Gear *Does* Matter!

[jsrockit]

... 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

True conceptual art... 😀

 

[Sparrow]

True conceptual art... 😀

... and of a much higher standard than my physical stuff 🙂

 

[froyd]

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.

Not only that, but what about pleasure? I'm not paid to take pictures, so I don't HAVE TO go out and shoot. If a camera is not fun/pleasant/exciting for me to use then I'm far less likely to pick it up and use it ...and I eventually sell it.

Also, because I'm just a hobbyist learning a craft, and lack the solid discipline of some professionals, I rely on the cameras I've chosen to help me photograph better. With auto-everything cameras I'm far sloppier than mechanical ones, but I often capture more spur of the moment candid shots. With meterless, MF cameras I'm more methodical and my technique is usually better (from exposure, to framing, to focus) but I tend to miss more of the shots that are quickly developing and hard to anticipate. So the camera I choose certainly help me in particular situations, and do make a difference.

Other people don't seem to have this "problem". In a way I pity them. It sounds a little like saying that one cannot taste the difference between a Big Mac and a nice home-made meal, and that it does not matter because it's all just food.

 

[daveleo]

"... and of a much higher standard than my physical stuff "


Much like John Cage's music passages of silence.

 

[v_roma]

so true. it mostly matters when I do not shoot. when I do, it usually does not matter...

I think this is pretty much how I feel. When I'm cooped up at home or work sitting in front of a computer, gear seems extremely important. When I'm out shooting, that notion just goes out the window and I'm often happy shooting with an Olympus XA or a film point-and-shoot.

 

[Sparrow]

"... and of a much higher standard than my physical stuff "


Much like John Cage's music passages of silence.

... yes, I imagine so, although I suspect some folk don't understand the concept of self-deprecating humour either

 

[tunalegs]

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.

Suppose for a moment that it does? 😀

In all seriousness though it might actually. Because the qualities of a tool influence how it is used.

 

[daveleo]

... yes, I imagine so, although I suspect some folk don't understand the concept of self-deprecating humour either

If it matters: Silence in music brings a lot to the party, as does "empty" space in images and pictures. I thought your allusion to pictures unseen was . . . . what's a good word here? . . . charming.

 

[Sparrow]

If it matters: Silence in music brings a lot to the party, as does "empty" space in images and pictures. I thought your allusion to pictures unseen was . . . . what's a good word here? . . . charming.

Ah, I think I see now! is Negative Space called Empty Space over there? I had no idea, anyway charming as it is "conceptual" is the word I chose and if it's OK I'll stick with that thanks.

 

[Lucian010]

i do believe that the best camera is the one that's in your hands... having said that, if i could prepare for a project, of course, gear does matter! different set up for different purpose... my old XA2 never fails me when am shooting discreetly along a red light district for my project, i would love to shoot there using my zeiss ikon, but that would be a death wish cos those doing illegal activities there could easily recognize that it's a camera, where as my XA2, in the dark, just looks like my blackberry! 🙂

 

[filmfan]

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.

Bragging? Haha. Are you serious? I hope I didn't offend you by sharing my personal experience.

Then why do you use the M6 instead?

I don't -- I sold it. I *used* it because it felt nice in my hand but I never got any better photos out of it than other cameras I had. This is not to say that I will never purchase another Leica though. When I can financially justify owning multiple cameras, I will do so. I enjoy Leicas as much as the next guy.

 

[jsrockit]

I don't -- I sold it. I *used* it because it felt nice in my hand but I never got any better photos out of it than other cameras I had. This is not to say that I will never purchase another Leica though. When I can financially justify owning multiple cameras, I will do so. I enjoy Leicas as much as the next guy.

I get what you are saying... the Leica just makes things a little more comfortable for me over the Minolta, but I can understand why someone would make photos that are just as good if not better. They all frame and capture a photo which is the essense of photography.

I would never claim to use a camera based on superior quality. I buy more expensive cameras because I like the way they feel and how I feel drawn to use them. I can appreciate that some people don't have this issue. 😀