Reading mode: Light Dark

If gears don't matter, why do pros use expensive stuff?

Go to last post
K

KennethKwok

Leading Member
Messages
998
Reaction score
17
Location
Hong Kong, HK
I am guessing, as I don't really know a pro photographer in person.

But it seems the although "Camera does not matter."
"Gears don't matter"

Every experienced posters who say these own the most expensive
gear. E.g. f/2.8 zooms.

So it keeps me wondering. I don't mean to say they are telling lies.
I think they have good intention. But, these posters ALL have expensive
gears.
 
Expensive gear offers more options and control, and better quality. A creative photographer can take a good picture with a $5 camera but there are many shots that are just very difficult or impossible with a $5 camera.

A camera is a tool and just like any other tool a well built, well designed tool will allow me to use it for its function better faster longer. Imagine a screw driver, I could buy a cheap 6" hand tool or a expensive power drill with screwdriver bits and a high quality screwdriver hand tool set. The expensive option will allow me to work faster and work more situations, but that doesn't mean I can't do 95% of the same thing with the cheap option.

And then there is Durablity... A pro cannot afford to work with equipment that is not quality.
--

 
IMHO, 90% of the general public will never learn enough about photography to be able to shoot better pics than what your average entry-level DLSR can provide... Another 9% have the talent, skill, and desire to get the most out of a mid-level dSLR, but only about 1% have what it takes to REALLY NEED that top-tier camera....

I remember a poll about driving - 90% of drivers think they are above average... I bet the same applys here - 90% of photogs think they are in that 9%... and I bet half think they because they have sold a pic or two (or want to), they are in that 1% too...

In racing, they say, "you can buy horsepower, but you can't by skill" - that applies here too...

:)
--
Current digital camera: my cell phone
And now a SP-570!
 
But a pro is competing with everyone else for the money. If the most expensive "stuff" gives him even the tiniest edge over someone else it may be worth it to him.

Sometimes the gear is "company owned" and he has no choice.

Sometimes it is a confidence builder.

The amateurs who buy the big guns do so because they can and want you to know it. Most (not all) won't use even a basic camera to its limits.

--
If you think that makes sense, then you must have read someone else's post!
 
If you're shooting candid portraits on the street, you probably don't need a 600mm lens coupled with 8fps and a really fast tracking AF system.

If you're shooting a professional football game, in the evening, you probably should aim a little higher than a Digital Rebel with the kit lens (despite what those ridiculous commercials imply). That 'rebel with kit lens' also isn't going to be very useful for -most- birds in flight, since if they're at any kind of altitude at all, they're going to be mere specks in the frame.
 
Yes, I suppose I would believe camera doesn't matter only
if all pros use a cheap camera.
As you said, expensive cameras do have features/abilities
that lesser ones don't.
 
Pro's use expensive gear for two reasons, reliability and low light capability.
 
I think the way that it should be said is "The camera doesn't matter if you don't know what you are doing."

In other words, buying the best gear on the planet won't help you much if you don't know how to use it. Having all f2.8 glass is of no advantage if you don't know when to change the working aperture to something below f4.

Oh you may still get some stunning shots in good conditions, but even without the skills, you could be getting the same keepers with a much cheaper camera. When conditions aren't as favorable is where the skill factor comes in. Better gear matters when you know how to take advantage of it. Better gear doesn't help at all if you leave it on Auto.

By the way, I often reccomend higher than average gear if I think the person asking has the potential to make use of it. Always give yourself growing room. But if you just "want something that takes good pictures without me having to fiddle with it" like a lot of people, then the camera really doesn't matter. Most will do just fine in the situations where any camera will work. None will work well in the harsh situations if the users is clueless.

Hope that helps.

--
Chefziggy
http://www.pbase.com/chefziggy/lecream

 
In addition, they are making money on their photos. As others have said, the majority of us are doing it for fun. They are using the best "tools" for thier trade.

--
Mike

 
KennethKwok said:
Every experienced posters who say these own the most expensive
gear. E.g. f/2.8 zooms.
Click to expand...
It's all relative. My backup camera has a F2.8 zoom on it -- 35-420mm with F2.8 throughout. It's a Panasonic FZ1 that cost me under $300.

Seriously, I think what most people who say that are trying to say is that a good photographer can likely make good use out of just about anything, but a bad photographers lacking skills are not likely to improve much by throwing $15,000 worth of gear at him.

For what it's worth, I've seen plenty of professional caliber results posted here from people owning my same camera -- a Panasonic FZ50 point-n-shoot/"bridge" camera that cost me $412. As long as I continue to see people getting shots like those, I'll be more than happy to use my "cheap" gear and strive to improve my photography skills so that I can finally get similar results.

--
Chris
Effzeeone now has a Effzeefifty!
(Gear in profile)
Wanted: DSLR that does everything my FZ50 does (I'm patient)

 
I understand the need for more expensive gear... I just want to see what comes out of this:

How about the old time photographers, such as Cartier Bresson, or other sports and wild life photographers, who were able to take pictures with cameras that, though expensive for their time, for todays standards they would be a cheap thing? They had no 10fps camera with a light(er) carbon fibre 500mm F2.8 glass with the same quality as today and an VR/IS system for a soccer match. Nor could they change ISO or see the pictures they had doubts that they took (though not exclusive of expensive cameras).

What are your opinions?

--
Felipe Teixeira

Fuji A310 (drowned)
Oly C770 (stolen)
Nikkormat (shutter won't work)
Nikon FM - Nikkor 50mm F1.8 (gotta love it)
Nikon D40 + kit (so far, so good)

http://terrera.multiply.com
 
okay, you want to learn to play guitar and you have a friend who's a very good guitarist and a professional musician. so you ask him or her to recommend a guitar. of course, they're going to say to you just get something decentish and basic. they're most likely not going to tell you to get some custom-made insanely expensive one. you might not enjoy learning... you might not be particularly good at it... you might not enjoy practicing...

a professional musician, and a good musician knows what's involved in getting there. they might have wonderful instruments but having wonderful instruments doesn't make for a good musician. that's something you can't buy. good photographers who say "the camera doesn't matter" and have great gear aren't hypocrites. it's just they know it takes more than great gear.
 
I know a few professionals that put expensive lenses onto fairly basic bodies, on the view that the lens matters more to image quality than the body. This is especially true if they need several back up bodies, or like to have several camera/lens combinations pre-mounted and ready to use instantaneously.

Then there are award winning photojournalists that have used compact P&S cameras.

And there are artists still shooting wall-sized scenes on old-fashioned film view cameras (cheap to buy nowadays), that sell the prints for $10,00 and up.

However, I do agree with the line of thought that most wedding photogs get better respect from the crowd with a more impressive camera/gear, especially as so many wedding guests will now show up with a Canon 40D or similar.

All of these thoughts are in addition to the excellent points made above by others. In the short answer, you need to pick horses for courses...
--
Robert
Olympus E-3 & E-500, 7-14mm, 14-54mm, 40-150mm, 30mm
Olympus 1030SW P&S
Yashica Lynx-1000
 
View Cam is camera that uses 4" x 6" film right? Or even larger?
I suppose View Cam is regarded higher quality
than hasselblad, any Canon, Nikon.
Robert999 said:
And there are artists still shooting wall-sized scenes on
old-fashioned film view cameras (cheap to buy nowadays), that sell
the prints for $10,00 and up.
Click to expand...
 
KennethKwok said:
Robert999 said:
And there are artists still shooting wall-sized scenes on
old-fashioned film view cameras (cheap to buy nowadays), that sell
the prints for $10,00 and up.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The standard sheet film size is 4"X5". There are, for some unknown reason, smaller sizes, and you can get bigger sizes like 8"X10".

A view camera is a camera where you set it up on a tripod and compose the picture on a ground glass-that's an actual sheet of frosted glass located where the film goes. After you're satisfied with the composition and focus, you put a film holder in and then expose the film.

As you can imagine from the above description, using a view camera is a slow-paced activity. But you can't beat the quality. A 4"X5" negative is far bigger than the 2-1/4" square Hasselblad negative and immense compared to 35mm or APS digital. If you want the best sharpness (and your subject isn't moving), you can't do better than a view camera.

You can also, for ridiculous amounts of money, get digital backs for view cameras. These produce spectacular results too. I'm not sure if they're better than film but they're very good.

In the days of film, I shot a lot of 4X5 and some 8X10. What's good about large format is that it's easy to get great quality. It's very hard to ruin a 4X5 negative and Tri-X when it's that big doesn't have any grain. And a 4X5 Ektachrome seems to glow in its own light.

--
Leonard Migliore
 
Easy to explain using cars as an example. A pro rally driver can drive your car better and faster than you. But your car is not suitable to win a rally, regardless of HIS talents. Similarly, a pro photographer can take great pictures with a basic camera. But...

http://lordofthelens.co.nz/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top