He makes a very good point!

[YesDear]

We get into very good and spirited conversations here about equipment and lenses from time to time. As predominately amateurs here. we often have limited resources. Scott Kelby made a several very good observations on his internet TV show, The Grid this week. Really good show by the way!

He was talking about some of the hard truths about photography today. Now Scott plays in a totally different league than I do equipment and resource wise. One of his comments was that you can give Joe McNally an $50 point and shoot and a box of matches and he will make something amazing out of it. Talent trumps technology all the time.

He also made the point that sometimes... sometimes if you want a particular look or feel to a photograph you need a specific lens. He makes two examples. Scott shoots Nikon so I will use them for the example but it applies to other brands as well.

He says there is a particular look the Nikon 300mm 2.8 has to it that no other lens has. A Nikon 300mm 4.0 sells for about $1600. The 2.8 sells for $5300! He then says if you want the look other professionals have in their wedding portraits, it requires the 85 1.4. That sells for $1700 where the 1.8 sells for $500.

His bottom line point was that sometimes it IS the equipment that makes the difference for a particular look, but you still have to have the knowledge as to how to use it!

So I guess us amateurs can still have an excuse to dream about the really good glass and not feel bad about it. Just as long as you don't tell my wife!!!!!

 

[Experiment_626]

I read a blog entry yesterday from "our own" William Beem making essentially the same point. If gear didn't matter on some level, photography would be a much cheaper pursuit.

Following is a link to the blog — I found it yesterday. I read numerous entries there yesterday, in fact, and found it generally thoughtful and well-written. I really needed to find something new online to suck up time when I should have been working!

http://williambeem.com/does-gear-matter/

SSB

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

I read a blog entry yesterday from "our own" William Beem making essentially the same point. If gear didn't matter on some level, photography would be a much cheaper pursuit.

Following is a link to the blog — I found it yesterday. I read numerous entries there yesterday, in fact, and found it generally thoughtful and well-written. I really needed to find something new online to suck up time when I should have been working!

http://williambeem.com/does-gear-matter/

SSB

Thanks for posting William's blog. I missed that. I would totally agree that equipment matters along with composition skills, computer skills and all the components that make good/great images. A perfect example is this past October I upgraded a body. My problem was that I was unhappy of all the machinations it took to produce a lowlight image I was happy with. My images were apparently okay being used for promotions on websites, You Tube videos, brochures etc. I wanted to make my life easier. One of the problems, I loved my cameras! In good light, they produced images I was proud of. Now, with the new body, I used my December WDW trip to work on my lowlight photography. I'm satisfied that going into the season, my equipment is going to make my life a whole lot easier. I will be able to spend more time taking photographs vs computer time!

 

[WDWFigment]

Agreed completely.

A quick addendum I'd add: while a good photographer can produce an amazing image despite bad glass, a bad photographer can't produce an amazing image because of amazing glass.

Point being - knowledge trumps equipment any day of the week, but it's definitely nice to have good equipment.

 

[leeshiebean]

I read a blog entry yesterday from "our own" William Beem making essentially the same point. If gear didn't matter on some level, photography would be a much cheaper pursuit.
SSB

THIS.

I think we can all agree that a great photographer can produce a great image with bad gear, but a bad photographer can't produce a good image with great gear. This is true. How many people do you know who have dSLR cameras and shoot on auto? I see blog posts about this topic all the time. And it always irks me because they rarely ever go on to say 'but... if you know what you're doing, then gear can make all the difference.' Because as mentioned above, if that were the case, we'd all have a lot more money in our pockets right now.

Recently I had to pull out my old XTi and its kit lens, which had since been buried in my camera box for a few years now, because I was taking a picture of my lens collection. I got a decent shot that I needed, but after using a 7D and L glass for awhile, it was almost painful to go back to that kit lens. And I can guarantee that if I took a similar shot using the L glass instead, it would have turned out much better. Sure, my old setup worked great when I was learning the ropes of dSLR photography. Some of my favorite pictures were taken on that camera/lens setup. But I started to learn, and found that I wanted things that my camera/lens couldn't do. I could take nice flower pictures, but without a macro lens, I wasn't going to get the DOF and creamy bokeh that I wanted. Eventually, people want to upgrade.

I shot this on my old 'advanced point and shoot', the Canon PowerShot A95. To this day I still love this picture. If that camera still worked, I'd most definitely carry it with me everywhere that I didn't want to take my dSLR.


But there was no way I'd be able to get a shot like this with that camera. (Canon 7D + 60mm Macro)


I guess in the end I have to say that gear doesn't matter... until it does.

 

[handicap18]

i will agree with everything said. It all starts with knowledge of your equipment. Once you know how everything works and you feel that you can't get much more out of it, then thats when its time to upgrade or look into better lenses.

I went many years with a $300 "kit" lens and got a lot of great images from it, but it did have its limitations (f/stop to be exact). Once I realized that my photography style/habits were being limited by that lens is when I decided to look into upgrading.

For some people, sticking with the kit lens and just going with what they have on hand is perfectly acceptable and there is nothing wrong with it. In the end it comes down to where you want to go as a photographer (and your budget.... )

 

[photo_chick]

I've found gear matters more when you actually know more about photography and a lot less when you're just starting out. It's usually not until you really know what you're doing that you start to understand that the differences between lenses is about more than focal length, aperture and sharpness. But at the same time high end gear certainly isn't required to make stunning images.


On the characteristics of a lens tangent... that goes both ways. Sometimes you need cheap glass to get a look too. Like that hazy sun kissed look with lens flare that's so popular right now. It's really hard to get that with high end glass that's designed to not flare. my point... you have to understand what makes the look so you know what lens to use to get it.

 

[wbeem]

I somehow missed this thread when it came out, but thanks for sharing my blog post. Basically, I agree with the comments stated here. Gear matters when you know how to use it.

My view of photography is analytical as well as artistic. My desire is to create something beautiful and artistic, not just to document a subject. The analytical part comes out to solve problems to create the artistic vision. Sometimes I get there, sometimes I don't. You probably won't find any photographer who isn't occasionally skunked by something. Of course, that challenge is what makes it interesting to me.

The other part of photography is compromise. I think we're always trading off one thing for another. As much as I'd love to always have some fast primes on hand, I'd hate to pay for and lug them around all the time. Both Scott Kelby and Trey Ratcliff have mentioned that they use the same two lenses for their travel photography - the Nikon 14-25 and the Nikon 28-300mm lens. It gives them a wide focal range, but the 28-300 isn't fast glass. Convenience factors probably outweigh their need for fast glass, so it makes sense. In the mean time, I'm lugging around the 14-24, the 24-70 & the 70-200. Faster glass, but less focal length and much heavier to carry. That's what I have right now, until I part with the money for that 28-300. I guess that's my compromise.