Tony Northrup: "Yes, the gear does matter." (Page 8): My best picture,ever, I took with a Brownie 620 box camera, in black and white, when I was 12. The subject was my stepfather...

chem

My best picture,ever, I took with a Brownie 620 box camera, in black and white, when I was 12. The subject was my stepfather relaxing on the couch, petting the family dog. That picture was the only one my mother ever had blown up. No, I don't have a copy of that picture.
The camera helps me take good pictures, but it is the photographer who chooses to take the picture and makes it worth remembering.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

larryepage wrote:

These discussions almost always include a response referencing the sculptor or the chisel. I never bought into that one. And I can't quickly find that anyone has brought it up here. But I don't care who you are, if your chisel won't sharpen, or if it bends or rolls or breaks, you can't do the sculpture. And for that matter, if the marble isn't right, you can't do the sculpture either.

I would never say that the tool doesn't matter, so I don't buy into your interpretation of "a response referencing the sculptor or the chisel." Obviously, a broken camera, no matter the make and model, would not produce good images.

Mike

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

jerryc41 wrote:

Have any of you seen Tony's video about how important good gear is in photography? We keep getting responses here saying that the gear doesn't matter. It's the photographer that makes the picture. I've never believed that, and that's why I buy a new camera occasionally. Otherwise, I'd still be using my parents' old Kodak box camera.

The D750 is my main camera, and when I use something else, the results are not as good.

Maybe it should be, "Which good gear doesn't matter."

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Blenheim Orange wrote:

I would never say that the tool doesn't matter, so I don't buy into your interpretation of "a response referencing the sculptor or the chisel." Obviously, a broken camera, no matter the make and model, would not produce good images.

Mike

OK.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

CHG_CANON wrote:

reminds me of a curve mentioned before about the photographer experience curve (from Photographer's Learning Curve)

That is great. I had never seen it.

Mike

Peteso Loc: Blacks Hills

I agree that equipment can make a big difference; however, if the photographer doesn't know how to use the equipment, he/she can be like a "chimp with a lighter."

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

I'm with Jerry on this. As you need the best settings (exposure triangle) to produce a good image, so do you need the the best gear and technique based on affordability and for what your use(s) are. Not sure there are hard and fast "rules" for all, but I am sure they can apply to many. saxman71 gets it.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

I'm with Jerry on this. As you need the best settings (exposure triangle) to produce a good image, so do you need the the best gear and technique based on affordability and for what your use(s) are. Not sure there are hard and fast "rules" for all, but I am sure they can apply to many. saxman71 gets it.

steveg48

CHG_CANON wrote:

reminds me of a curve mentioned before about the photographer experience curve (from Photographer's Learning Curve)

Thanks for this

steveg48

rmalarz wrote:

I wholly agree. The equipment does matter, to a po... (show quote)

How do you explain that many great pictures were taken many years ago with cameras that no one would want today?

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

Many great paintings, sculptures and furniture was made without the latest and greatest technology of today. But people still tried to work effectively and efficiently with the best tools that they could and the best knowledge and experience to go along with it...

steveg48 wrote:

How do you explain that many great pictures were taken many years ago with cameras that no one would want today?

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

steveg48 wrote:

How do you explain that many great pictures were taken many years ago with cameras that no one would want today?

I'm sure that rmalarz will reply for himself, but I will answer your question from my perspective.

I used a D200 for years. When I bought it, it was probably the best Nikon DSLR available other than the true pro models, and, in any case, it was the best that I could afford. I was very happy with it and used it for years, even after other, improved models were introduced. But for a good period of time, it retained its position in life. It served me well while I was doing photography pretty much in isolation. It captured the images that I was after. As I tried more things, though, and couldn't make some of them really work, the question arose about whether there might be something new that would do better. So I started shopping around a little. I was retired by that time, so it didn't seem to make sense to spend a ton of money. The result was trading a big box of old film equipment locally for a well-used D300 and nice D300s. Guess what...these cameras, although still not the latest, offered me quite a bit of new capability over the D200. Technology had advanced to the point that I could accomplish some things that weren't easily possible for me before. This further widened my range of interest so that over a few years I made some other equipment advances to gain some important (at least to me) additional capability.

So the short answer to your question (from my perspective) is that the best that used to be available was a far cry from the best that is now available. That's why today's preferences often don't include cameras that were used in the past. Besides that, most of them are lost, broken, or worn out. And there are some folks who do still like to use some of the ones that are left. Some of those folks do beautiful work with them. But I'll bet that if what is available today were available then, it would absolutely have been used by at least some of the photographers of the time.

steveg48

larryepage wrote:

I'm sure that rmalarz will reply for himself, but ... (show quote)

I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with having good equipment. I’m saying that it’s not necessary and not sufficient to take good pictures. The time someone should get better equipment is when their present equipment is truly limiting them. In some cases the limiting factor is the photographer and not the equipment.

Robert1 Loc: Davie, FL

LFingar wrote:

My wife doesn't know an f-stop from a bus stop and has no particular interest in photography. Just the same, often times when we are traveling she will ask me to put my camera on "A" so that she can shoot with it because she has seen something interesting. She will consistently spot shots that I didn't recognize and do a beautiful job of composing them. I guess I should be glad she isn't interested in pursuing photography as a hobby. My ego would take an awful pounding!

I have exactly the same situation with my daughter; every time I see the way she took the same picture that I took, I put my head down in shame. She's a natural.

DeanS Loc: Capital City area of North Carolina

General comment on this topic. Some people like to stay current with changes/upgrades in technology. Some people like to retain a piece of gear (camera, car, garden rake, hammer, you name it) until it is dead in its tracks. There are also lots of folks who fall in between. Everyone has their own reason for going to something new/different. I don’t believe it wise/necessary for someone else to critique or pass judgement on another's action in this regard.

This story may illustrate my point: A journalist was doing a personal interest piece, noticed an old, worn-out carpenter doing his thing. The reporter took note of the old man’s hammer, a beat-up, worn out tool. Reporter inquired of the old man, “How long have you had that hammer, old timer?”

“I’ve had this thing forty-seven years.”

“Ever have any problems.?”

“Yeah, replaced the head twice and the handle three times, but this old hammer has lasted me so far, forty
-seven years!”