Does the gear really NOT matter?

I may have read something completely different in Phil's observation. I like to be comfortable with a camera, but if the lens is excellent, the body light tight, film held precisely flat and shutter-aperture working correctly one should be able to get really good images even if the operation is slow and quirky.

I'm talking about landscapes and for the most part stationary objects. I guess a slow operating camera would frustrate a street or sports photographer, but if you have to make 4-5 "adjustments" for every shot you're going to try and make sure you got a "keeper".

I used to enjoy that way of working, but with age I'd rather have automation and shoot more freely. I'll leave the contemplative stuff to the guys using LF.
 
Calzone said:
Did you know there's a pole dancing school on 5th Avenue?
Click to expand...

I did know this. They even have competitions. I once went on a date with a woman and she brought me to her place after our date. Once we were there, she showed me her videos from competitions and apparently she was pretty good, since they were from all over the world. She considered this a career, but seemed to supplement it with the non-competition form of pole dancing sometimes. lol. good ol' NYC.
 
Phil_F_NM said:
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.
Click to expand...

Interesting subject Phil. I have no idea why, but I have two cameras with which I feel I get more keepers: My iiic and my Hexar AF. Which really is the only reason that I keep them.

Roland.
 
Well, the simple answer is of course the gear matters. Whether it matters as much as the numerous gear-oriented threads you see, is another thing though, and think some peoples focus on gear is out of proportion to other things in their photography.

For what its worth, never held with the view that the camera is just a light tight box, and to spend all your money on lenses instead. In my mind, the camera is the thing that helps you get the shot, with the lens only deciding the ultimately quality of that shot. After all thats really much of a muchness, if you didn't get the shot in the first place due to using a substandard (for you) body.
 
victoriapio said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is funny because in real life, Peter is obsessed with Leicas. We used to chat regularly about them and he is as in love with Leica as the next RFF member... He also liked the Hexar AF and used to use one on assignment.
 
Two things come to mind.

1. Gear totally matters if you don't have the right gear for the job. I love 50-90 mm focal lengths for portraits. But it really doesn't seem to matter which brand, etc. I've enjoyed Nikon, Leica, Konica, Sigma. Hopefully I'm about to add Fuji to the list.
2. At the same time, there are some camera/lens combos that just feel better in my hands. They tend to get out of the way (so to speak) and let me just shoot.

And personally, I have no real attachment to my digital cameras. But then again, I never had any attachment to my film cameras. I have favorite images, but rarely can I remember what I shot them with.
 
The only reason why this "gear does not matter" mentality persists is because most iconic and historical photos are spur of the moment shots... in other words, the best shot is the one made with the camera available, no matter what that is. Many probably don't understand this or fail to notice.

If you're aiming for a certain look, the camera matters. If you just want to freeze the moment in a frame, any camera will do.
 
Here's another angle on this; perhaps it's only me.

When I miss a shot because of automation (AF hunting & locking the shutter, AF focusing on the wrong target, ISO leftover from last night and buried in a menu, etc.), I blame the camera. It has distracted me and it may change my mood and concentration.

With a mechanical or simple auto camera, a miss gets a shrug. It's my bad; I'll be on my game next time and I move on. For some reason I have not divined, I'm happier.

That said, a good photographer can take better pictures than me with an iPhone.

- Charlie
 
I know this is not a film vs digital discussion, but that is what it comes down to for me.

If the gear effects the way you make pictures, then it is important, and it impacts your images.

These days, I shoot 99.9% digital images (I am not a professional) and I make a lot of images that I am happy with. However . . . my "% hit rate" was much higher when I shot film. I have decided that's because i love the way my film cameras and I operate together, and how they become part of the process, and how they handle (after 100+ years of evolution).

So . . . yes, gear has a big impact on the images that I make.

Now, you ask . . . 'Why do you use digital 99.9% of the time now?"

I am not happy with any answer that I have for that question.
 
filmfan said:
Your signature seems to imply otherwise...
Click to expand...


Not sure what you mean. The only reason I know which images were shot with which lenses is because I grab the info from the metadata when I upload shots to photo-sharing sites.
In fact, that really just illustrates the point for me.
I can do an edit a few days after a shoot - and I still have to look in the metadata to see what gear combo I used for a particular shot.
Of course, that's a luxury/curse that film users don't deal with.
 
Gear only matters to a point.

If it is reliable, you are happy to carry it everywhere and/or use it often, and it has a lens you like, that is all that matters.

Everything else, imo, is frippery.
 
Over the years I have accumulated quite some gear and tested quite a lot, but at the moment, I feel it more like a burden. I have tried a lot of different cameras film and digital.

Cameras in itself are quite interesting objects. But owning a lot of cameras does not make one a good photographer. I think being a good photographer has to do more with ones personality than with the gear.
 
filmfan said:
This is funny because in real life, Peter is obsessed with Leicas. We used to chat regularly about them and he is as in love with Leica as the next RFF member... He also liked the Hexar AF and used to use one on assignment.
Click to expand...

Peter did mention that he likes the way a Leica looks around his shoulder when he is using one.

He had the same experience most pjs do including me when I was freelancing: both RF and SLR have advantages and disadvantages so if you use both systems you better be able to use them both well. Now out of the business, for a decade, I prefer Leica for my current work. He did comment that big SLRs are not what you use in Paris cafes.
 
What matters most still is "F8 and be there."

After that, it's shoot and shoot and shoot some more. As in:

  • "The first 100,000 frames don't count." (Digital version: "The first 1,000,000 frames don't count.")
  • "To be an expert at something, invest 10,000 hours in it."

There's also this:
  • "Fortune favors the prepared and the equipped."

But even when you're "equipped," if using your gear isn't second nature (i.e., if you're not "prepared"), you're likely to miss the moment.

Just my experience. "Your mileage may vary."
 
hmmmm... when I 'look' at flickriver and see shots
I am Amazed at how much Great photography is out there
with so Many Different Cameras, Lenses and Formats
so does Gear Matter...Yes & No

I prefer to shoot with whats comfortable to my Eye and Hand

Phil I must admit I still LOVE Barnacks...and find my shots with the IIIA are Equally as Good as the M2,M4,M6
& with a 1938 uncoated summar , Life was Stellar
but I foolishly sold the Barnack with the summar and Lost the Magic of that 'Look'

Now its More about Finding the Shot Than about the Gear ;)
 
Gear matters because different equipment is better, or worse at executing various photographic activities. In some cases certain cameras just cannot be used or easily adapted to the task at hand. If you've got the wrong camera, life can either get much harder, or the shots don't happen. I'll give you an example.

A friend studies music at our local university. A couple of years ago he invited me to a piano recital at the university Conservatorium of Music featuring a number of students and concert grade musicians. It was held in the recital hall; nice acoustics, you could just about hear a pin drop between the performances.

There was no overt signage regarding photography or the prohibition thereof, so I snuck a couple of cameras in; a Rolleicord and my Konica Auto S2, and I ran off a roll of 120 and a half a roll of 35mm. Not that I got any memorable images! But there were no problems, and probably only a couple of other members of the audience sitting nearby were even aware I took some shots. The Konica was actually marginal. Although the shutter was nearly silent, the ratchet for the film wind lever was uncomfortably loud, and I had to advance it slowly during the louder bars. The Rollei? Not a problem.

Now, it would have been great to have been able to bring my Hasselblad in with the 150mm Sonnar, as the extra focal length could have given me some tighter shots. But had I been stupid enough to try, I would have been ejected at the earliest opportunity because of the noise it makes. Using it just wasn't an option.

I think there is a lot of truth in the proposition that a great photographer can make good images with the most prosaic of cameras, but this is not the same as saying that the gear doesn't matter. Not even close, because, although choice of gear may not matter in some situations, in others it may be absolutely critical. You just have to be comfortable with your choices.
Regards,
Brett
 
jsrockit said:
I did know this. They even have competitions. I once went on a date with a woman and she brought me to her place after our date. Once we were there, she showed me her videos from competitions and apparently she was pretty good, since they were from all over the world. She considered this a career, but seemed to supplement it with the non-competition form of pole dancing sometimes. lol. good ol' NYC.
Click to expand...

Man, I love that. "Wanna come home and watch my pole dancing videos?" Now that's a quality invitation! :D

You will always notice when gear doesn't match your shooting needs; too big to get into a gig, too slow to shoot street, not big enough to capture dynamic range and detail, not slow enough to make you stop and think. Too heavy to carry all day, not big enough to assert authority at a wedding, etc.

The harmony comes when your needs are met by your gear. If you want to shoot fast and loose during the day, a hyperfocused or zone focused camera will do the trick. If you want to shoot landscapes drenched with dynamic range and detail and you like medium format, that's another match.

It's the flipside of the right tools for the job scenario: any given camera has a set of attributes which predispose it to certain kinds of photography. You adapt to the camera and/or you make the camera adapt to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom