Does the gear really NOT matter?

[Phil_F_NM]

I'm going through an archive of images to update my site and generally get a bit more organization while I have this time to do so and looking at them, I'm picking a lot of the keepers made with a certain few cameras.

I've found that of the less than 20 rolls I've exposed with Barnack Leicas, I have a higher "signal to noise" ratio than with other cameras. Perhaps it's because they force me to slow down?

After that, I look at the thousands of images I took with my M4 and of course there are keepers, a large number of them. Many of the photos from Iraq of course, but also just images I've made since then during the time I've had alternatives to shoot with, like a Nikon F3 or F4 or Contax RX, Pentax ME, Spotmatic, ZX-5n, the list goes on.

I've owned and extensively used a few digital SLRs as well and the images themselves aren't as inspiring as those I've made with a camera 60 years senior.

Then looking at the images I've made with the digital rangefinders I've owned (RD-1, M8 and M9) I find that my ratio of keepers is much much lower.

Could it be that I know that I have to conserve film so I take far less than with a digital? I hate editing in the computer so I don't actually take than many more.

What is more puzzling is why I like my shots made with a Barnack a bit more than made with an M4 or M2 or any number of other film cameras.

Anyone else have this issue? I know we say that gear doesn't matter, it's the final image but some photos of mine have just shown a little extra something and I'm trying to figure out why.

Phil Forrest

 

[furcafe]

Saying that gear doesn't matter is just that, a saying. Like an aphorism or stereotype, there's some truth to it, but it's not the whole truth.

 

[Thardy]

What I've found is that now it is almost impossible for me to just expose one or two frames on any one object. After 5-6 shots of the same thing I ask myself "what are you doing"? I've completely forgotten that there are only 36 frames on a roll.

Comes from using digital for a while I guess. With a 16gb SD card I can get an absurd number of shots.

Could also be that the more difficult the camera is to use one does concentrate more. When I used to play with my Mamiya RZ more I really slowed down. I really dislike loading film in medium format cameras and at 10 shots per roll you become pretty selective.

 

[OurManInTangier]

Saying that gear doesn't matter is just that, a saying. Like an aphorism or stereotype, there's some truth to it, but it's not the whole truth.

I agree completely.

I find myself saying 'the camera doesn't matter' or 'a good photographer will get a good shot regardless of the camera they're using' far far too much. There is truth in it but you still want a camera that you enjoy working with and that will provide enough flexibility for the job in hand. Otherwise I'd still be using the Contax G1 that first got me into RF cameras.

 

[huntjump]

does the gear matter, well either answer in the extreme (YES, or NO) is probably incorrect.

Does a D700 and 1.4 lens vs. D200 and 2.8 lens matter to a concert photographer, definitely. EQuipment can matter a lot.

But for average street photographers, probably not as much but gear matters if you are willing to pay the price for that marginal benefit you get from a smaller/faster/sexier/sharper/fillintheblank lens...or body etc..

 

[domagojs]

If the gear wouldn't matter, there would be only one camera available...

Re your observation about importance of slowing down I believe that to be true. I noticed a similar thing with my Lubitel, horrible Russian TLR camera. The camera is so terrible to use (no meter, squinty viewfinder, almost impossible to tell on what you focused...) and yet I get the best feedback exactly to those photos. I think that setting camera on tripod, having to meter manually and then composing really slowly results in better photos than with better and quicker cameras. Food for thought...

 

[jsrockit]

Saying that gear doesn't matter is just that, a saying. Like an aphorism or stereotype, there's some truth to it, but it's not the whole truth.

Exactly. I'm a firm believer that more you like your camera (or the happier you are) and the more you are comfortable with it, the better the possibility of getting great photos is.

That said, this is my opinion. Others simply use a tool and feel no connection to it. There is no wrong or right, just what works for you.

The gear doesn't matter saying I think speaks more to those who concentrate on changing gear to make better photos than spending time learning their craft. While one can certainly use anything capable of making a photo to make a great photograph, we can agree that more versatile gear will give you a better opportunity most of the time.

 

[anu L ogy]

I think, like everyone above basically said, it depends onthe artist. Some are comfortable switching it up all of the time and still remain consistent. Ones that come to mind are Annie Leibovitz, W Eugene Smith. Orther artists seem more comfortable working with one camera their whole life, like Elliott Erwitt.

 

[Black]

Can only speak for me and gear does matter. If you love the gear you're using, it makes you want to take better pictures. I am, admittedly, somewhat of a snob. I didn't gel with my Bessa, my Yashica 124G, my Olympus EP-2, or even my Nikon D40. Ultimately, it has taken me somewhere near six years to realise I don't even gel with digital.

Its a personal thing and probably says a lot about what kind of person I am, but I like what I like and I find that if I am using what I like, not only do I shoot more, but I learn more, display more patience, try harder...

To some people, it doesn't matter. Or, at least they like to say it doesn't matter (but secretly it does and they love showing off their gear). In fact, I am convinced that some people just like buying the gear and only post "test shots" ad infinitum. It can be a bit of a penis waggling exercise. But, thankfully, not for all.

There is no definitive answer. It matters to some and not to others. And, ultimately, who it matters to, doesn't actually matter. To anyone but yourself.

 

[zauhar]

I think it depends on your relationship to the material object. I would hazard the hypothesis that those most comfortable with digital are the least bound up with a particular device, those most involved with material and process tend to become strongly attached to a particular camera.

Yeah I know how much digital cameras differ, I just think there is more of a relationship to an object the less it does for you (i.e. the less autonomous it is).

I am new to using a Barnack, but I have this "every-image-is-precious" feeling when I use it.

Randy

 

[jsrockit]

Zauhar, I'm very attached to my digitals. They are still cameras.

 

[zauhar]

Zauhar, I'm very attached to my digitals. They are still cameras.

Yes, I knew that I would be immediately contradicted. ;-)

I don't have any digital cameras (that I care to use, at least), in the future my perspective may change.

Randy

 

[filmfan]

My variation of this is with the Hexar AF. Despite owning many nice cameras (Leica M6, M2, Bessa, Rolleiflex, Mamiya, Nikon, Olympus Canon, etc.), my best stuff comes from this electronic whiz-bang.

 

[victoriapio]

Certainly gear matters to the point that it is a tool. Its tough for a photographer to take pictures without a camera, just like a surgeon has a hard time without a scalpel.

Peter Turnley said it in a different way in Austin last night. He said photography "isn't about equipment, it's about the image." His Paris images were all with Leicas but his photojournalism work is almost all with SLRs and DSLRs. Each system has advantages and disadvantages, but they both produce imAges.

Here is the way I would say it: it is the image that is a photographers legacy, not his equipment.

 

[btgc]

Gear matters. Go do with wide angle lens same you can do with 105mm macro or reverse. Do same with flashless wide aperture lens you can do with 5 flash setup or reverse. Sure it matters.

 

[jsrockit]

Here is the way I would say it: it is the image that is a photographers legacy, not his equipment.

Or it could be both... since we all know certain photographers are synymous with certain equipment. That said, if their work wasn't great, nobody would care what camera they used.

 

[Kent]

All that matters is gear. 😉

 

[Joosep]

The tools an artist uses should be the way to materialize his or hers vision, not the vision itself.

 

[thirtyfivefifty]

Yes, it's very important to me, especially to establish my own personal visual signature. I'm very happy and comfortable with a my personal full-frame DSLR, light meter, 35mm/50mm lenses, and my friends have noticed!

It's a result of 6 years of evolution, but that's just the camera hardware side. Doesn't include computing hardware, software choice (my digital darkroom), creativity, personal interpretation, research, influences, inspiration, muses, etc. It all works together in one workflow to create the final product. Haven't gone to print yet, and that's another personal matter in itself.

If someone removed or swapped out one or more items in my toolbox, it would cause a rift, and I've have to start from square one again to figure out how to get back on track.

 

[Calzone]

A good part of my passion in photography is expressed through my gear and my personal relationship to each camera. My Nikon F3P I've owned for a very long time and because of this its familiarity inspires me, but many times I struggle with other cameras and to me this struggle means learning.

Two weekends ago I went into the Bronx armed with only an old Fuji GL690 that has interchangable lenses and quickly learned that the 100/3.5 I had mounted was too tight a FOV for the abandoned landscape I was trying to record. I made adjustments and soon ran out of film.

When I first got into medium format I choose to use a Rollei 3.5F and Tele Rolleiflex that were both new to me to shoot my first Mermaid Parade. I soon ended up in one of those "Calzone moments" where I ended up with a great shooting opportunity and made my best attempt at shooting a Rollei up close and fast like as if it were my F3P with a motordrive to capture a pole dancer who put on a show specifically for me and my Rolleiflex.

She was such a pro that she held the pose as I rapidly shot and cranked as fast as I could and created a sequence of of shots that captured her jumping up the pole, inverting herself upsidedown, and then going spread eagle to form a crucifix with her body and the pole in my square frame. I believe she did this because I had a cool camera, and if I had my Nikon I might not have had the opportunity.

Anyways over a year later I would meet this very pretty girl at yet another event, and I would learn that her name is "Brooklyn." Did you know there's a pole dancing school on 5th Avenue?

Anyways I have too many cameras an the constant confusion from changing formats and types of cameras does matter to me, but John is kinda right when he makes fun of me for owning a camera museum. LOL.

Cal