The "gear does/doesn't matter" argument

[SK_photography]

A recent thread about photography got a bit sidetracked by a debate about gear and formats. I've seen a few versions of the same argument on these forums. People seem to argue about extreme position, which both seem nonsensical to me:

1. Equipment doesn't make any difference at all, or
2. You need an expensive camera to take a good photo,

It seems obvious that there are some photographs that could only have been taken with very specialist equipment, while at the same time there are many famous, classic photos that were taken with very simple, basic cameras.

A good example might be Stephen Shore, who has had one very famous photographic exhibition (American Surfaces) taken with a simple 35 mm compact, and another equally famous work (Uncommon Places) taken mostly using an 8x10 view camera. You can't say that he didn't care about gear, because he used the equipment he needed to get the results that he wanted. At the same time, he knew how to take great photos with a basic camera.

So I'm never quite sure what the argument is about - or do people just like arguing for its own sake?

S.

 

[justmeMN]

SK_photography wrote:...or do people just like arguing for its own sake?

I thought that was the purpose of the internet.

 

[KarmaAndLies]

If you have unlimited time, skill, or luck you don't need good gear.

If however you want to make up for a deficit of the three good gear helps sometimes a little, sometimes a lot.

I can hand a newbie a Olympus 300mm F/4.0, put them in a wildlife rich location, and have them shooting breathtaking pictures in an hour (even on full auto). No way I can do the same with any kit lens, but you put a newbie with the 300 F/4.0 against a seasoned pro + kit lens and the pro may still win.

 

[tony field]

As long as your subject material is appropriate for the shooting envelope of the camera and lenses you are using, equipment doesn't really matter. Just don't try to shoot birds in flight from 40 M away with your Leica rangefinder and 50 millimetre lens.

--
Charles Darwin: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
tony

 

[Darrian K]

A recent thread about photography got a bit sidetracked by a debate about gear and formats. I've seen a few versions of the same argument on these forums. People seem to argue about extreme position, which both seem nonsensical to me:

1. Equipment doesn't make any difference at all, or
2. You need an expensive camera to take a good photo,

It seems obvious that there are some photographs that could only have been taken with very specialist equipment, while at the same time there are many famous, classic photos that were taken with very simple, basic cameras.

A good example might be Stephen Shore, who has had one very famous photographic exhibition (American Surfaces) taken with a simple 35 mm compact, and another equally famous work (Uncommon Places) taken mostly using an 8x10 view camera. You can't say that he didn't care about gear, because he used the equipment he needed to get the results that he wanted. At the same time, he knew how to take great photos with a basic camera.

So I'm never quite sure what the argument is about - or do people just like arguing for its own sake?

S.

These kinds of stupid arguments are everywhere, a good example would be nature versus nurture.

Usually the truth is both matter.

 

[Mark S Abeln]

People seem to argue about extreme position, which both seem nonsensical to me:

1. Equipment doesn't make any difference at all, or
2. You need an expensive camera to take a good photo,

It seems obvious that there are some photographs that could only have been taken with very specialist equipment, while at the same time there are many famous, classic photos that were taken with very simple, basic cameras.

Both positions are partly true, to an extent. Neither are universally true in every case.

So I'm never quite sure what the argument is about - or do people just like arguing for its own sake?

A lot of civilians think that the quality of the camera determines the outcome in photography, and we see that frequently on these forums, where some beginning-to-intermediate photographer thinks that he needs some expensive, high-end camera and lens for their photography, blaming their current poor quality of images on their existing gear. If anything, a new camera could very likely lead to *worse* quality images if the photographer doesn't put forth the effort into understanding the art.

It takes a lot of effort convincing someone that this isn't true, especially if they can easily afford it. Some may even think that their photography must be good because their camera is good. So it is tempting to tell them that the camera does not matter, and it is usually possible that low-end gear, in the right hands, is completely capable of doing better work.

But on the other hand, you have some beginners who want to do difficult genres of photography, such as birds in flight or extreme macro, or who want very specific effects, such as shallow depth of field on full-length portraits, or clean images in very low light. It is difficult to do these well without spending good money on high-end gear. They want to do things with their low-end camera that simply isn't possible. So what happens is that folks here try to dissuade them in their vague dreaming by telling them how expensive it will be.

 

[J A C S]

A recent thread about photography got a bit sidetracked by a debate about gear and formats. I've seen a few versions of the same argument on these forums. People seem to argue about extreme position, which both seem nonsensical to me:

1. Equipment doesn't make any difference at all, or
2. You need an expensive camera to take a good photo,

I have never seen anybody arguing (2).

 

[nikpharm]

A recent thread about photography got a bit sidetracked by a debate about gear and formats. I've seen a few versions of the same argument on these forums. People seem to argue about extreme position, which both seem nonsensical to me:

1. Equipment doesn't make any difference at all, or
2. You need an expensive camera to take a good photo,

It seems obvious that there are some photographs that could only have been taken with very specialist equipment, while at the same time there are many famous, classic photos that were taken with very simple, basic cameras.

A good example might be Stephen Shore, who has had one very famous photographic exhibition (American Surfaces) taken with a simple 35 mm compact, and another equally famous work (Uncommon Places) taken mostly using an 8x10 view camera. You can't say that he didn't care about gear, because he used the equipment he needed to get the results that he wanted. At the same time, he knew how to take great photos with a basic camera.

So I'm never quite sure what the argument is about - or do people just like arguing for its own sake?

S.

Right tools with right accessories are needed for any job or task to be done professionally, comprehensively and completely, meeting the standards and expectations, thereby giving best possible result.

--
Regards
MK

 

[SK_photography]

As long as your subject material is appropriate for the shooting envelope of the camera and lenses you are using, equipment doesn't really matter. Just don't try to shoot birds in flight from 40 M away with your Leica rangefinder and 50 millimetre lens.

That sort of sums up my feelings on the subject. If you sent Bert Hardy off to a bird sanctuary with a Leica + 50 mm lens, he wouldn't come back with a set of mediocre bird shots - he'd probably chat up a pretty girl working in the place and take some nice photos of her!

A good photographer will take nice photos whatever gear they have - they just might not be the photos you expect!

S.

 

[trungtran]

If you are making "art", gear doesn't matter.

If you are getting "paid to deliver", gear does matter.

If you can afford it it, buy the best gear, YOLO

 

[Phil A Martin]

A recent thread about photography got a bit sidetracked by a debate about gear and formats. I've seen a few versions of the same argument on these forums. People seem to argue about extreme position, which both seem nonsensical to me:

1. Equipment doesn't make any difference at all, or
2. You need an expensive camera to take a good photo,

It seems obvious that there are some photographs that could only have been taken with very specialist equipment, while at the same time there are many famous, classic photos that were taken with very simple, basic cameras.

A good example might be Stephen Shore, who has had one very famous photographic exhibition (American Surfaces) taken with a simple 35 mm compact, and another equally famous work (Uncommon Places) taken mostly using an 8x10 view camera. You can't say that he didn't care about gear, because he used the equipment he needed to get the results that he wanted. At the same time, he knew how to take great photos with a basic camera.

So I'm never quite sure what the argument is about - or do people just like arguing for its own sake?

S.

This has little to do with photography and much to do with self justification reinforced by marketing. Remember, the primary motivation for many here, appears to be gear acquisition and not photography and they use point #2 as the excuse.

 

[bastibe]

I think Mark Scott Abeln summed it up nicely.

That said, I would add that better gear makes photography easier for beginners. On my APS-C body I need to watch my highlights much less closely than on my 1-inch compact. Autofocus of newer gear is more reliable, leading to fewer misfocused shots. Newer stabilization systems are generally better as well.

Thus, I am of the perhaps somewhat controversial opinion that *for new photographers*, a somewhat big-sensor, new-ish camera is probably better than an older, more basic kit. In other words, gear does matter.

This becomes less true with more experience, though. A seasoned photographer can often easily compensate for limitations of gear (within reason), and other factors become more important.

 

[newnorm]

A recent thread about photography got a bit sidetracked by a debate about gear and formats. I've seen a few versions of the same argument on these forums. People seem to argue about extreme position, which both seem nonsensical to me:

1. Equipment doesn't make any difference at all, or
2. You need an expensive camera to take a good photo,

It seems obvious that there are some photographs that could only have been taken with very specialist equipment, while at the same time there are many famous, classic photos that were taken with very simple, basic cameras.

A good example might be Stephen Shore, who has had one very famous photographic exhibition (American Surfaces) taken with a simple 35 mm compact, and another equally famous work (Uncommon Places) taken mostly using an 8x10 view camera. You can't say that he didn't care about gear, because he used the equipment he needed to get the results that he wanted. At the same time, he knew how to take great photos with a basic camera.

So I'm never quite sure what the argument is about - or do people just like arguing for its own sake?

S.

Gear matters for a specific type of photo you required. For example, you need a macro lens to shoot macro photography. You need a telephoto lens to shoot a close up face of a lion, etc.

Now, once you have the required gears to do the job, it doesn't matter anymore, as creativity is now superseding the gear.

Why do we have to debate this thing all over again is beyond my understanding.

 

[WongRQ]

I think the quote "gear does/doesn't matter" is, while not obvious, possibly misleading.

I think it should be "upgrading gear is/is not worth it".

2 actions, but both are similar in certain ways. Why is the first quote misleading? People say "gear matters" and the whole world goes to the ExpertPhotography guy who managed to take stunning photos with an entry-level camera. But once people say "gear doesn't matter" then the wildlife and sports photographers will question that statement.

Hence what's more suitable is whether upgrading the gear is worth it or not. If you're a landscape photographer, do you really need a very high frame rate? Maybe not. If you're a wildlife photographer, you do need long glass and high frame rate shooting.

Hence I find the word "matter" has brought about misconceptions and arguments that shouldn't even take place at all.

 

[kodakrome]

One reason that gear matters is because size matters.

Everyone knows that all gear is not the same size.

Large sensors and large lenses will have capabilities that tiny sensors and tiny lenses don't have.

Size always matters. That's why Godzilla is not afraid of Chucky.

 

[All Bushs Fault]

So I'm never quite sure what the argument is about - or do people just like arguing for its own sake?

 

[New Day Rising]

Gear doesn't matter unless it does.

 

[Sony Influencer]

So I'm never quite sure what the argument is about - or do people just like arguing for its own sake?

S.

There is a heavy tech side to photography and when it's about tech males can be very sensitive and defensive. It's the same with cellphone brands, pc equipment brands, car brands or your favorite sports team. But there is also a heavy art side to photography and while you can easily buy cameras or lenses and then own them, you can't buy a feel for the art of photography. You can buy the camera equipment of the best portrait photographers but you can't buy their skills, knowledge and mindset from one second to the other when it comes to photos.

And it doesn't end with cameras and lenses. Depending on what genre you're shooting, editing and lighting has become more and more accessible and important. In portrait photography you can already do much with cheap lighting setups.

 

[yardcoyote]

What matters isn't the "quality" of the gear, in the sense of it being the most expensive or the brand that scores best in laboratory tests. What matters is your understanding of your camera and lenses, what they can do and what they can't do, and how to manipulate them to get them to give you results that match your ideas as closely as possible.

That can only come with practice, which probably means you should chose gear that you actively enjoy using.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

This thread appears every week in here, over and over.