Haas
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE." - Ernst Haas

 

[tstermitz]

Most of this discussion completely missed Thom's main point: "Now that all cameras are quite good, what's your biggest problem?" Everybody is going back and forth discussing the first "gear" clause, missing the really interesting second "photography" clause.

Thom is one of the most astute industry observers, especially for Nikon. So his analysis are always thought provoking. This article asks you to focus on your photography.

Thom's challenge is a great contribution to pushing your skills forward:

Take your most recent “successful” photo. The photo about which everyone said “oh, that’s nice." Score yourself from 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest) on each of the following:

How “lucky” was the shot?
How “prepared” were you to take the shot just before it was taken?
How much much effort and planning went into being at that particular place and time with the right gear?
How much effort did you put into mastering the technical aspects of the shot? (Score 1 if the camera was in Auto modes ;~)
How much did the camera you were using determine how good the shot was?

 

[airfrogusmc]

Heres a quote by Weston that I think is appropriate
"The fact is that relatively few photographers ever master their medium. Instead they allow the medium to master them and go on an endless squirrel cage chase from new lens to new paper to new developer to new gadget, never staying with one piece of equipment long enough to learn its full capacities, becoming lost in a maze of technical information that is of little or no use since they don't know what to do with it." - Edward Weston

 

[Sparrow]

A couple of thousand words to say "Modern equipment is all good, so if you get pictures that you or other people don't like, it's your own fault".

True but lacks nutritional content. 😉

... lots of fibre though

 

[hepcat]

First of all, in case I should be seen as a contrarian just for contrarian's sake, I really appreciate the exchange of ideas here.. well thought out and challenging!

Here you've got the bull by the horns, and it's exactly what's my main beef with the whole beginner's camera concept and having to upgrade while learning.. The greatest of the cameras you list are straightforward to operate: hardly anything gets in the way of shooting with them (the Brownie included). Current beginner's cameras get lots of extra fluff and endless lists of custom settings at the expense of their utility; custom settings that are needed because the product's interface and operation is flawed.. Who needs 11 point AF with all kind of configurations, if the motors that are running it are underpowered to save some money or differentiate on performance? Why is there 5x button function overload? As you say, it's tick box marketing. But it prevents the user from getting the best results..

Go beyond the beginners camera, and less and less gets in the way of shooting. A D4 goes when you press the shutter, just like a basic manual SLR of decades ago did (as did a Brownie). It's the mediocre stuff in between that's the problem.

The article is unfair in that it suggests that a camera that torments its user with all these hurdles is good enough for others but not for the author himself.

Not at all... an interesting discussion indeed.

The question isn't really "Who needs 11 point AF with all kind of configurations, if the motors that are running it are underpowered to save some money or differentiate on performance?" but merely "Who needs 11 point AF?"

While I'm not conversant in any of the CaNikon DSLRs (current or past as I chose Olympus years ago,) the idea of configurable buttons so you can configure the camera the way YOU want it is pretty ludicrous if you can't turn the stuff off completely when it's wrong. And it was my experience that it was more and more difficult to drive the later offerings in manual. Frankly, my Panny GX-1 is even a PITA to drive sometimes. But competition to sell more cameras caused them to pack more and more "features" into them. And I recall reading some years ago in the PDA years that the Japanese market loved complex and complicated gizmos, and the more buttons the better while the West's preferences were for simplicity, so I can't help but wonder how much cultural difference drives camera designers. I'm a devotee' of the KISS system myself and I've let that drive my purchases more and more in the past five years. Simple seems to cost a lot more now.

The study of the entire subject of marketing and creating consumer demand through marketing is an interesting exercise in psychology and group-think.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Fair points, but then again, you're a pro, so you know how to work around the limitations of the cameras you're using.. plus, you're choosing the gear that fits the job, you wouldn't shoot formals with a 35mm and sports with a C330 given the choice. But somehow, we're expecting less experienced shooters to do just that.. using cameras that are sub-optimal for a challenging task.

When I got shoot crew qualified back on the boat (USS John C. Stennis, CVN-74) I was handed a Nikon F4 with a 300mm f/2.8 AIS with no mono or tripod, a roll of Gold 1000, and was told to go out and bring back ten good photos, only one could be on the flight deck or hangar bay.

This was an exercise that every new shooter on that ship got to suffer through. It taught us that even sub-optimal gear can be used for good images. I was so green back then even though I had been a hobby photographer for almost ten years. What a PITA! But I learned a lot. PH1 and PHC used to mess with everyone that way. The next lesson was the same but using a 16mm fisheye and we had to get details. Photographers in the military can be a sadistic lot but those seemingly endless hours translated into a lot of time to figure out that a 50mm is a good thing in spite of it being "pedestrian."

This is why I shoot nothing but manual focus AI and AIS lenses on my D3 these days. I have never needed more than one AF point as none of us do, especially if we shoot a rangefinder. Focus in the center, recompose, shoot. Sports shooters will say they need 50+ AF points but perhaps what they need is to sit next to "paddles" on the edge of a flight deck with an old film body, some slow film, an F4 and a 300mm f/2.8 AIS, while capturing images of tailhooks catching the wire.

Photography, and good photography at that, actually did exist before auto-everything rigs. I'm glad to have been one of the sailors who got to work 100% in film for a while before everything went digital.

Phil Forrest

 

[css9450]

Reminds me of the people who switch systems every time something "new and better" looms over the horizon.

I've mentioned here before about my friend who went from Minolta 35mm to Nikon 35mm to Nikon AF to Canon AF to Nikon DSLR to Canon DSLR and finally back to Nikon DSLR once again, each time buying new lenses and later selling them used when it was time to switch systems. He's bought and sold the same basic lineup of lenses a half-dozen times! Has his photography improved? I doubt it - but each time he switched, there must've been some sort of "gotta have it" feature in the new system that was going to bring him the Holy Grail.

 

[Soeren]

Yeah hobby photographers are fooled by the marketing departments each and everytime again and again.
Best regards