Photo gear question

[FrankS]

Does anyone really think that owning the highest resolving lens or the "best" camera system, (what does that even mean?), will make their pictures any better?

Any lens suitable for the task, from any major camera brand, is capable of capturing what the photographer can envision (within the realm of physics and reality).

It is the photographers' skill and vision that is the weakest link in the chain here.

Reading questions lately about intermediate shutter speeds to get precise exposure (again, what is that?) and brand x being better than brand y has made me shake my head. That college professor mentioned in this regard was a dork.

So rather than highjack a gear thread asking a specific gear question, (sorry about that), here is a new thread with a new question.

Rant off.

 

[Lauffray]

How long have you been on this forum ? 😀

 

[ray*j*gun]

I suppose it depends on the type of photography.... for example product shots and fashion pics had better be razor sharp with edge to edge precession. In these cases the success of the shots has to do with technical shock and awe and color crispness. Mood photography can and often does succeed with much less demanding technique. So, if your going to shoot a fashion spread don't show up with Holga lol.

 

[back alley]

like knives to a chef…or maybe pots and pans…the best gear for the job makes the job easier and perhaps more enjoyable.
this might affect the meal being prepared.
or it might not.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . It is the photographers' skill and vision that is the weakest link in the chain here. . . .

Dear Frank,

One further qualification to "skill and vision": choosing the right camera/lens for the job OR suiting his/her "skill and vision" to the equipment available.

Some don't.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Lens wise here is no simple answer. If picture is to represent unique moment, it could be any lens and camera.
But I'm not in the news and street hardcore crowd. Working in the broadcast for two decades I have enough crappy images at work.
So, photography to me is something different to achieve.
This is why digital croppers would never replace 35mm perspective for me.
I'm fine with someone who just need the picture. I do it also with my phone.
But then, it is question if you could see the lens, format difference.
If someone can't they don't have to push it on those who are capable to see more.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I've used lenses and cameras that were technically much better than those used by Cartier-Bresson, Capa, Seiff, Huet, P.J. Griffiths, Burrows, and the list goes on. But I've not come close to their work and I've been shooting nearly daily for almost twenty years.

So, no. I don't think gear amounts to a hill of beans. It may make my work easier or add a signature look to my images but if I don't have the chops to really make use of the gear like great photographers before me, the quality of the gear doesn't matter at all.

Philip Jone's Griffiths' lenses have forgotten more about photography than I know right now, and lenses don't really know anything.

Phil Forrest

 

[kxl]

I use the gear that I think will bring my vision to life; if I do not already have that gear, I purchase it. If purchasing additional gear means I have limited vision or limited skill to make do with what I have, so be it.

 

[segedi]

Do I know that the camera/lens/technology doesn't matter?
Yes.

Do I still want the the camera and lens that outresolve my abilities?
Yes.

 

[hausen]

Another factor for me is enjoying the process and I enjoy using good gear.

 

[DominikDUK]

I suppose it depends on the type of photography.... for example product shots and fashion pics had better be razor sharp with edge to edge precession. In these cases the success of the shots has to do with technical shock and awe and color crispness. Mood photography can and often does succeed with much less demanding technique. So, if your going to shoot a fashion spread don't show up with Holga lol.

I agree with ray j gun regarding product shots and the overall tenor of his post but absolutely not regarding fashion shots. First there are Fashion spreads done with the Holga quiet successfuly I might ad, also take a look at Paolo Roversi's work sharpness doesn't even come into the equation. Richardson and his PS work. Product shots usually require good sharp lenses repro work even more so but in reality mediocre lenses suffise for 90% of all photographic work for the simple reason that the weakest link is the person tripping the shutter. Most Pro'S use certain Brands not because they need them but because the client expects them to use them and gets somewhat unsettled if he sees a photographer with a cheap PS.

To quote Roger's Post "choosing the right camera/lens for the job OR suiting his/her "skill and vision" to the equipment available." applies to my way of lens and camera buying getting the right tool for the job and my vision

 

[jsrockit]

It feels good to be out with nice gear... but ultimately, it should not be a detriment to what you want to accomplish with your photography. However, for some, just being out messing with the perfect gear is their enjoyment (with photographic output being a second). That's not a diss either... people should be able to enjoy photography in any manner they feel does it for them.

I love using Leica from an emotional standpoint... it's beautiful, feels good in your hands, etc. However, I had to be honest with myself and I realized that minimum focus of .7 meters and lack of high ISO (pre 240) just wasn't doing it for me anymore. Especially when cheaper cameras were available to let me do exactly what I want to accomplish.

 

[gb hill]

I like the characteristics of older lenses. Knowing how to use them to your advantage is key to a good photograph. As good as modern day lenses are most seem to lack the character of older lenses. There are many users here on RFF that use FSU lenses that are very good. I think I even have a few of them & I agree Frank, their biggest limitation is the one holding the camera, me.😉

 

[Dwig]

Does anyone really think that owning the highest resolving lens or the "best" camera system, (what does that even mean?), will make their pictures any better? ...

As W. Jerome Harrison said some 125 years ago:

"But with the practice of photography came the sad knowledge that there is no royal road to the taking of good pictures. Although money might be lavishly spent in the purchase of costly apparatus, yet it was soon found that some knowledge of chemistry, and some artistic taste, together with practice in manipulation, and neatness and accuracy in working, were indispensable to success."

History of Photography, 1887, page 41​

 

[airfrogusmc]

"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE."- Ernst Haas

 

[Murchu]

Way I see it, the key elements at play with any image are the conception, capture, technical quality, and finishing of that image.

Conceiving the image is where the photographers eye, vision and ways of working come in. In capturing it, the photographers technical skills, and the ergonomics and nature of the camera they are using, are the two key factors. Once captured, the lens and sensor/ film stock & format, will dictate the ultimate technical quality of that image. Finally, post production skill, the image output medium and the technical qualities of that output medium dictate the images ultimate perceived quality.

If anyone wants to improve their images, they need to to focus on the weak points in the process. Equipment is very much only one piece of the overall imaging puzzle..

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

You can pretend that gear doesn't matter all you want until someone asks to buy a large print and you have to tell them "Sorry, but it'll suck at that size because I shot it with a 6mp camera and crappy kit lens." Oops, there goes several hundred dollars and your professional reputation!

The fact is that choosing the right equipment is of the basic skills needed to make a good photograph. That means knowing what you need to get the job done and not compromising.

 

[btgc]

get the best forget the rest, isn't this right?

especially when everyone is free to define what is best for himself.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

get the best forget the rest, isn't this right?

especially when everyone is free to define what is best for himself.

That's basically how I see it. Get the best you can afford, actually. Cheap stuff is cheap for a reason. It may be lower image quality, it may be poor build quality/reliability, and often the cheap stuff is less ergonomic. In any case, I find pro level gear is much faster and easier to work with.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

FWIW, I think the audience/client comes into it lot. My wife hates razor sharp lenses as do a lot of young(er) ladies. But for some technical subjects it's important.

But for a lot of people, who knows? I've test shots and prints done on A3+ at 100dpi, 5 megapixel shots at 24" by 18" and the same made of four overlapping quarters done on photocopier paper. No one seems to notice anything "wrong" with them. Mostly they look at the subject.

I've also a brilliant drawing done in B&W using pencil that I bought because I loved it. Several people have looked at it and asked why I didn't use colour film...

So what do they know? And does what I know matter to them? I think they just register the subject; hence the advice years ago about sticking to children and animals.

Regards, David