Tech - vs - Technique
Discussion
Thought of the day.
I've just completed the Annie Leibovitz course on Masterclass (highly recommended) having dived into other similar courses online over the years from leading photographers and it occurred to me that the one thing that's never mentioned in all of these is kit. The one exception is Leibovitz who mentions that when students ask her what gear she's using, she responds by saying they're asking the wrong question (it should be how do you use it?).
Do we all get too hung up on kit? I mean, can we honestly tell if a photo's been taken on a Nikon or a Canon and for that matter, does it matter? Is a £500 Manfrotto tripod going to give a better picture than a £50 Velbon from Currys?
I think that kit is half the fun of photography. I'm not alone, I'm sure, in being genetically wired to be unable to pass a Camera Shop without at least looking to see what they've got.
But is all this at the expense of the 'art' - or part of it?
I've just completed the Annie Leibovitz course on Masterclass (highly recommended) having dived into other similar courses online over the years from leading photographers and it occurred to me that the one thing that's never mentioned in all of these is kit. The one exception is Leibovitz who mentions that when students ask her what gear she's using, she responds by saying they're asking the wrong question (it should be how do you use it?).
Do we all get too hung up on kit? I mean, can we honestly tell if a photo's been taken on a Nikon or a Canon and for that matter, does it matter? Is a £500 Manfrotto tripod going to give a better picture than a £50 Velbon from Currys?
I think that kit is half the fun of photography. I'm not alone, I'm sure, in being genetically wired to be unable to pass a Camera Shop without at least looking to see what they've got.
But is all this at the expense of the 'art' - or part of it?
Kit is important if it's part of the enjoyment of the hobby. A pro racing driver can be fast in any car they are familiar with right down to a £500 Fiesta, but that doesn't mean owning a Ferrari isn't pleasurable for professionals and amateurs alike. Same with cameras. Nice gear is nice if you like nice things.
However, buying better gear will not make you a good photographer any more than buying a Ferrari will make you a good driver.
I went full circle with camera kit. Started with a kit lens, ended up with a cupboard full of pro glass, realised it added nothing but baggage to the hobby, sold it all again and now only use my phone or a Fuji X with a fixed focal length. Still love taking pictures, and having restrictions on kit just adds to the challenge. I had to go full circle to realise that though, and learned a lot on the way.
I don't think there's a right answer. If you enjoy the technology, research, shopping, tinkering aspect of any hobby, photography will be no different. Buy nice gear. If you don't really care about that, just focus on making best use of what you've got. I think the tech is definitely separate to the art, but both are important parts of the hobby as a whole.
However, buying better gear will not make you a good photographer any more than buying a Ferrari will make you a good driver.
I went full circle with camera kit. Started with a kit lens, ended up with a cupboard full of pro glass, realised it added nothing but baggage to the hobby, sold it all again and now only use my phone or a Fuji X with a fixed focal length. Still love taking pictures, and having restrictions on kit just adds to the challenge. I had to go full circle to realise that though, and learned a lot on the way.
I don't think there's a right answer. If you enjoy the technology, research, shopping, tinkering aspect of any hobby, photography will be no different. Buy nice gear. If you don't really care about that, just focus on making best use of what you've got. I think the tech is definitely separate to the art, but both are important parts of the hobby as a whole.
Lynchie999 said:
... if gear didn't matter all the pros would be using £100 "eBay specials" ... they need the top end kit to do their job efficiently and effectively...
Some of the best photos ever taken were shot on crap cameras.That said, you would of course raise an eyebrow if the chief snapper at Vanity Fair whipped out an old D50.
The biggest change for me, after I'd stopped buying camera/photography magazines, was when I began to 'see' the photograph, and also understood what it was that caught my eye. Anyone can learn the tech and how to use a camera, but taking a photograph that people find interesting or want to buy is another matter altogether.
I've had my 5D3 for seven years and feel at one with it. That's important. No, I can't recite every menu setting or indeed what they all do. I don't care.
I'd love a digital version of my Olympus OM1n..!
I've had my 5D3 for seven years and feel at one with it. That's important. No, I can't recite every menu setting or indeed what they all do. I don't care.
I'd love a digital version of my Olympus OM1n..!
I think that there are people who are into the hobby with more interest in the kit, and there are others who enjoy it purely from the images they create regardless of kit, and many people somewhere in between. All are valid reasons to be interested in photography.
Whilst it is true that some of the best photos ever taken were using very basic kit, in many situations, having "better" kit often enables better photos to be taken, and depending on the environment may enable a decent photo to be realised when lesser kit would not. One example would be in low light situations whilst trying to shoot action from a distance - for example at a boxing match. Having a 300mm f2.8 lens may enable you to get a decently sized image and using f2.8 combined with high ISO would yield a shutter speed fast enough to freeze the action. The image may not actually be possible with a 300mm f5.6 on a body with worse high ISO performance.
Personally after many years using film SLRs, then going to digital and being less than impressed with the sharpness of many of the pictures I was taking, I decided to switch from my (then) current Minolta DSLR, go to Canon and invest in a couple of really good lenses. The reason I went for Canon as opposed to Nikon (the 2 main players at the time), was purely down to the way the camera felt and the menu layout - I ended up with a EOS 40D and had compared it at length with a Nikon D300 which a friend lent me. I'm certain that both did (and still do) make very good and comparable kit.
One of the first "quality" lenses was a Sigma 120-300mm f2.8, and the images were a revelation - finally getting some pin-sharp photos.
When I added a 5D (with 24-105 f4L), again the full frame images were another step forward.
I'm currently (as is another poster above), very happy with the 5Dmk3, although no doubt at some point will add a mirrorless body for EVF, better low light performance, and in body IS.
All the above though, just makes it easier to take good quality images. The ongoing continual development of technique, and improving ability to see images, frame them accurately and shoot quickly, along with more self-confidence when dealing with people is what I personally am most pleased about in my continued enjoyment of the hobby.
As I said at the start though, everyone is different, and whatever one's reasons for being "into" photography, if it works for you, then that's absolutely fine.
Whilst it is true that some of the best photos ever taken were using very basic kit, in many situations, having "better" kit often enables better photos to be taken, and depending on the environment may enable a decent photo to be realised when lesser kit would not. One example would be in low light situations whilst trying to shoot action from a distance - for example at a boxing match. Having a 300mm f2.8 lens may enable you to get a decently sized image and using f2.8 combined with high ISO would yield a shutter speed fast enough to freeze the action. The image may not actually be possible with a 300mm f5.6 on a body with worse high ISO performance.
Personally after many years using film SLRs, then going to digital and being less than impressed with the sharpness of many of the pictures I was taking, I decided to switch from my (then) current Minolta DSLR, go to Canon and invest in a couple of really good lenses. The reason I went for Canon as opposed to Nikon (the 2 main players at the time), was purely down to the way the camera felt and the menu layout - I ended up with a EOS 40D and had compared it at length with a Nikon D300 which a friend lent me. I'm certain that both did (and still do) make very good and comparable kit.
One of the first "quality" lenses was a Sigma 120-300mm f2.8, and the images were a revelation - finally getting some pin-sharp photos.
When I added a 5D (with 24-105 f4L), again the full frame images were another step forward.
I'm currently (as is another poster above), very happy with the 5Dmk3, although no doubt at some point will add a mirrorless body for EVF, better low light performance, and in body IS.
All the above though, just makes it easier to take good quality images. The ongoing continual development of technique, and improving ability to see images, frame them accurately and shoot quickly, along with more self-confidence when dealing with people is what I personally am most pleased about in my continued enjoyment of the hobby.
As I said at the start though, everyone is different, and whatever one's reasons for being "into" photography, if it works for you, then that's absolutely fine.
Edited by C n C on Saturday 8th May 15:03
I'm a photographer, sports, events etc. Mostly editorial. Having "decent" kit certainly helps in terms of getting the pictures you need, accurate AF, good high ISO performance etc. have all helped make my job easier over the years. It's also made me more critical of pictures though, and at the same time push myself more.
For personal stuff I'm a bit easier, although the introduction of smaller mirrorless cameras (I have a Fuji X-E3) has meant that it is even easier to take great personal photos without carrying big DSLRs around.
For personal stuff I'm a bit easier, although the introduction of smaller mirrorless cameras (I have a Fuji X-E3) has meant that it is even easier to take great personal photos without carrying big DSLRs around.
Edited by mike80 on Friday 7th May 20:04
Those of us who are old enough can remember the reviews, adverts and prices for Leica kit in the photo mags in the 80's and 90's, but I can safely say that I have never seen a Leica in public being used to take photographs.
I think there have always been kit collectors who want the best, but rarely use them to take photographs. For those people, the numbers matter for bragging rights/knowing they've got the best, but for most photographers good enough is good enough.
I think there have always been kit collectors who want the best, but rarely use them to take photographs. For those people, the numbers matter for bragging rights/knowing they've got the best, but for most photographers good enough is good enough.
You could give a great photographer almost any kit from the last 50-60 years capable of taking photographs and he or she would take great photographs.
You could give an average photographer the very best of everything, and they would take average photographs.
It has almost nothing to do with the kit, it has almost everything to do with the talent.
You could give an average photographer the very best of everything, and they would take average photographs.
It has almost nothing to do with the kit, it has almost everything to do with the talent.
I would say I'm fairly average photographer. I have 3 cameras all Nikon a d3300 , d7200 and a Z6. Without a doubt the Z6 takes the nicest photo's but my most successful shots are with the D3300. This is because i usually have the D3300 in the car and so it's the camera i use when i see something worthwhile shooting on my daily commute. So yes kit helps but most of the key to a good photo is being in the right place at the right time.
Annie Leibovitz has become a very conceptual photographer. At least in her commercial work. She has a talented team to help her get exactly the lighting and post processing that she wants so she can concentrate on the creative vision. You’ll see her swap between several cameras during a shoot, from 35mm DSLR to digital and film medium format, but the end results always have her signature style.
In contrast, her most famous picture was taken with a Polaroid.
Personally, I’ve managed to make some truly dreadful photos with some very expensive equipment!
In contrast, her most famous picture was taken with a Polaroid.
Personally, I’ve managed to make some truly dreadful photos with some very expensive equipment!
I bought entry level DSLR equipment a few years ago and loved learning to use it which was the big buzz for me rather than it being massively expensive and high tech, I managed to get, to me, some fantastic photos with it and enjoyed it.
But where I think I went wrong, I bought too much little photography things like bags, filters that I never used, etc. I bought a selection of lenses but I think I should have spent more on the body (D3400 and later a similar D5300 for the pivoting screen) and had 1 or 2 lenses max.
The numerous lenses and kit just got overbearing and I stopped using it so sold it all.
I can see myself buying a decent full frame Canon body and 1 or 2 higher quality lenses in the future though, keeping it simple and spending the money in the right place.
But where I think I went wrong, I bought too much little photography things like bags, filters that I never used, etc. I bought a selection of lenses but I think I should have spent more on the body (D3400 and later a similar D5300 for the pivoting screen) and had 1 or 2 lenses max.
The numerous lenses and kit just got overbearing and I stopped using it so sold it all.
I can see myself buying a decent full frame Canon body and 1 or 2 higher quality lenses in the future though, keeping it simple and spending the money in the right place.
Lynchie999 said:
... if gear didn't matter all the pros would be using £100 "eBay specials" ... they need the top end kit to do their job efficiently and effectively...
Absolutely this, in much the same way that Lewis Hamilton wouldn't win an F1 race at Silverstone if he was in a Citroen 2CV. Photography still requires skill, but equipment is necessary.There are workarounds for most kit deficiencies, but they take time and/or other kit which isn't always practical when on a job. Decent equipment can get you in the ballpark of where you need to be much quicker and can give you a capability that you might not have otherwise. The last thing you want is to be fighting your own equipment to get the results you need.
I bought a cheap D300 and 50mm lens last year on FB marketplace for £100 so I could run a test against the D850 and 24-70 I would normally use. In the end your average viewer might not see the differences on a web screen, but I had to work a lot harder to get the results and there were some shots I couldn't take because I was missing the versatility of 'better' (more suitable/more expensive) equipment. I also had less range in post production to overcome the shortcomings I had on location. It was a fun test, but the D300 is back in a drawer!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff