larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I agree. And I know that there are images I have captured with my D810 that would have been impossible with my old D300 or D300s. The camera alone certainly didn't do it all...there was a lot that I had to learn and apply, but the D810 absolutely enabled them.

The D850, while a great camera, is not that same level of enabler over the D810, at least not that I have yet discovered. But it's still great to have.

Reconvic Loc: clermont Fl

for most birding/wildlife, the lighting and how close you are.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

Possibly '+ better subject/scene'?

saxman71 Loc: Wenatchee

Perhaps both could be covered under "technique". But I suppose it does depend on how narrowly or broadly a person defines "technique".

j-mo

I would never say outright that gear doesn't matter at all. But I do think that having a concept and the skills to capture it are step 1.

If you hand Eddie Van Halen a $100 guitar, he will still sound better than 98% of other guitarists, no matter what guitar they play on.

What gets me is people that are gear-obsessed, or pixel peep-obsessed, to the point where they essentially automatically discount almost everything they see unless it was shot on the exact kit that they think is the "right" kit. The worst of these seem to lack the ability to like anything, because it threatens their smug confidence that they have the best camera and everyone else is an idiot. These are the folks who will quickly glance at whatever image or video you offer them and immediately ask "what did you shoot this on" and if the answer is not the kit they like, they're automatically dismissive or offer "advice" like "yeah those are ok I guess, but you really should be using [insert preferred camera/lens here] if you are serious."

These are often the same people who have taken like at most 10 photos total all year and spent most of their time on the Internet, criticizing everyone else's work and crucifying other shooters over a pixel they don't like when viewed at 8x crop as opposed to getting out and trying to produce art themselves.

To clarify though, of course I agree you should at least use the right type of gear for what your goal is, i.e. don't use a small-sensor point-and-shoot if you are trying to get a large-print landscape in low light or some other challenging goal. And I am well aware of what more pixels can do, etc cetera. But it does get ridiculous really quickly and comes off as a barrier to entry that is both purposefully and inadvertently designed and maintained to keep out the dreaded "amateurs."

Keen

Gear is important, but not as all important as some think. You can get great photos with a Nikon, or a Canon, etc, using a variety of lenses, speedlights, etc. Most of the differences in gear are convenience oriented.....providing better autofocusing in lower light, or such. Using different gear, you can get the same image by spending more time, going to more bother, adding more light, etc. How much convenience you want, how much / little bother you are willing to go to, determines which gear suits you best. Cost plays a part, too. Are you willing to spend a few thousand extra-or whatever-to get marginally better images....or not? The needs of working professional photographers will usually be different from those of non pros. Even so, some non pros will spend extra to get pro level gear, hoping to get pro level images. I have seen great photographers get great images from a pretty much all plastic Lomo as well as from a mainly metal Hasselblad....so gear is not the 'be all & end all' of great imagery. Better gear tends to make for a better experience....getting great images with less time / bother, but at greater cost in cash. Still, lesser gear can perform well, if you make more of an effort with it.

saxman71 Loc: Wenatchee

It's time somebody posted a picture. I shot this last night. Hand held, RAW, 1/20, f/2.8, ISO (a mere) 400. Processed in Photoshop CC using brushes to lighten the boats. It was almost dark and I still got this without a tripod. Nikon D810 with a Tamron 24x70MM, f/2.8 G2 lens. Could I have gotten this with my old D300 and the kit lens that came with it shooting in jpeg mode and processed with Photoshop Elements???? I say "no way".

(Download)

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

So, you didn't have to use a tripod.

Could someone have gotten this with technology circa 1970? I say "yes."

Mike

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Been watching Hostile Planet recently. Although it's video, you know it wasn't taken using a DSLR and related lenses.

saxman71 Loc: Wenatchee

Actually Mike, I said "could I have gotten it". Someone might have been able to get this shot with 1970 technology but certainly not me.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

OK. Understood. It works for you, and I think that is great.

Mike

Dr.Nikon Loc: Honolulu Hawaii

Yes ..., left out .., years of experience ...and it all adds up .....

Dr.Nikon Loc: Honolulu Hawaii

One only has to browse photo books from the 1960s .., 1970s .., 1980s ...1990s .., 2019 ... and see the photo work as posted using that periods equipment ...then do your own reasoning .., did the pictures improve as the same photographers got newer and more expensive equipment ... going from film to digital ... new Processing ‘ Photo editing techniques..., you be the judge ...
IMHO ... the answer you seek will lay before your eyes ..

saxman71 Loc: Wenatchee

Can't argue with that (although I feel it was implied in my "technique and post-processing" points).

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Does the artist or the chisel create the sculpture?

Does the musician or the instrument create the music?

One of the greatest musicians I ever knew played the balalaika. That instrument has only three strings, and two of them are tuned in unison. It is very primitive and simple.

Mike