I recently viewed a video where the professional photographer was telling the story of taking a "snap shot" with an older Nikon 6mp camera of a classic 49' Roadmaster at an intersection while on a walking tour of a city, and having the editor of Nikon World publish the photo on the cover of Nikon World Publication. Just an example of an non staged photo, old equipment, and fixity of location that produced the cover of a professional photography magazine. Being at the right location at the right time with a great subject supersedes equipment and technical application.

Is it not possible that "good" photography, whatever that means, can still be done without having a fortune to spend?

$500.00 tripods, $160.00 L-brackets, editing software that you have to pay for, the "top" Nikon cameras, Canon "L" lenses, $150.00 filters....on and on.....

Seems like ANY question asked about what to use/buy quickly turns into endless suggestions to spend tons of money, and that you are foolish if you don't. Those who have it think that everyone does.

Give us ordinary non-professionals a break, please.

Glad we have such a balanced opinion represented here.

Just a few rambling thoughts from someone who's been around the block several times since the stone age...

As a long-time pro who moved away into film and TV decades ago, but who still keeps shooting stills and loves every moment of it, I can tell you that my experience of "the equipment race" has been.

It originated from the racers themselves: not the photographers, but the camera manufacturers.

At one stage I was shooting Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Leica, Olympus, Arca, Rollei, Hasselblad and Sinar gear. And those kind folk were either giving me deep discounts, long-term camera loans, or just plain giving me the gear, mainly so my clients could see me using it. In other words, I was their mobile showcase on "what's hot and what's not", the original form of sponsorship, like sports clothing and power drinks these days. I think it's still being done, but back in the day they weren't so exclusive.

As a pro in the advertising and commercial business, optics and perception are everything. After all, that's what we get paid to do, that's the credo that's being sold here by the commercial and advertising trades. So the best photogs "know" they haveto have the latest and greatest, and kinda sorta lean on the reputations of those other folk using the latest and best to empower their own talent and skills, aka marketability and day rates.

I can remember we had, in our studio, the Swiss Broncolor flash system - several sets of the complete system. The boss would order (or get given) two of every kind of every light or accessory they made. And it would be out and displayed (and I'd have to clean and test them all) every day, maybe 40 units or so. All the newest and finest ones front and center, in pride of place - and the two of three lights we'd actually use, that would get, you know, kinda banged up from being used all day, every day? They'd be hiding out in the back of the line-up. "Advertising" said the first assistant to me. "That's advertising - for us - we are the best studio using the best equipment - always".

Which is like Leica, I'd say. Their approach has always been "the best for the most". A lot like Rolex's approach, their one-block-of-metal-carved concept worked a hundred years ago, when cameras were hand-made high-precision mechanisms like the watches of the time, and the best of the best for the highest of prices were, like a custom suit, a sign of prestige and made their users feel better using them. They would last for decades, ticking to the highest precision possible, and absolutely dependable.

Then there's the look and feel of the camera itself - which says something about the owner, but more about the user - how does this thing make you look and feel, when holding it in the hand, when putting it up to the eye?

In a job like photography, if it is all about the hand and the eye (which it still is, in the end), then the camera should be an extension of that. And manufacturers who keep that in mind will, IMO, win out in the end over those who are more manufacturing-minded and less end-user-minded, because their business, the business of interfacing a human being with a machine is, at base, that of cybernetics, the human and the camera. So yes, a pro might feel more empowered by a D850 or 5Ds more than, say, using an iPhone or a Light16. That pro might feel a whole lot more comfortable charging their $500-15,000 a day rate using one of those, or a larger format camera, or anything that at least looks the part, anyway. Until they've become David Baileys, or Helmut Newtons or Ansel Adams or Carier-Bressons, when they can use a Kodak Instamatic and nobody will say boo.

So the trend will likely continue. Don't forget the manufacturers are into selling their cameras, not supporting your great photography. Popular photography is based on the fact that there are more people around with less money to spend. Apple knows and does that best, for now. (Or Holga, I guess). Elite folk? Well there's the M series, still, Hasselblads, higher end Fujis, etc, all the "real camera" manufacturers and suppliers, all vying for our consumer dollars.

But the race for the latest model? Not so sure about that. I used a pair of D800Es when I got back into photography seriously, and soon scaled back to D600s when I realized that the marketplace, for me, didn't really need more than a 24MP RAW picture if one knows how to frame and has sufficient glass. I spent a lot of my time clogging my systems up with 36+ MP shots that only were scaled down for release. It's much better now with 24MP as a base format, and I can always rent or use a larger format camera if I need one. Had a digital Hasselblad as well, did maybe 2 shoots with it, sold that again, very quickly confirming my non-need for high MPs in my commercial photography arena today.

So I think for everyone here there's a natural place their photography and their cameras exist at, for this particular moment. For some it's a Sinar P2. For others it's an iPhone or maybe an L16.

I do remember handling the heritage cameras for the first time - a Nikon F, and a Leica M3. Wow. In those days it was David Bailey for the Nikon and Cartier-Bresson and the Magnum guys for the Leicas. And yes, I love the look and feel of the M2 especially, then the original SL, and their mechanisms - like a Rolex. Sure did give me a boost. Made me want to live up to the heritage that I could just feel in my hands.

Decades later, I went back to Leica, starting with a Digilux 2, then a 109, and the got serious with an M9-P for a book project. Hmm... not quite the same as the M2 oer M4 with a 35 Summicron, but quite serviceable. I made it work, and work well it did, for that job. Sold it shortly after.

I also got a Leica 114, the superzoom camera - which my other half, when spying it arrive and taking it out of its box, said "mine" - she still has it, and has shot three photo books with it exclusively to date.

So now, today, what Leicas do I still have? An R3 only. I have Leica lenses, yes. And my other half still has and uses her 114. But the others? Been and gone. That's twice around the block now. These modern cameras don't last long enough to keep a hold of them unless they're being used every day. Sensors today change a hundred times as quickly as film stock used to. Many Leica Series 1's still work, and you can still put film through them, today. And the shots look better, IMO, than those coming out of a lot of the digital cameras of even ten years' vintage.

So yes, there are two schools to this equipment deal, in my view. 1) get what you can afford, use it to death, move up if you absolutely have to. In the beginning, you don't need much and have a lot to learn. My old mentors said "full frame camera, 50mm lens, that's it". (or 80mm on a Rolleiflex, etc) and use that until you're decent at it. 2) start as you intend to go on - get the best there is, beg, borrow, steal, and then use that to elevate your art and craft quicker than the other way.

Both ways are valid. I guess it all depends on how you want to elevate your art and craft, in what manner and how quickly.

As a pro, we were taught to buy gear that held together, that, on the street you could use a street-sweeper lens as a bat for self-defense if you had to. It had to be SOLID! Yes, correct. I put an average of 40 rolls of 135-36 a day through each of my cameras, around 5-6 days a week, year-round. Also I have been in situations where my 300mm f/4 (yes, the old tank of a lens) was really standing by in case I felt the need to hit and run - never had to, but you know what they say about it being better to have and not need... :-)

Nowadays, I shoot just as many exposures a day when I'm working, just not working as many days as I used to. Digitally though, I still go into the thousands of exposures on a paid gig (instead of the hundreds in film), mainly because I still charge what people think is a lot for my work and I feel the need to give the clients variation - i.e. the need to give them their money's worth. And film was expensive. Digital, less so. That's because of the nature of what I do - which is still advertising and commercial work, although I get some sports commissions as well these days. Pray-and-spray, aka a creative choice, is expected these days, for their money. So for me, for now, that's D600s. Because ALL of the modern digital bodies will last for as long as I need, for now.

I still have an M2, an F3HP, a 500C and my first Speed Graphic 4x5 and 6x7 - and still use them, because they're still valid today. Everything else has gone, sold, exchanged for movie gear, then digital gear, back and forth as needed.

At one stage I had enough of the GAS and sold all my digital Nikon gear. All of it.

And then, maybe six months later, I really missed it, so went back to a D600 I got for very cheap, mostly to power all those Nikon and Nikon-modded Leica lenses I still have sitting around in cases, that I will never sell (I use them for digital cinematography, which is a whole other story, and not for today:-)

Will I go back to a D800E/D850/whatever the latest and greatest is? Sure, if work demands it.

Otherwise the D600 is plenty enough for me, the results make me happy and my bank balance thanks me because now I can take those dollars and go on trips to get great shots I'd not otherwise have been able to do.

Will I eventually sell my R3, F3HP, medium format and sheet film cameras? Not too sure about that. Sell enough gear, fine, then move on. Sell too much gear, then all that will happen is that I'd have to get replacements eventually, when the need for them comes up again. And then, well, they'd just be replacements, not the real deal, for me. I take my photography, and my cameras, personally.

After so much GAS, at least I've learned that much.

Happy Holidays and thanks for reading!


Yes, now that I recall, we even had a couple of gold-plated Arca cameras, back in the day, with lenses. Gift of appreciation to the boss. They looked great, sitting in then steel-reinforced cabinets in the studio, because they stayed there -- and never left the building :-)

Moving on?

Yes, sure. Moving on. Enough GASsing already!

Happy Holidays!

My theme here is that the expensive gear is there to allow people who MUST get the shot under as extreme circumstances as possible to get the best possible shot and get paid good money for it. At the sweet spot aperture and shutter speed, even in Servo/Continuous focus, on a normal open shade or cloudy bright day 30 minutes +/- Sunrise/Set, a well composed photo taken on an "Enthusiast" camera. in the hands of a competent photographer will be very difficult to distinguish from the exact same scene photographed by the same person using top of the line Pro Gear.

However, change the time/place and subject of the photo, and under extreme (very low) light, extremely fast action, sun in the frame composition and the enthusiast camera will yield an inferior, but likely not bad, image compared to the optimal sharpness and exposure and resolution and dynamic range yielded by the top of the line. Add freezing rain/snow conditions and all the other screwballs that fly the Pro Photographer's way in a paid shoot, and that's why they spend 5-10 times what an enthusiast needs to spend.

The possible exception to this thought on "Pro Gear" is when an enthusiast "of means" travels on a once in a lifetime trip to, you pick, Petra, Taj Mahal, Moscow, Peking, Yellowstone wildlife workshop (Carter's of course), where the trip expenditure and photographic expectations exceeds the relative camera/lens cost that the "Enthusiast" might absorb. Part of that reasoning is the great unlikelihood of re-shooting the image of your dreams if you miss the shot.

Like many pursuits, photography has those who are chosen to be great, those who wish they were and know they're not chosen, and the saddest, is those who think they're chosen. Just like you can't out drive Tiger Woods (still!!), and you can't out shoot Steph Curry (ever!!); let's not think you can buy the skill, talent, patience, access and top gear of Nat Geo's Steve McCurry who has delivered many iconic photographs, either.

Echoed here, CONSTANTLY when you outgrow your gear, you will KNOW it because you can't execute the shot you want with what you have, and know how to use the gear than can deliver it. AND you're encountering that situation frequently. Otherwise exhaust the capabilities of what you have and rent that "L" Lens and see if your images tell you if you're "maybe" chosen.

The last thing you want to face about yourself is you got intimidated on a forum by a troll weeeenie who made you feel so inadequate about your $600 lens that you went out and bought an $6,000 Body and a 6,000 lens to compensate.

That's as polite of a rant as I can muster on the wonderful Christmas Day!
And, BTW, if Santa(ess) had left me a Big White under the tree, I'd be out practising with it right NOW! Of course, I'd wonder where she got the money, but not as hard as I'd wonder if I could get the ducks and geese in flight down at the Sparks Marina. Or, if I could get a Skier or Boarder doing a flip up at Squaw Valley--right NOW. But cocktail time nears and I'm about to tune in the Warriors/Lakers.

Merry Merry and Happy Happy,
C

What gear is expensive depends on what is being mass produced, which in turn
depends on what Joe Consumer chooses to buy. That changes over time -- and
consumers can be rather fickle.

For decades, the world's most popular cameras --- the Kodak Brownie models -- were mostly
medium format: 120/220, 616, 620. Now medium format cameras are extremely expensive
(except for the Holga film camera) -- thanks to digital technology. And large format digital
does not exist.

Since 2011, Joe Consumer has decided he perfers smart phone to digital cameras. Digital
camera units sold worldwide have declined by 70%. So cameras are getting more expensive,
and smart phones are getting cheaper.

So if you use whatever is inexpensive, you are letting Joe Consumer choose what you use.
If you were an artist, your medium would be Crayola crayons.

Photography is inherently optical, but it's only electrical, electronic, digital or computerized
if you want it to be. We invited home computer companies, software companies, computer printer
companies, and consumer electronics companies (such as Sony, Canon, Nikon, Olympus, etc.)
into our photrography, and now our photography is dominated by the whims of the consumer.

Hassalblad doesn't make anything called "CoolPix".
Leica doesn't make anything called "PowerShot".

I didn't used to think it mattered, but now I'm sure it does.

A four-start restaurant that starts buying food from Coca-Cola, Pepsico, Frito-Lay, Andhauser Busch,
Mars, Inc., etc. won't have four stars for long. Those are good companies with solid products--but
they are consumer products. And Joe Consumer isn't too particular about what he eats--as long
as it's sweet or greasy.

So now we have the age of sweet and greasy photography--just the way the consumer likes it:
dinky images in saturated colors, low res, low dynamic range....and displayed on a crappy,
uncalibrated LCD computer monitor. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.