I have some bad news about gear...

[alan davus]

Most of us here have been around long enough to know that crappy photographic gear can take good photos and good gear can take crappy photos (in the right/wrong hands). But given the choice (and funds) I think most of us would prefer to use good gear.

 

[andy_v]

The photo I consider to be my best was taken with Zorki-S and Industar-50)

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

"Most viewed" is not a relevant statistic unless your photographic pursuits are purely superficial.

I'm sure many photographers' most popular image might be an image of 'opportunity.' That doesn't mean we should plan and structure our kits based on unpredictable phenomena.

When people say "the gear doesn't matter," it's only true when the photographer either doesn't have a specific objective, or the objective is insignificant. If you are trying to make photographs like Karsh, you are going to be quite unsatisfied by going about it with a Nikonos. If you want to shoot jellyfish, an 8x10 is probably going to give you fits. Either device can make an amazing photograph. But, i would suggest that it "matters" which one is used.

 

[Rogier]

Its not about the gear its about the image you create.
Imperfections create character!

Guess that's why every one likes my Holga shots best 😱

 

[leicashot]

Anyone thinking more expensive gear = better pictures is delusional 😉

 

[jsrockit]

I'm wondering why we don't all sell our expensive gear and use dirt cheap gear?

 

[unixrevolution]

Expensive gear may not be the end-all be-all, but for some of the things we want to do, there is simply no other way to get there.

For an image that might as well be taken with a pocket digital as a 4x5, the pocket digital is probably what you were carrying.

 

[x-ray]

When people say "the gear doesn't matter," it's only true when the photographer either doesn't have a specific objective, or the objective is insignificant. If you are trying to make photographs like Karsh, you are going to be quite unsatisfied by going about it with a Nikonos. If you want to shoot jellyfish, an 8x10 is probably going to give you fits. Either device can make an amazing photograph. But, i would suggest that it "matters" which one is used.

I think you missed something here. It's about the level of gear within a format not within the entire universe of gear. Certainly if you want to shoot sharp images with the ultimate tonality in B&W like Karsh you would never choose a 35mm camera. The point is you can use any solid light tight 8x10 with a wide variety and quality range of lenses and come up with similar results provided you know what you're doing.

I spent the first thirty plus years of my career shooting most of my catalog work on 4x5, 8x10 and 11x14 formats. I shot a Sinar Norma 4x5, 8x10 Deardorff and 11x14 B&J. I sold all but my Norma and bought a 80 year old Kodak 8x10 IID for my personal work. Guess what, I can make exactly the same quality images with the IID that I did with my Deardorff.

I'm preparing about sixty images of my documentary work for a book. Some were shot with my leica MP's and modern leica glass and others with my F2 and 60's vintage glass and some with a Zeiss ZM and modern glass. Guess what, no difference in image quality. My F2 / vintage Nikon glass images have just as much impact and are just as good as my Leica images. I could not even tell which were shot with what if I didn't remember I was shooting one camera at any given time.

If it's all about being a gear head fine but the rest of us that understand that equipment is a small part of the equation will continue to make excellent images with whatever we have in our hands at the moment. Think about this, if it was all about gear how did anyone make superb images in the 1800's and early 20th century or for that matter without a Leica.

 

[Vics]

My most viewed pic on my flickr is one I shot from a hotel room balcony, just shooting off the last few frames in anticipation of an early morning flight. Took a wild guess at the exposure. Could have shot it with anything.

Paris par nuit by travlrs2, on Flickr

 

[PhillipAbbott]

For me it just comes down to shooting style. I behave differently with my stylus epic in my hands than I do with my zeiss ikon. This has nothing to do with the quality of the gear of even subject matter.

 

[Matus]

Well, according to Flickr, the most my most interesting shots were taken by Mamiya 6, tachihara 4x5 and Rolleiflex T and are indeed some of my better (if not best) shots. However the 3 most viewed photos of mine are photos of gear ... oh well.

I bet that if I used my DSLR to shoot some cute chicks in abandoned rural places that those would rule (even if the artistic value would be minimal). I would say that subject matters when it comes to visibility 😛

 

[Teuthida]

I was looking through my gallery a moment ago. The two most viewed images I have were taken with gear that would not impress anyone.

One image was shot with a scale focus Nikonos III. The other was shot with a Nikon P7000 P&S.

It just goes to show it's not ALL about the gear. Please don't flame me; I love my rangefinders (and my evil DSLR). I just thought there was irony in the fact that my two most viewed images were made with rather nondescript (and inexpensive) equipment.

You've JUST figured this out?

 

[sanmich]

I don't think decent pictures can consistently be taken with crappy gear, unless you are after a very specific effect (holga etc.). I do appreciate sharpness, resistance to flare, lack of distortion etc...
That being said, the threshold to decent gear on film is very low. You can get a very good film SLR+50mm f/2 for peanuts. These are cheap. They are not crap.

 

[redisburning]

my most viewed images were shot on my rokkor 58mm f1.2

not surprised, frankly. cute girls, portra 160nc + BOKEH is a winning formula I guess.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

I think you missed something here. It's about the level of gear within a format not within the entire universe of gear.

Dude, what are you talking about? I made a simple example, between a Nikonos and an 8x10, and you're talking about brand variations between 8x10 cameras. I'm presuming you've used the same lens with both of your 8x10 frames.

I'm pretty sure you're trying to say the same thing i said.

 

[Shade]

Gears are there to make things easier for you. Its just like a pen, no matter what pen you use, its your writing that counts. Then it depends on what pen do you use, a fountain pen or a sharpie, then you writing will have different characteristic, but the same message.

 

[TXForester]

I think it goes both ways. Certain types of photos need a minimum level of quality, so better gear is important. Of course this doesn't take the place of skill. Landscapes often fit this type of photo.

For other photos the gear is less important. Photographer's skill, being in the right place at the right time and catching the decisive moment can add up to a great photo with almost any camera. Many street photos fit here. Some of the best street photos I've seen have "flaws" and better equipment would not make the photo any better.

 

[claacct]

Preoccupation with photography gear is a hobby into itself. And most often the person who started as a photography-hobbyist gets bored of photography and instead gets into the photography gear hobby, and every now and then takes a few photos to satisfy his guilty conscience.

 

[jonmanjiro]

Preoccupation with photography gear is a hobby into itself. And most often the person who started as a photography-hobbyist gets bored of photography and instead gets into the photography gear hobby, and every now and then takes a few photos to satisfy his guilty conscience.

Not everyone with a photography gear hobby has a guilty conscience 😉😀