I am posting this here as I am mainly a Canon person...I still have the two FTB QLs I bought as an art student back when.....and am happy to use them now.
I am dismayed at how the manufacturers and review sites / markets have come (allowed) to equate aesthetics with pixel peeping ...to be blunt. Consequently...numerous people have spent numerous amounts of money perusing this Holy Grail...even amateurs. Who should be more interested in the 'craft' of photography in my opinion.
To be blunt...how many people on sites like this equate owning and using the latest gear as synonymous with being a quality photographer? And adding to that...what is a good gear limit for good images?
Personally..mine is a G10 plus 40D plus a 1V HP...with a bronica MF ......what do others have as a minimum requirement? These give me stunning A3 prints (detail wise) from my Epson 2880....and Canon Pro 9000......
"I urge, again, avoiding the common illusion that creative work depends on equipment alone, it easy to confuse the hope for accomplishment with the desire to posses superior instruments. It is nonetheless true that quality is an important criterion in evaluating camera equipment, as are durability and function. Inferior equipment will prove to be a false economy in the long run. As his work evolves, the photographer should plan to alter and refine his equipment to meet changing requirements." - Ansel Adams, The Camera
You can make a poor image with any gear.
When I attempt to make a good image I will endeavour to have at my disposal the best and most applicable gear for the task, so if I succeed the results are as good as i can reasonably achieve.
RobDickinson wrote:
"I urge, again, avoiding the common illusion that creative work depends on equipment alone, it easy to confuse the hope for accomplishment with the desire to posses superior instruments. It is nonetheless true that quality is an important criterion in evaluating camera equipment, as are durability and function. Inferior equipment will prove to be a false economy in the long run. As his work evolves, the photographer should plan to alter and refine his equipment to meet changing requirements." - Ansel Adams, The Camera
You can make a poor image with any gear.
When I attempt to make a good image I will endeavour to have at my disposal the best and most applicable gear for the task, so if I succeed the results are as good as i can reasonably achieve....Show more →
Rob, exactly right. I don't want the once in a lifetime image to be held up by gear. If anything will hold me back, it better be my skills, not my gear.
RobDickinson wrote:
"I urge, again, avoiding the common illusion that creative work depends on equipment alone, it easy to confuse the hope for accomplishment with the desire to posses superior instruments. It is nonetheless true that quality is an important criterion in evaluating camera equipment, as are durability and function. Inferior equipment will prove to be a false economy in the long run. As his work evolves, the photographer should plan to alter and refine his equipment to meet changing requirements." - Ansel Adams, The Camera
You can make a poor image with any gear.
When I attempt to make a good image I will endeavour to have at my disposal the best and most applicable gear for the task, so if I succeed the results are as good as i can reasonably achieve....Show more →
anthonygh wrote:
I am dismayed at how the manufacturers and review sites / markets have come (allowed) to equate aesthetics with pixel peeping ...to be blunt.
Boggle. Do you, perchance, want the manufacturers and the review sites to focus on what aesthetics can the camera produce??
The reviews, correctly, talk about technical capabilities of tools. What else could they possibly talk about?
"Slash can really rip with this guitar, you should buy one , you'll do the same" ?
By and large pixel peeping is the only real way of differentiating between gear thesedays. Most of it is of such a high quality. Basic feature sets have long since been comprehensive enough to accomplish most tasks.
I have altered and refined my equipment to meet the changing requirements of my work. Each piece of gear has a specific purpose to help me produce certain images. My work has changed a bit over the years and my gear reflects this. (I am a professional photographer, mostly advertising, architecture and as a still photographer on movie and commercial sets)
I constantly push the limits of my gear. Its good when manufacturers raise those limits.
There is indeed an undefinable threshold where gear arguably does make you a 'better' photographer. Send someone with basic camera operational knowledge to a football game with a mk4 and a 300/2.8 and tell them to hold the button down all day, they're bound to walk away with some decent images after culling their 20k pics. Send the same person with a d30 and a quantaray 70-300 and they'll probably walk away with some pretty lousy stuff.
Everyone has skill of varying degree and some gear amplifies that existing skill more than others. And really this all boils down to one's perceived value of currency. I'm sure most of us have no problem spending twenty bucks for a CD, but that was probably a stretch as a thirteen year old kid. So, what's the difference? If a new photographer wants to spend $300 or $20k on gear, who are we to judge their worthiness of such a purchase? I think it's best we simply focus on ourselves.
Content trumps technical. Having said that Saint Ansel didn't have to shoot conference pr job in low light. Having that f2 or 2.8 lens focus right is a nice thing but then that's work not art.
Send someone with basic camera operational knowledge to a football game with a mk4 and a 300/2.8 and tell them to hold the button down all day, they're bound to walk away with some decent images after culling their 20k pics.
I do this exactly if I'm coaching a kids sport and can't take pictures. I hand off my 1d IV w/70-200 mkII to one the parents and say have fun. I say go here, go there and offer a few tips and they try their best. I probably delete 50% of the photos because there boring, 10% out of focus, and I'd say maybe < 5% I'd consider good shots and rest so so. But after 3000 shots I've watched this one parents work increasingly get better and better once they understood a little about composition so the good shots continue to increase every week. Helping mentor someone improves your own skills but I'm grateful I'm getting some decent pictures than no pictures. If I handed this same parent let's say a 30D I'm sure it would much worse, especially if it were a night sport so talent would have be there.
I often see a corollary to this with vacation/travel recs. Lot's of folks will say to leave behind all that quality gear and bring a P&S instead. My feeling is that I don't know when or if I wlll return, so I want to return with the best files I can get. Ergo: the best gear I can afford/carry is what I want. And, that assumes I know how to use it, not the other way around.
I still shoot film with old FD lenses n bodies, newer EF lenses and an EOS-3, a 40D as well...been shooting since 1971. For some, the new tech is the only way...to be inspired. For others old and new school are just tools. It's the image that counts and that's a personal vision. We judge as good/great what we like, love. This quote sums it up best for me...
The virtue of the camera is not the power it has to transform the photographer into an artist, but the impulse it gives him to keep on looking.
-- Brooks Anderson
Shoot with whatever gear makes you (or your clients) happy.
