Does your gear matter? No.....but also yes.

[D13H4RD]

To put it in better terms, it depends. 

 

Let's get the most obvious one out of the way. Better gear doesn't make you a better photographer. A Sony A7Riii doesn't magically turn you from an amateur into a photography master. It'll likely make your shots look cleaner and crisper, but if your technique is mediocre, it'll just end up being a cleaner, sharper version of a mediocre shot. 

 

With all that said, the whole "gear doesn't matter" discussion requires some nuance. It is indeed true that photography is much more about how one operates the tools they are given and less about the gear that is being used. However, it also has to be said that in certain applications, the gear that is being used does play a slightly bigger role than usual, although those do not necessarily affect image quality but more in terms of functionality. 

 

Take sports and wildlife shooting. While they are not necessary to shoot sports at all, camera bodies with extremely fast and accurate tracking autofocus alongside fast burst speeds are typically favored when capturing action. And for wildlife, camera bodies with rugged construction are also favored. 

 

Other applications include architectural photography, where an ultra wide angle lens might be more suitable, especially when capturing in confined spaces. 

 

This doesn't extend to videography, where the gear discussion becomes more involved due to the different capabilities of the different camera bodies in regards to how they do video. 

 

To sum it up, whether or not gear matters depends on the type of shooting you do. For a majority of cases, you can compensate for the limitations in your current gear through your skills or some essential pieces of gear such as tripods, but there is indeed a point where you'll get some benefits from added gear. However, these will largely depend on how you shoot and whether you actually need them. 

[narrdarr]

Its called style bra

[D13H4RD]

38 minutes ago, narrdarr said:

Its called style bra

Well, there's one for that 

[gator81]

I believe if someone is just taking pictures to take pictures then gear may not have the importance. If someone really wants to learn photography then gear makes a bigger impact as upgrading gear as your learning levels grow can become very expensive. Not having the best, but quality gear gives the one more chance for growth and I have noticed that people that spend more on gear even when learning will put more effort to learn and take better care of what they have. My wife looking over my shoulder, says that is not always the case as some people give up, as it did not make them instant photographers.

[D13H4RD]

On 3/5/2019 at 9:26 PM, gator81 said:

I believe if someone is just taking pictures to take pictures then gear may not have the importance. If someone really wants to learn photography then gear makes a bigger impact as upgrading gear as your learning levels grow can become very expensive. Not having the best, but quality gear gives the one more chance for growth and I have noticed that people that spend more on gear even when learning will put more effort to learn and take better care of what they have. My wife looking over my shoulder, says that is not always the case as some people give up, as it did not make them instant photographers.

Sums it up quite well.

 

I think the gear has to evolve with the capabilities and the varying demands of the person using it. Casual users probably won’t need such a powerhouse of a camera as their smartphone will probably do casual snaps just fine.

 

But those who perform gigs or want to get into advanced photography, then the conversation flips

[Radium_Angel]

<---- Professional photographer here

 

In the beginning, I used the best/newest gear I could afford (I started out with heavy metal concert photography) but as my skill improved, I found I could do just as much, with older gear.

 

Now that I'm a fetish photographer, one of my favourite cameras is near 20 years old, and digital at that. All my new toys sit gathering dust.

Make of that what you will.

[D13H4RD]

12 hours ago, Radium_Angel said:

<---- Professional photographer here

 

In the beginning, I used the best/newest gear I could afford (I started out with heavy metal concert photography) but as my skill improved, I found I could do just as much, with older gear.

 

Now that I'm a fetish photographer, one of my favourite cameras is near 20 years old, and digital at that. All my new toys sit gathering dust.

Make of that what you will.

I still use my old point and shoots. They're actually still quite fun to use especially once you've evolved your photography knowhow. 

 

Though I don't think gear age is much of a sticking point now. I still have my 5 year old Sony a6000 and while it's no longer the flashiest and is quite a bit grainier at ISO6400 versus my Fujifilm X-T3, I still shoot with it and I still enjoy it. I'm curious over what camera is that at 20 years of age. 

 

Personally, I think the one thing people tend to forget when talking about gear is how it makes the person feel when they're operating it. I always have a soft spot for items that make me feel involved in the process of making something rather than just making me feel like I'm operating a tool. 

[Radium_Angel]

5 hours ago, D13H4RD said:

I'm curious over what camera is that at 20 years of age. 

Nikon D1

[D13H4RD]

1 hour ago, Radium_Angel said:

Nikon D1

How’s it handle still? Really curious on that 

[Radium_Angel]

6 minutes ago, D13H4RD said:

How’s it handle still? Really curious on that 

I love the brick. But in a studio with controlled lighting only. Anything above ISO 125 and you are asking for noise.

On the other hand, running this as a dedicated (converted) IR camera much of the issues with early sensors (overly harsh IR filters) go away

I use an equally ancient Canon 10D also in IR that is a joy to use...again, in the studio, but it has enough MP and ISO range to use outside without too much issue (I can safely run it to ISO400 with some very light NR in photoshop, courtesy of Noise Ninja) 

Conversely, my Nikon D7000 is gathering dust on my shelf, haven't used it since....well I don't recall actually, 2017 perhaps?

 

I still shoot 35mm film, and on some occasions, large format (though the cost and hassle ensures I only do that for certain magazines...)

[D13H4RD]

12 hours ago, Radium_Angel said:

I love the brick. But in a studio with controlled lighting only. Anything above ISO 125 and you are asking for noise.

On the other hand, running this as a dedicated (converted) IR camera much of the issues with early sensors (overly harsh IR filters) go away

I use an equally ancient Canon 10D also in IR that is a joy to use...again, in the studio, but it has enough MP and ISO range to use outside without too much issue (I can safely run it to ISO400 with some very light NR in photoshop, courtesy of Noise Ninja) 

Conversely, my Nikon D7000 is gathering dust on my shelf, haven't used it since....well I don't recall actually, 2017 perhaps?

 

I still shoot 35mm film, and on some occasions, large format (though the cost and hassle ensures I only do that for certain magazines...)

Damn, so you do IR shooting?

 

I’ve been introduced to it by some mates, but haven’t really got into it mostly because I’m not sure if I want to convert one of my cameras for IR use 

[Radium_Angel]

5 hours ago, D13H4RD said:

Damn, so you do IR shooting?

 

I’ve been introduced to it by some mates, but haven’t really got into it mostly because I’m not sure if I want to convert one of my cameras for IR use 

Here is an example of some rated G work I've done (most of my work is rated R) Depending on the lighting I use, and the colour curve in the camera, I can achieve different results. None of these shots are photoshopped in any way, it's all right from the camera.

[D13H4RD]

32 minutes ago, Radium_Angel said:

 

snip

Damn, I’m even more interested now.

 

Just curious though. How much is it to get a camera IR converted?

[Radium_Angel]

3 hours ago, D13H4RD said:

Damn, I’m even more interested now.

 

Just curious though. How much is it to get a camera IR converted?

300-400$ over the cost of the camera.

www.lifepixel.com *only* place to get it done

(there are other places, but i trust LP)

considering you can get a used Nikon D200 body in good condition for ~50$, throw on a 50mm 1.8 for another 50$, you're set. All I use is a 50mm 1.8

[gator81]

I am not trying to put down older or cheaper equipment, I am saying for the person starting out with the desire to learn could see exciting results using mid level camera equipment. More of the videos that are out show mid to higher level equipment and having something alike can also be a benefit because there will be more information on how they used the equipment that you can now relate, while having a greater savings for used lens's, flash and other extras  that could work with what you may have.

[Egg-Roll]

1 hour ago, gator81 said:

I am not trying to put down older or cheaper equipment, I am saying for the person starting out with the desire to learn could see exciting results using mid level camera equipment. More of the videos that are out show mid to higher level equipment and having something alike can also be a benefit because there will be more information on how they used the equipment that you can now relate, while having a greater savings for used lens's, flash and other extras  that could work with what you may have.

I would argue using older equipment is actually better since you have fewer features and pure learning, it's cheaper and ultimately if you don't like it it isn't a huge pocket sink. While I don't own a oldie pro like Radium_Angle I do own a older Canon 300D the features on it are far less than a modern camera. Therefore easier to learn on, and dirt cheap. Maybe buying a 20 year old or even a 15 year old one like mine is a little extreme, but the camera is only a small portion of what makes a picture good. There are people here who still use a Canon 650, a camera as old as Linus simply put and the pictures are stunning.

 

My 300D is no D1 or 1D so I don't expect it to meet or exceed the pictures above but considering its age, it preforms perfectly and with proper conditions just as good as any other camera on the market (less the handful of either hot/stuck pixels or the one dead one which if you look hard enough you should find it with out issues), tho I hate how slow it is, but it forces me not to spray and pray and to actually think when to shoot for the best shot over just push the button and let the camera think for you.

The lens I was using was this one, 2 of the 3 pictures had terrible light and flash was not allowed where the pictures where taken

Spoiler

 

This one is done on my SX40 5 months before getting the 300D

 

I also own a Elan 7 and 2 650's, a S5 IS (that I literally pointed at the sun), among a bunch of random and cheap used P&S cameras that I paid a hand full of bucks each. Each camera can produce wonderful pictures less the film ones as I've not been able to actually test them yet.

 

Truth be told my S5 IS was my first powerful camera then I got the SX40, then got the 300D a few months later to test out SLRs (plus paying 52 USD for the camera, along with $41 USD for the lens and the Elan 7 was a bargain)

[gator81]

And yet I have seen people work with older equipment that had so many problems it discouraged them. It makes me wonder how many of these people could of become great photographers if only they had better equipment. 

I was reading where a man started a couple years ago learning how to take photo's and his work has been shown in magazines already and he said it was the ease of learning that he didn't have with his older cameras.

Please, I am not trying to argue, but from the info that I have learned is the reason I said medium or better.