Gear *Does* Matter!

[furcafe]

I think there are just as many anti-gear sharks, though in the wider world, not this forum. I call them anti-gear Puritans because, to borrow a Menkenism, they have a haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy to discuss gear instead of serious matters like composition, art theory, the philosophy of photography, the parlous state of the photographic industry, etc.

You are a courageous person, and I really appreciate what you said there, but I think (I hope I am wrong) the sharks are coming for you . . . let's hope not, huh.

 

[daveleo]

I should have been more specific in my previous posting.

I was referring very specifically to the comparison of a $15 Minolta to a Leica M6 (no mention of the lenses there). I expected a feeding frenzy about that specific comparison.

If it matters: I LOVED all the Minolta stuff I ever owned, and I have never owned an M6.

 

[Merkin]

Gear only matters to a certain extent- the extent to which it allows you to capture the image you want. If the shot you want means that you need camera movements, the world's best point and shoot is worthless. If you need to photograph a bird perched in the top of a tree, a fixed lens rangefinder is worthless. If you need to hyperfocal focus, a D800 with a Nikkor G lens is worthless. If you need something small and unobtrusive, an 8x10 view camera is worthless. If you need to have the shot on your editor's hard drive in ten minutes, a film camera is worthless.

Even once you find the type of setup you need to meet your needs, the gear you use is only so important. A bessa body can make a photograph that is just as good as an MP. At the same time, the choice of lens is only important to a point. No one has ever looked at one of Cartier-Bresson's early photographs and said "you know, it is a good photograph and all, but it would just be so much better if he had been using a zeiss sonnar instead of a leica elmar." There is, of course, a minimum standard of acceptability in terms of quality and reliability- you want something that will work and not look like crap. However, if you find yourself going on what seems like a never-ending quest for gear that will let you take better photos, the problem is generally not the gear.

 

[furcafe]

Doesn't change my point, which is that there are people who go around bragging that they use a $15 Minolta (or Holga, or iPhone) rather than an M6 (or fill-in-the-blank expensive camera) as if the mere fact that they use a cheaper/low fi camera makes their photos, or themselves, better.

I should have been more specific in my previous posting.

I was referring very specifically to the comparison of a $15 Minolta to a Leica M6 (no mention of the lenses there). I expected a feeding frenzy about that specific comparison.

If it matters: I LOVED all the Minolta stuff I ever owned, and I have never owned an M6.

 

[furcafe]

True enough, but I'm fairly certain that Cartier-Bresson gave a damn what camera + lens he used, even if nobody else could tell what he used for a particular shot.

Also, not everyone who talks gear is doing so because they're on "a never-ending quest for gear that will let you take better photos." Sometimes it's just fun to talk about our toys w/like-minded people. Or @ least more fun than starting a fuss when you say why you think (insert least favorite famous photographer's name)'s photos suck.

Gear only matters to a certain extent- the extent to which it allows you to capture the image you want.

. . . No one has ever looked at one of Cartier-Bresson's early photographs and said "you know, it is a good photograph and all, but it would just be so much better if he had been using a zeiss sonnar instead of a leica elmar." There is, of course, a minimum standard of acceptability in terms of quality and reliability- you want something that will work and not look like crap. However, if you find yourself going on what seems like a never-ending quest for gear that will let you take better photos, the problem is generally not the gear.

 

[NicoM]

Lovely article! I agree 100%

I believe that great photographers can make good photos with any gear that is available to them, but everyone has a preference as to what gear they would be most comfortable using.

 

[gdi]

If you don't care enough, know enough, or aren't good enough to appreciate advantages some gear offers over other gear - then the gear doesn't matter. And you do the right thing keeping the Minolta and selling the Leica.

Now can we please get back to discussing why people with no TV are smarter/more creative/sophisticated/enlightened/generally superior to those who admit to owning one?

 

[DougFord]

Nothing is more frustrating than losing a great pix because of a gear malfunction.
That's why I test everything thoroughly until I'm confident of the results I'm seeing.
Sure it matters!

+1
The appropriate camera for the task at hand and its proper operation, is paramount.
My current camera fires the shutter when it wants and if it opens the auto lens cover as well its a bonus. Time for a new camera.

 

[Dylan Hope]

............

The Leica M4 - # YOLO

Gear does matter to some extent though. I feel more comfortable, and therefore shoot better, with an SLR or RF. Canon, Nikon, Zorki, Leica, if you've got manual mode and manual focus or I can see the AF in action through the viewfinder, it's all the same to me in the end for the bulk of my shooting.
Although cool looking gear is pretty sweet to play with

 

[Alex Krasotkin]

Gear matters when to produce a certain desired look to the photo, that must me a true work by itself. This is why a lot of photographers search for vintage lenses.

 

[flip]

I cannot add to the above.
However, I was inspired to flip through the TKS site and reent entries. When I found a couple, each with Leicas - his a 50mm and hers with a 21SA - the whole thing kinda came full circle in my mind. Back in school, studying Mass Comm, those in my major spent a lot of time analyzing the way women's bodies are presented as parts. So, I found it funny that the man's camera was suited to do the same, while the woman's lens choice captured the context. Of course, one couldn't help but note that the site itself had divorced the cameras from the photographers. They say that the advertising rationale for presenting women that way is to encourage them to purchase products to perfect each (body) part individually and not consider the whole (person). No surprise when gear porn does the same to the holistic notion of a photographer, I guess.

I do like the site, however.

 

[V-12]

Trevor makes a good point in his blog post about the 'community' that people belong to when they adopt one camera or another. The community share a photographic language, the images are of a type and are understood by others in the community. Its not that this is perochial, because take one step in another direction and some other type of camera engenders a similar language that can be understood.

This is why the vast Lomo community 'get' each others work. It may be low tech, and slow moving (there will be no Firmware upgrades on the Holga for years to come), but it is of vast importance in culture. My prediction is that in 50 years time when art historians are writing about the development of photography it will be the 'kitchen sink movement' (Lomo, alternative process, etc), and camera phones, that are seen as the defining additions to widespread artistic expression. And the losers will be users of the fast turnover camera systems, the X Pro-1 people, the Canon 5dMkIII people. They will be washed out of history because the camera isn't used long enough for a language to evolve, there is no language of expression that gets beyond trying to talk machine code. They don't have a photographic style that lasts longer than it takes for the next camera to come along.

 

[hamish_gill]

My opinion: Of course gear matters. Off course it doesn't.

That sentence sums it up perfectly for me!

 

[NeeZee]

Trevor makes a good point in his blog post about the 'community' that people belong to when they adopt one camera or another. The community share a photographic language, the images are of a type and are understood by others in the community. Its not that this is perochial, because take one step in another direction and some other type of camera engenders a similar language that can be understood.

This is why the vast Lomo community 'get' each others work. It may be low tech, and slow moving (there will be no Firmware upgrades on the Holga for years to come), but it is of vast importance in culture. My prediction is that in 50 years time when art historians are writing about the development of photography it will be the 'kitchen sink movement' (Lomo, alternative process, etc), and camera phones, that are seen as the defining additions to widespread artistic expression. And the losers will be users of the fast turnover camera systems, the X Pro-1 people, the Canon 5dMkIII people. They will be washed out of history because the camera isn't used long enough for a language to evolve, there is no language of expression that gets beyond trying to talk machine code. They don't have a photographic style that lasts longer than it takes for the next camera to come along.

Don't think so - i'd say the (digital) HDR or 'Bokeh' Community are even bigger than the whole Lomo thing and they developed an understanding of their 'work' too. They won't have a place in art history though (and that's a good thing), just like the Lomo stuff won't. At most it will be remembered at some kind of pop cultural phenomenon, but not even sure about that.

 

[jsrockit]

In other words, the $15 Minolta X-370 took equal photos (if not better) than my Leica M6!

Then why do you use the M6 instead?

 

[EdwardKaraa]

I was very frustrated the last time I tried to take photos without a camera. Sometimes I try to take photos with a camera without lens, or lens without camera. Some other times, I try without battery, or without film (with film cameras). All these attempts were unsuccessful so far.

I'm sorry but those who claim gear doesn't matter, in a technical discipline heavily based on the equipment used, are just ridiculous.

 

[leicapixie]

To make a photograph one needs equipment. Your blog covered most of it. Well done. i use lots of different stuff at times. Have a pal who only uses a Leica, 50mm and B/W film only. Very impressive. Like eating the exact same meal, 3 times a day, forever..
Painters by the way get into extensive discussions about types of paint, brands, papers or canvases, you name it!

 

[Sparrow]

... we conceptual photographers and artists don't, necessarily, the idea is sufficient

 

[jsrockit]

... we conceptual photographers and artists don't, necessarily, the idea is sufficient

Sure, but why did you choose the gear you have? You didn't pick it at random out of a box right? Doesn't comfort come in to play? Doesn't quality come into play to a certain extent?

Don't get me wrong... if you can take a good photo, you can do it with anything that frames and captures. However, when we buy a camera, we make a choice based on certain criteria (unless someone just gave you the camera).

 

[Sparrow]

... well, strictly speaking, if it's a conceptual work I don't need a camera of any kind ... I often mentally project imaginary frame lines on the world around me and snap images to my memory ... I doubt I'm alone in this, altho I have yet to see an exhibition of such work by anyone