Reading mode: Light Dark

Do these people believe their own BS? "it's not the equipment, it's the photographer!"

Go to last post
Chris Malcolm said:
Chris Malcolm wrote --

What has improved is the variety of circumstances in which I can take good photographs.
Click to expand...
Isn't that the truth! These days, inexpensive cameras that can get an autofocus lock in dim light... with sensors large enough to record a decent image in that dim light.

And the miracle of low-cost photo editing software. I like Lightroom, but there are so many others, all making it easy to adjust color balance, bring up shadow detail, so many genuinely useful editing controls.

These are the best of times, and the worst of times, as the saying goes. Jusr when we really start reaping the benefits of digital photography... zap! Here come the smartphone people. Me? I'm so glad to be alive at this juncture of old-camera technology with digital... will be enjoyable for some years to come, before what you and I call 'cameras' disappear...
 
Or at least be tolerant. Forums do get repetitive with the same old questions and the same old answers being frequently re-hashed by different or even the same people.

Anyone can post their views. Sometimes interesting. Often not. Seldom really offensive but often annoying. Good questions and information for the most part but sometimes trolling and sometimes genuinely mistaken views and answers.

Take the rough with the smooth and be tolerant. Best advice I can give, which is worth exactly how much you paid for it, is to be selective in the topics and replies you read and take seriously. There's a life outside the computer, live it.
 
techjedi said:
Yes, there are some shallow responses about person vs gear, you should just ignore them if they don't add to the conversation.

This thread is bottling up the negativity of those responses and unleashing it back on the community for what purpose? If people agree with you, does that improve anything? If they disagree, I think you will feel worse.
Click to expand...
The point of starting this thread is two fold...

1) Challenge the commonly accepted phrase and establish that it's meaningless on a forum such as this

2) Hopefully open some people's eyes to #1 which will (also hopefully) influence the collective thoughts around regurgitating the phrase without thinking critically about the appropriate use of the phrase.

In other words, it's my attempt to lessen the incidence of such posts and HOPEFULLY replace them with something that's actually helpful. I realize that's an uphill battle but hey, communities are what you make them, and at least I'm trying... right?
techjedi said:
The reality is that gear doesn't matter that much except in the most demanding of situations. Most photographers will never be in those situations.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Gear matters often. Let's take a simple example. We have two not overly expensive lenses, the Canon EF-S 15-85 and the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8. If a person using a Canon crop sensor camera wants head and shoulder portraits with shallow depth of field and the ability to melt the background (a VERY common desire), the zoom is NOT the best choice (it will be f/5.6 at 85mm which is 3.33 stops slower), but it's likely the more common choice. Can great portraits be made with it? Of course! But the desired result won't be obtained simply due to the limitation of the aperture. This is a VERY simple prime vs zoom query that could EASILY present itself on the forum. Undoubtedly SOMEONE would respond with "it's not the gear, it's the photographer", right? But the photographer is constant in this situation. The theoretical OP isn't going to go out and hire someone else, they want to create the picture themselves. So they need the right gear.

Another EASY example... A person has a slow zoom and wants to take pictures indoors in dimly lit situations. They don't have supplemental lighting or fast aperture lenses. They need one or both. Simple as that. They're not going to get acceptable results without the right gear. Again, THIS type of situation occurs all the time.

So, these hypotheticals aren't fringe situations. They're constant requests (among many other common requests) for advice on these forums and people spouting off "it's not the gear, it's the photographer" are completely unhelpful and also might fill the OP with doubt, unnecessarily. They might think "Joe Blow forum-guy says 'it's not the gear, it's the photographer' so why can't I create a print-worthy image of this event with my f/5.6 zoom and my decade old DSLR in 0 EV lighting?"

See what I'm getting at? THAT advice/feedback, simply needs to disappear off this forum. IMO, anyway.
techjedi said:
A lot of the responses you see about person vs photographer are a response to the obsessive/compulsive folks that must have the latest specs when, in most cases, wont make a difference in their shooting situations.

Here are some photos taken with the original Canon EOS Digital Rebel from 2003. It was the first affordable mainstream DSLR and its specs are pretty terrible compared to what is available today. That said, it is still capable of great results when your shooting conditions are not demanding:

https://500px.com/search?q=300d&submit=Submit+Query&type=photos

Internet photographers are so spec focused, traditional photographers don't obsess and just go out and make great photos with whatever is available. If you can afford to buy the best and greatest every 6 months, then nitpicking the specs is fine, but the reality is that whatever camera is lying around is good enough the majority of the time.

The one point that I will give you is that if a photographer doesn't care about gear, they probably shouldn't be responding on a gear forum.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: XMN
Jonathan Brady said:
...

"It's not the gear, it's the photographer" is the most obvious statement in the world. OF COURSE the photographer matters the most!!! But it's also the most irrelevant statement in the world when 1 person is comparing different options (which is what gear site participants do). However, it's COMPLETELY relevant if we're comparing photographer A to photographer B.
Click to expand...
IMHO I think it's just misinterpretation of that statement . . .

My take on that statement is that if you had the same camera and you gave it to someone that was into taking pictures and someone that knew nothing about taking pictures . . . the person that was into taking pictures would take a better picture. Thus . . . its not the camera, its the photographer.

And that camera can be a Nikon D5 or it can be a small point-and-shoot. Take the same 2 people and the person into taking pictures will take a better picture (most) of the time! :)
Jonathan Brady said:
I wonder if DPR would be so kind as to automatically ban anyone making this most obvious, yet completely irrelevant statement on their site? ;-) lol
Click to expand...
But some people take this to extreme and its fun!

Loading…

www.youtube.com

Take care & Happy Shooting!
:)
 
Jonathan Brady said:
  1. Really Jonathan Brady wrote:
Glen Barrington said:
But only a fool believes it matters more than the person operating the gear.

--
I look good fat, I'm gonna look good old. . .
http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/
http://glenbarringtonphotos.blogspot.com/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130525321@N05/
Click to expand...
That was the point of my post. 1 person operating setup A or setup B. The person doesn't change. Therefore, the person operating the gear is irrelevant to "what's better, A or B" because the person is constant.
Click to expand...
This is even more silly than the OP bcause if the photographer is irrelevant, than you don't even need one. And all you have to do is go to gear review site and compare camera A to camera B to find out which one is better.

Moti

--
http://www.musicalpix.com
 
Last edited:
for people with little or no technical photography skill, buying better gear might improve the quality of their photography. Today's advanced cameras on Green Auto work in a lot of situations, if simply pointed at the right subjects. Many technical elements that used to require human intention are now factored into the algorithms of Auto and Program. I've seen some surprisingly impressive photos from Green Auto, in our family. That's fine with me.
 
Dennis said:
I read it on a forum.

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
lol! Agreed! And if Ansel Adams was handed an iPhone, and then allowed to choose whatever gear he wanted to create a similar photograph, I guarantee he wouldn't say "nah, the iPhone is all I need" and then whatever he chose would produce a superior photograph to one he created with the iPhone. And that's the point of this thread. GEAR MATTERS, ESPECIALLY when the photographer is the "constant" and the gear is the "variable".
 
Jonathan Brady said:
lol! Agreed! And if Ansel Adams was handed an iPhone, and then allowed to choose whatever gear he wanted to create a similar photograph, I guarantee he wouldn't say "nah, the iPhone is all I need" and then whatever he chose would produce a superior photograph to one he created with the iPhone. And that's the point of this thread. GEAR MATTERS, ESPECIALLY when the photographer is the "constant" and the gear is the "variable".
Click to expand...
Whenever I read those "such and such a great photographer could take better pictures than you with a Holga" ... my reaction is "okay ... and yet such and such a great photographer *doesn't* use a Holga". If it's possible for great photographers to do great things with cheap gear ... why do they generally use the best gear ?

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
 
Dennis said:
Jonathan Brady said:
lol! Agreed! And if Ansel Adams was handed an iPhone, and then allowed to choose whatever gear he wanted to create a similar photograph, I guarantee he wouldn't say "nah, the iPhone is all I need" and then whatever he chose would produce a superior photograph to one he created with the iPhone. And that's the point of this thread. GEAR MATTERS, ESPECIALLY when the photographer is the "constant" and the gear is the "variable".
Click to expand...
Whenever I read those "such and such a great photographer could take better pictures than you with a Holga" ... my reaction is "okay ... and yet such and such a great photographer *doesn't* use a Holga". If it's possible for great photographers to do great things with cheap gear ... why do they generally use the best gear ?

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
Yeah... pretty ironic, huh?

Here's a scenario... Find me the very best astrophotographer in the world. I'll give them the very first cell phone I ever had which had a camera on it. It was a .7mp shooter!! No manual options! WHOA!!! Then, let me go out and pick whatever gear I want. We'll go to wherever they want, and shoot for the night. I have ZERO experience shooting astrophotography, but I guarantee I'll produce better images than them. Why? Because gear matters. And in extreme situations (EXTREMELY RARE and VERY SPECIALIZED - like the ridiculous scenario I just concocted), it actually matters more than skill and talent.
 
That is one recurring problem on any forum which leads to misunderstanding, even selective illiteracy while those in need for information are in for a serious job weeding out and putting together the pieces of truth left.
 
Jonathan Brady said:
Glen Barrington said:
But only a fool believes it matters more than the person operating the gear.
Click to expand...
That was the point of my post. 1 person operating setup A or setup B. The person doesn't change. Therefore, the person operating the gear is irrelevant to "what's better, A or B" because the person is constant.
Click to expand...
Have you, as by the chance, overlooked the person X and a person Y operating the same setup A (or B but not at the same time) and getting different results? Which happens. What is you explanation why would that happen if you stand by your statement 'the person operating the gear is irrelevant to "what's better"' (in this case results)? If true, wouldn't results be constant as the gear is constant and person taken out of the math as irrelevant?

cheers
 
Jonathan Brady said:
Dennis said:
Jonathan Brady said:
lol! Agreed! And if Ansel Adams was handed an iPhone, and then allowed to choose whatever gear he wanted to create a similar photograph, I guarantee he wouldn't say "nah, the iPhone is all I need" and then whatever he chose would produce a superior photograph to one he created with the iPhone. And that's the point of this thread. GEAR MATTERS, ESPECIALLY when the photographer is the "constant" and the gear is the "variable".
Click to expand...
Whenever I read those "such and such a great photographer could take better pictures than you with a Holga" ... my reaction is "okay ... and yet such and such a great photographer *doesn't* use a Holga". If it's possible for great photographers to do great things with cheap gear ... why do they generally use the best gear ?

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
Yeah... pretty ironic, huh?

Here's a scenario... Find me the very best astrophotographer in the world. I'll give them the very first cell phone I ever had which had a camera on it. It was a .7mp shooter!! No manual options! WHOA!!! Then, let me go out and pick whatever gear I want. We'll go to wherever they want, and shoot for the night. I have ZERO experience shooting astrophotography, but I guarantee I'll produce better images than them. Why? Because gear matters. And in extreme situations (EXTREMELY RARE and VERY SPECIALIZED - like the ridiculous scenario I just concocted), it actually matters more than skill and talent.
Click to expand...
I guess, then, it's true that one ridiculous statement deserves another. Again, and again, and again, and again. . .
 
From some of the responses, you might guess who uses that phrase ;-)
 
Last edited:
I actually see ot used to a great extend on the Canon forums any time the issue of DR, or in the pasr, resolution was brought up.
 
IMHO gear approaches irrelevant in most shooting situations for most photographers. So while yes the photographer is a constant when comparing camera X and camera Y for said constant photographer, the reality is that there is likely no practical difference between X and Y and that the photographer, and the people advising him/her, should go do something else more productive with their time than debating the technical merits of two cameras which will likely never be noticed.

After a certain point, the time and energy devoted to "improving" (regardless of what you are improving) become a complete and utter waste of time. Counterproductive even. We have reached that point with cameras for probably over 99% of all serious photographers - to say nothing of people who aren't serious photographers.

Instead of burning time and energy looking for fools gold, use that time and energy on improving composition, or flash technique, or virtually anything else other than whether camera X will do better than camera Y in shooting black cats at night or some similar nonsense.
 
Fool is the good photographer who doesn't know that better equipment will give me more tools to take better pictures

So a photographer who says gear doesn't matter is the fool, I already know he isn't a good photographer if can't even understand how gear factors into making and limiting him.

Ask me why I shoot and I can talk to you for an hour or more about why!

Now if they want to tell me it is good enough.. then I start having hope they might actually know WTH they are doing and might produce some good images, or it is just look with good enough equipment!

Now if I am at a wedding fair with my kids shopping vendors. You always see Harry, Larry, Moe and Jane pro photographer hawking their wears. There pictures are easy to judge, and they will always shot their best stuff, the devil is in the details of how "good" are they really. First thing I'll ask is what they shoot, from there I will poke and see what they say ;-) Trust me I have a lot of thoughts and follow-up for the bloke with the mirrorless or entry level DSLR. Don't get me wrong, I will be all ears when I ask them how they do x or y or z with their equipment. No different when my wife was meet director for the National Junior Olympics and we interviewed photographers, sadly they didn't trust me with my D700 and 70-200VR1 :-(

Another thought a really good pro or amateur, got to ask why they would choose / use equipment that limits them. In the end if you really have a good discussion with a good ( meaning skilled, not good images ) they simply can't not understand the tools, how they limit them and the choice. Of course if they are cheap IE I only budgeted "x" I'm even more curious why I'd hire them if they were a "pro."

A budding hobbiest who loves it, has three kids and say makes 100K a year, I fully appreciate he ain't going to be shooting with the best gear, even more interesting and stupid if he says gear doesn't matter!

--
" Today's Pictures Are Tomorrow's Memories "
 
Last edited:
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