How much does gear matter?

Here is my 0.2 cents: Gear matters, but only so much as to allow a certain quality of output and to be reliable.

I agree.

I worked with other fashion shooters that only used 35mm equipment. In those days, medium format had a distinct advantage over 35mm film or chrome....and you could see it in the end result.

I think it still does. I worked for one corporate guy that used 35 for jobs.

Now...once you went up to MF, did it matter if someone was using Hasselblad, or Mamiya, or Bronica? No not really. In fact, I ended up selling my Hassey system and went with Mamiya 645 after a while. It was easier...you got all the quality of MF, but none of the 'editorial' haggling over how something should be cropped. Plus I could shoot the Mamiya handheld (something I never really did with the Hasselblad), and it had an eye level finder and a motor drive. And it still took a polaroid back (I don't think the Pentax system did).

Well great minds and all. I sold all my Hassey stuff at one point and bought RZ67s.(I was always on a tripod or stand) I was tired of the yearly CLA costs. (Had the RZs about 10 years never CLAd them) I liked the bigger chrome size.

As an amateur I like the look of the Zeiss lenses better than the RZ. As a pro so what, maybe I light a tad flatter

Pro gear is Pro (IMO) because it has proven itself to be predictably reliable and deliver quality results in the proper hands. This is basically the same mythical equipment trap guitarists get caught up in. Will that 1956 Les Paul make you a better player or sound noticeably better than a new Les Paul? Probably not, but so many of the musicians you aspire to play like have used something similar so it must be better right?

Agreed again, this gear gained a reputation because it had to work day in and day out. Maybe not because we preferred the micro contrast of Zeiss over Mamiya.

I like the musical instrument analogy and have thought about it before. That said, I'm sure Clapton can make any guitar sing!
 
Ask any piano player if equipment matters..
The good ones will tell you..
You go in to the venue..and use what they have..and make music w/that..
Even if the keys and tuning are fked up..
Another opinion from Musashi Miyamoto..samauri..
Always use a sword you are not entirely familiar with..
Dont use something too comfortable..or not comfortable at all..
I'm paraphrasing here..
 
It's currently in vogue to proclaim cameras are just tools, that they don't matter, and that a good photographer will make just as good photos with a potato that's been poked with a sewing needle to make a pinhole as they will with a large format camera.
Different gear requires different methods of use, and process influences result. In my opinion, process IS result to a high degree.


"If you want to change your photographs, you need to change cameras. Changing cameras means that your photographs will change. A really good camera has something I suppose you might describe as its own distinctive aura.
-- Nobuyoshi Araki"


In saying that, it is most certainly better though to use one camera and one lens for 10 years while learning than it is to use 5 cameras and 10 lenses. This is why guys with beat up outdated and minimal gear often have the best work.
 
chipgreenberg said:
....I sold all my Hassey stuff at one point and bought RZ67s.(I was always on a tripod or stand) I was tired of the yearly CLA costs. (Had the RZs about 10 years never CLAd them) I liked the bigger chrome size.

As an amateur I like the look of the Zeiss lenses better than the RZ. As a pro so what, maybe I light a tad flatter

Pro gear is Pro (IMO) because it has proven itself to be predictably reliable and deliver quality results in the proper hands. This is basically the same mythical equipment trap guitarists get caught up in. Will that 1956 Les Paul make you a better player or sound noticeably better than a new Les Paul? Probably not, but so many of the musicians you aspire to play like have used something similar so it must be better right?

Agreed again, this gear gained a reputation because it had to work day in and day out. Maybe not because we preferred the micro contrast of Zeiss over Mamiya.

I like the musical instrument analogy and have thought about it before. That said, I'm sure Clapton can make any guitar sing!
Click to expand...

I owned an RZ system for a couple of years. I really love that camera for studio work! Rotating back: genius. Bellows focusing....loved it. Ability to do pseudo macro close focus with any lens....again brilliant. I actually liked the softer contrast of the Mamiya lenses vs Zeiss. Very flattering for skin tones!

I traded it and a Pentax 67 and a few lenses at one point for a Leica M6 and 50mm. I had gotten out of the fashion mix, and I had always wanted a Leica. That M6 was the last camera I shot film on. A few years later and DSLR's became affordable.



And now that I have totally argued why equipment doesn't really matter, I will share a story of how equipment changed my life:

When I was still shooting the Hasselblad, I was hosting a party, and had prepared to take a group photo during the evening. After a few hours, I was herding everyone in place, and needed to go load some film. I was headed to the bathroom (where I kept the film) with the Hassey back, and this absolutely beautiful girl stops me and asks me where I am going? I say "to load some film"...to which she replies, "Oh....I know how to load that!" I said (like a real ass) to the way-too-hot girl "I doubt that very seriously". "Oh I do" she replied, and followed me into the bathroom.

This year we celebrate our 26th wedding anniversary.

How much does gear matter? In that particular case, it made a world of difference! 😉


p.s. she couldn't have loaded film into that Hasselblad if her very life had depended on it.
 
It's not a constant thing, I would say at the very beginning it doesn't at all. Once you know what you like, it starts to matter, but not in the sense of performance charts or anything nitty gritty like that. I would say finding a format/focal length that suits how you most like to work is what matters the most, not being able to buy any specific lens or body.
 
Gear matters but it’s not the most important ingredient if you’re working to make a living as a business owner in the photography industry. There are other more important items, especialy if you own your own business.

I operated with a minimal amount of equipment. That’s what I thought would work and that’s all I could afford at the beginning of my photography career. I never took out a loan.

As my career in photography got going, I found this to be the correct approach.

I needed help just to make sure my approach got me on a path that would produce success. When I found someone who'd said he would be be my coach and mentor I discovered my ideas were correct. After my first workshop with him back around 2004, bewildered, I asked him if I could succeed in this business. He assured me I would do just fine.

To earn a living with photography a lot more than gear is needed to be successful.

I was in my early fifties and the industry I worked in collapsed.

My pro photography years got to be a very busy time for me. But I enjoyed it and the clients that hired me could tell it.

I’m retired now, making photographs only of family.
 
Having the right type of equipment is important. For example, a Leica M2 vs. a Mamiya RZ67 vs. an 8x10 Chamonix vs. a Polaroid SX-70 vs. a Sony A7R IV vs. a Phase One IQ4 150 on an Alpa 12 Max vs. an Apple iPhone 11 Pro vs. a Fujifilm X-T4, etc. There are so many differences in how you use these cameras, their workflows, and what the possible outputs are that deciding among them is fairly easy and uncontroversial.

Making finer distinctions is where equipment matters less, and this is where the flame wars happen. Leica M6 vs. Leica M2 vs. Contax G2 vs. Zeiss Ikon ZM vs. Voigtländer Bessa R2a vs. Konica Hexar RF vs. Minolta CLE vs. Leica IIIF vs. Canon P, etc. The latest and greatest falls under this category. There's not much practical difference between what you can do with a Fujifilm X-T1 vs. the X-T4, for example, despite the refinements. The thing that matters at that point is learning the peculiarities of your gear (which takes time) so you don't have to be bothered with it anymore. That said, grappling with a new camera can be creatively rewarding, though it's more likely if it's a different type of camera.
 
"How much does gear matter?"

For me, mostly not very much. After a really basic functional level is met. After that, "better" gear might be easier to use, or nicer to look at, or fit my hands better.
What matters about gear to me will likely mean very little to anyone else.

Two examples of that:
First: I have an Intrepid 4x5. Does it matter to me that it's very basic, not especially rigid, and a bit clunky to set up? No. It matters to me that it was affordable, that it is usable, and that it gave me the option to shoot large format. For now, and the foreseeable future, it is still a better camera than I am a LF photographer. My photos that I've made with it are good and getting better.

Second: I also have an Argus C-3. In decent enough condition. And out of the 2 million of them made, it is nothing special. And I only use it about once a year. And I have no desire to own another one. It works but it's a pain to make photos with--sometimes literally if I forget where my fingers are when I press the shutter button. The vf is squinty and separate from the rf, and I've made very few good photos with it.
But of all the cameras in my home, if ever have to rescue one that C-3 is the one. Because it was my grandfather's only camera for all his adult life. He used it to take photos of family and friends, vacations and job sites--he was in the Corp of Engineers til he retired--and , I think, all of his hunting dogs. That specific C-3 matters, to me, very much. As a photographic tool? Not at all.

So, I do think the "gear matters" but not so much in the way that most of us might think.

Rob
 
Kamurah said:
I... I will share a story of how equipment changed my life:
...I was headed to the bathroom (where I kept the film) with the Hassey back, and this absolutely beautiful girl stops me and asks me where I am going? I say "to load some film"...to which she replies, "Oh....I know how to load that!" I said (like a real ass) to the way-too-hot girl "I doubt that very seriously". "Oh I do" she replied, and followed me into the bathroom.

This year we celebrate our 26th wedding anniversary.
Click to expand...

What a great story! Thanks for sharing it.
 
I see equipment in time..before Digital, after digital..
Film: It mattered little what camera, lens used but Film Format.
2-1/4 was way better than 35mm, esp. in Industrial, Fashion, Portraiture
Color was usually transparency (slide) and Ektachrome for the Fat Cameras..
Kodachrome (drum roll) was the big deal in 35mm.
Tri-X was standard.(the original).
My equipment usually 2nd or 4th hand..
Assistant/make-up artist asked "How old my M3 and lens was?"
On hearing answer said "My goodness! Older than Bride's parents.."
Digital. new cameras for all..new,new,new.
I was out of loop, retired after heart excitement.
Had tested waters with Pentax Optio-s, 3.2 MP.
Was good enough for web images and prints to 8x12. inches...
What ever you use, use it well.
Lens tests done by others..never found the things i did using!
Yup! Grain can come from lens..(Erwin Puts agreed).
I hate images (bokeh) of these new super sharp lenses.
I am yet to see a 0.95 image that satisfies..I was allowed to use Pre-production f1.0 Leica.
I love reading about all these "fine" things..
Oh! The guys that made BIG money had Big camera on Big Tripod!
Avedon, Penn, all with studio and staff..
 
Great story from the OP. Does gear matter? All I hear is avoid divorce.
 
Some people like gear. Some people like to take photos.

Sometimes those two things overlap.

On the internet you mostly hear the gear side of things.

Very similar to audiophiles. They talk about gear way more than they talk about music. This seems to be a particularly (but not exclusively) male phenomena.

Means/ends, forests/trees etc...
 
I just think about what HCB and Capa were shooting on every time I think I "need" the latest and greatest. The vast majority of us aren't limited by our gear, we're limited by our ability or training.

Good gear can make things easier for sure but that's not always the best way to learn....
 
Does gear matter? The answer is yes. With qualifiers.
But that is true in many aspects of life.
What we really need is more one armed photographers, so they can’t say; ‘on the other hand’.
 
My most expensive camera is an Ebony 57SUE a 5x7 large format camera. It is so perfect and such a pleasure to use. I set up the tripod, mount the camera, level it with the Linhof cube, open the aperture on the Cooke PS945, attach the dark cloth, compose, focus, recompose, adjust movements, focus, relevel, fine focus, meter, take the photo. I am having fun. Are my photos good? I’ll post some later. Yes gear matters to me a great deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Godfrey
A pleasant few moments today ...
Replies
3
Views
356
chuckroast
C
A
What is the MOST gear you've ever carried on a trip?
2
Replies
34
Views
612
spatumba
spatumba
A
The mystery photographer of '60s San Francisco and undeveloped Kodachrome
Replies
16
Views
1K
bcostin
bcostin
A
Burning Kodachrome slides and erasing history
Replies
8
Views
498
Dogman
Dogman
A
The Quadrant Model of Gear vs Output
Replies
10
Views
657
Guth
G
Back
Top Bottom