Are we too gear centric?

[Ian]

This is a great forum and has many good tips. But I do wonder sometimes if we get too gear centric. Some interesting arguments about the various merits of this brand over another, some of it subjective some of it with technical data.
Someone made a comment about the kit he has is a 100 times better than Ansel Adams but Ansel Adams photographs are a 100 times better. That’s they key really.
I have decent kit, not optimised for BIF but I do like wildlife photography in particular. I do landscapes as well and stationary birds, a dabble in macro and even a little street photography. I have some of the best glass that that manufacturer produces. Its size and weight (mirrorless) facilitates my travel. It wasn’t cheap but it didn’t need a second mortgage either.
Rather than fretting over the kit I want to learn how to use what I have got to better advantage, learn better field craft, to think quicker and see the shot, get to the right locations. I know there is a huge pool of experience on this forum that will help me in that quest and we need to take advantage of that talent. After all the best camera in the world is the one you have in your hand when the shot of a lifetime is before you.

 

[Yezdi]

What I believe is, if you find a camera you like, and it serves your purposes as a photographer, then it really doesn’t matter whether it’s a DSLR, micro four thirds, APS-C, full frame, medium format, or plain old 35mm film camera. If it can take the pictures you want to take, then it’s probably the right camera for you. It’s not about which camera is better than the other, it’s about finding one, that works with your style and lets you shoot the photographs you want. There is no camera in the market that does it all.

 

[Ralph]

Well said gentleman!!!

 

[Steve]

I fully agree and this is great topic.

As you know, most of my videos and articles are more about techniques and using gear than the gear itself. I even try to sprinkle techniques into my gear reviews when possible. Still, in photography gear and technique are inexorably linked. I think the best photographers are both experts with their gear and highly creative at the same time.

I also think the reason many photographers gravitate towards gear discussion is pragmatic - gear is expensive and they don't want to make a mistake. Just glancing through the threads on this forum there's a lot of questions about this vs that piece of kit. And I totally get that - there's often a good chunk of change on the line and no one likes making a poor decision.

On the other hand, learning field technique is cheap / free. Look at the number of articles, videos, etc freely available to help upgrade techniques. Even paid information is pocket change compared to even a modest wildlife or landscape photography kit. (As a side note, it always amazes me when people complain about the price of a how-to book - they'll spend tens of thousands on gear but balk at 20 bucks for a book that would do far more to further their photography...oh well).

I think the real trap though is when people get so wrapped up in gear they start to think it's the end-all and be-all of good photography. In my opinion and experience, gear is 20% of the equation (or less) for most shots. The real magic comes from 4" behind the viewfinder and improving the gear between your ears is really the best upgrade. I have never enjoyed what I would call a significant improvement in my photography from a gear upgrade. My major leaps have always come from pushing myself to try new techniques and get better in the field.

This isn't to say gear doesn't make a difference - it absolutely does or we'd never buy higher-end cameras / lenses. However, gear upgrades are never a substitute for photographer technique.

 

[Woodyg3]

I think it makes a lot of sense to really research when buying, and that's the time to go ahead and be gear centric. After that, though, it's time to put all that out of your head just go out and make the best pictures you can. The most important factor is always the person behind the camera, not the camera itself.

 

[BirdDogDad]

Very well put, Steve. I might also add that modern electronics are so complicated, with such a daunting learning curve, it is impossible not to get a bit hung up on the gear itself. I learned photography in the film days, and the camera wasn't making choices for you. Set the ASA, shutter speed and f-stop, and then all you had to concentrate on was what you saw through the viewfinder. When I got my first real digital camera, a Nikon D200, my photos were awful. Out of frustration I turned off every "automatic" setting and went back to fully manual, treating it like one of my trusty old film cameras--which I completely understood. Voila, my images improved overnight. Slowly, and just one at a time, I added in a "feature" here and there and explored it thoroughly before moving on to the next one.

Steve is right, gear is the least important part of the equation. I've played tennis for decades, and the equipment for that sport has certainly changed and improved over the years. If I thought buying a new set of racquets would make me a better player, I'd get new ones every month. I'm sorry to report, much to my chagrin, it doesn't work that way. I could buy the most expensive high-tech racquet on the planet, and a pro could still beat me easily with a badminton racquet strung with chicken wire.

 

[DRwyoming]

This is a great forum and has many good tips. But I do wonder sometimes if we get too gear centric.

I agree with the sentiment of your post but I do think modern nature and wildlife photography is a balancing act of gear, how to use that gear and the basic naturalist field skills that have always been part of the genre all layered on top of a photographer's eye. The manufacturers have packed an awful lot of features into modern gear and learning to use that gear well is for better or worse a pretty technical subject. Nothing worse than being in the field, needing to do something to capture the image you're after but not remembering how to set up your gear to do that thing. And as others have posted a lot of the gear talk comes down to 'should I buy this or that...' kind of discussions which are completely understandable given the cash outlays involved.

But I agree, getting out to shoot with what you have or what you can afford is by far the most important thing and there are images captured on film or completely obsolete digital gear that still holds up as first class work today, those photogs weren't limited by not having the latest sensor designs or crazy high frame rates.

FWIW, I often try to include at least a short backstory on images I post here to give folks an idea of how the shot came about. I think that kind of stuff is super valuable for someone just starting out to get an idea of how the field skills play into all of this, particularly for wildlife images. You can have the best gear money can buy but if you can't find subjects to point your lenses at then the gear itself doesn't matter. Sure it's a good start to go to hotspots like Yellowstone or Bosque but there's always a bit more to it than that and knowing more about other photographer's field practices can help a lot.

 

[Rollamok]

One thing I’ve really gotten out of this forum so far is a good reduction in my level of gear lust. I have some good but not pro level gear that happens to seem pretty popular for posting photos here when the gear is listed with the photo. What’s become obvious to me is that others have taken much better pictures than I have using exactly the same gear. I’ve also seen a few photos posted using much higher end gear that probably wouldn’t have made it into my favorites file.

Photography is a pretty technical field and tends to attract a lot of folks with a technical background who also naturally desire high quality equipment. Nothing wrong with that. But those of us in the category I’m describing can easily over focus on equipment and under focus on technique. After all, improving technique takes work whereas unpacking a new gadget is fun! I accept that I’ll never win any photo contests because I’m unwilling to get out of bed before dawn, interrupt cocktail hour, or lug my good camera more than a few steps from my back door. But I can still take some photos that make me happy, and that’s good enough for me.

The one thing I wonder is, with the advent of cameras that can essentially take a video of dozens of high quality photos each second, will some of the key techniques required to capture great BIF images become obsoleted by some AI engine programmed to simply find the best image out of a stream of hundreds...

 

[BirdDogDad]

What I find refreshing about Steve's forum is that all the questions about lenses, cameras, other gear, post processing, etc., seem to be made with one purpose in mind: to make better images. That is commendable. I've spent time on other forums where acquiring the latest and greatest gear seems to be an end in itself, a symbol of status and the size of one's bank account.

 

[Andy Work]

I could buy the most expensive high-tech racquet on the planet, and a pro could still beat me easily with a badminton racquet strung with chicken wire.

That made me laugh out loud!

 

[Viathelens]

I do think gear matters, especially in wildlife or action shooting. Having said that, no gear will ever teach someone the art of the craft. But learning the art does come from knowing the gear you have and using your own abilities to use the gear to its fullest to create art, even in wildlife scenes. I think getting the shot is a combination of innate skill, learned skill, and knowledge of the gear used. I think this also applies to the software that we use, not knowing what our software can do limits our ability to use it to its fullest. Mastering the complexities of photography is a never-ending challenge for me and I love the art of the craft more than the gear itself. My gear is a means to the end, getting the shot I want.

 

[BirdDogDad]

That made me laugh out loud!

Thanks, Andy. Unfortunately true.

 

[Woodpecker]

I think the real trap though is when people get so wrapped up in gear they start to think it's the end-all and be-all of good photography. In my opinion and experience, gear is 20% of the equation (or less) for most shots. The real magic comes from 4" behind the viewfinder and improving the gear between your ears is really the best upgrade. I have never enjoyed what I would call a significant improvement in my photography from a gear upgrade. My major leaps have always come from pushing myself to try new techniques and get better in the field.

This isn't to say gear doesn't make a difference - it absolutely does or we'd never buy higher-end cameras / lenses. However, gear upgrades are never a substitute for photographer technique.

I fully agree on the initial questions as well as most of the comments.
Gear is useless if I don't know how to use it properly. That even applies to a hammer. And of course it has to fit your needs. The sense of buying a hammer is questionalble if you prefer working with glue and screws 95% of the time. For the remaining 5% a stone or a head might be good enough.

Finding the gear fitting to me, developping my set of equipment corresponding to my learning curve and adapting it to changing requirements is all part of the learning process.
Any learning process in one area of a topic - no matter which - will trigger learning processes and subsequent changes in other areas and one of it is gear.
If I compare my knowledge, my way of taking pictures and the kind of pictures I like(d) to take before and after I met my pro photographer friend, it's two totally different things and the gear has completely changed and improved. The discrepancy between preferences, capability and gear is continuously getting smaller and this also includes stepping back, using less gear, a smaller lens, an older camera model,... And it happens continuously today, even now while reading the input of others here or reating to it.
I can remember @Steve saying that a piece of equipment is a tool, not a jewel and I think that explains it all.

The other thing is the question "is it worth it ?" (i.e. to buy this or that peace of gear) and there is a contradiction in it.
Providing you are willing and able to learn to use your gear and know the "craftmanship of photography" well enough to call it a serious hobby you could have a situation to say that it is not worth buying this or that piece of equipment, because it is so expensive and you think you can't use it often enough to rectify the investment.
But If you really love your hobby and it really gives you something, the logic could well be the other way round.

Let's say for some reason you can't indulge your passion as often as you would like to and you use it for pleasure, for resetting your mind, for earthing yourself.
In this case the more rare the occasions are the more important it can be to avoid unnecessary limitations or draw-backs that spoil the process. Part of the measures against that is to have the gear that fits your need and using it becomes integral part of the pleasure and satisfaction you are after. Like anybody else I don't want to spend a fortune for gear or waste the money I worked for, but for me this is an argument to think a little out of the box here in the sense of "deliberately uneconomic". If I get to the point where I get limited by the tool - not by myself - and become dissapointed although I would have been able to do better with another one, I have put it in question and change it.

If I had the money I would happily get something like a D4S or D5 straight away, even if it sometimes had to stay in the backpack for two months due to work , just because once I have the opportunity it would be so great to allow me "forgetting" about low light, buffer or framerate and just being able fire hoping to get the best shot of my life .

 

[CharlieR]

I did get caught up in getting the latest/greatest gear, but now that I'm retired I don't have that luxury--just using what I have to take great photographs is what I'm looking for as well. I see stunning photographs all the time and when I inquire what camera/lens the person is using, I'm often surprised that they're using something older/simpler than I have. For example, there's a young lady in Brazil who posts absolutely gorgeous photos of birds down there--I just knew she was using a full-frame, high-end camera with a fast prime. Nope, she's using a Nikon D7100 with a Sigma 150-600. There's a young man in the Netherlands who posts these ethereal, poster quality photographs (landscapes) and he's using a Nikon D7500 with a Sigma 10-20mm most of the time. So, I'm always heartened by the fact that you don't have to be shooting a Canon EOS R5 with a 500mm f4 or a Sony A7RIV with a 600mm f4 or a Nikon D850 with a 70-200mm f2.8 to get quality images. You just have to be a photographer and use what's in your bag.

 

[Rodamu]

I agree with the sentiment of your post but I do think modern nature and wildlife photography is a balancing act of gear, how to use that gear and the basic naturalist field skills that have always been part of the genre all layered on top of a photographer's eye. The manufacturers have packed an awful lot of features into modern gear and learning to use that gear well is for better or worse a pretty technical subject. Nothing worse than being in the field, needing to do something to capture the image you're after but not remembering how to set up your gear to do that thing. And as others have posted a lot of the gear talk comes down to 'should I buy this or that...' kind of discussions which are completely understandable given the cash outlays involved.

But I agree, getting out to shoot with what you have or what you can afford is by far the most important thing and there are images captured on film or completely obsolete digital gear that still holds up as first class work today, those photogs weren't limited by not having the latest sensor designs or crazy high frame rates.

FWIW, I often try to include at least a short backstory on images I post here to give folks an idea of how the shot came about. I think that kind of stuff is super valuable for someone just starting out to get an idea of how the field skills play into all of this, particularly for wildlife images. You can have the best gear money can buy but if you can't find subjects to point your lenses at then the gear itself doesn't matter. Sure it's a good start to go to hotspots like Yellowstone or Bosque but there's always a bit more to it than that and knowing more about other photographer's field practices can help a lot.

The learning curve on new cameras is high and may not be worth the improvements over older models. When I purchased a Z50 for its compactness and light weight, I found its operations differed significantly from my D850. I still have not learned all the features of the new camera. Certainly I wouldn't trade in the D850 unless there is some very major improvements in a future model or it breaks.

 

[Pics6x6]

There is too much technology and not enough photography going on. And there will never be a menu choice that says, "Artist... yes/no"

 

[PapaLou]

My other expensive hobby is music and guitars. The exact same discussion happens on those forums - just substitute camera for guitar, lens for strings, nikon for fender, etc. Does better equipment make you a better photographer/musician or is it the reverse? If you put a cheap guitar in the hands of Carlos Santana or Eric Clapton I think you can assume the result!

 

[Roaring 40s]

For good wildlife shots you need gear, technique, perseverance and luck.

So of course gear is important but won't on its own do anything.

 

[MartyD]

Yes, gear does play a much more significant roll in photography today than it did 40 years ago. I don't want to in any way downplay the importance of the skill of the photographer and their ability to master the equipment they own but at one time we could all shoot the same film and focus accuracy was all about how good you were as a photographer at focusing. Today we pay for the quality of image sensor, it's processing speed, and the speed and complexity of the auto focus abilities of cameras we purchase. You still need to know how to take advantage of the equipment you own, but the equipment does make a difference in many situations.

 

[Roaring 40s]

I think in some ways the number of choices our gear offers makes photography harder rather than easier than it used to be. The number of possible settings combinations is huge. A camera is an imaging computer with a lump of glass on the front. We need experts like Steve to write the manuals that factories don't.
So no wonder we might obsess a little about gear.

 

[Ineluki]

Rather than fretting over the kit I want to learn how to use what I have got to better advantage, learn better field craft, to think quicker and see the shot, get to the right locations.
[/QUOTE]
Hi Ian, some said learn your gear and use it. This is right but you need time after having learned to use your. The moment will come that you see wherever you are a picture. The moment will come that you shoot this picture because you wanted it exactly the way you shot it.
The key is time. I remember my first steps into photography when I shot everything in any light. Now more than almost 50 years later (39 years as a journalist) I am photographing less because of the experience and that I had learned to see a picture in advance.
I have some of the very expensive lenses and cameras and tripods and ballheads and filters and backpads.
To be honest everything is only a tool to take photos.
The gear is important, a craftsman needs the gear to do the job. But a craftsman must know which gear to use to solve a problem.
Every time when I was asked which new camera should be bought I say that the best gear is the gear that is already here.

 

[AndyL3]

Agree with all, may just add that time is important and the right gear makes that time more valuable. I get up most mornings before the sun and trek to the marsh, trying to shoot passing birds was becoming very frustrating and making that time less enjoyable. By researching the gear threads I found a combo that works better in my hands and makes my time in the field more productive and less frustrating, so gear certainly has a place as I work on technique . I can read and reread all of Steves wonderful e-books ( I have purchased them all and READ them all) but trying to put that to use with less than optimal equipment would frustrate me.
I can say that I learn a ton from the Photographers here and their sage advice - thank you , but almost ALL of them are shooting the latest gear within the past 2 releases.

 

[Roaring 40s]

Yes, BIF shooting asks a lot of gear.

I've watched Frans Lanting's online course. He was shooting with manual film cameras for Nat Geo long ago, and wanted a head-on shot of an Albatross coming in to land.
It took him a week to get it - to watch its behaviour, select a manual focus point and a place for the tripod, and to succeed with it.
Good AF allows us to track a bird coming towards us - but we still have to learn something of its habits of course.

 

[Flyboy]

Actually, being quite new to the forum, and observing what seemingly a majority of the posters use, it tends to lead to thinking "WOW! If I had that lens/camera/tripod/gimbal, I could...But, I dream! Most of us will likely not become the dedicated wildlife photogs that are here, but can do something with whatever equipment we have. Not really wildlife, but go to where the animals or birds are habituated to people...parks, Zoos, in the South, Alligator farms, Actually, I was at one in SOUTH Dakota..."wildlife" tours...some are inexpen$ive...aviaries...set up a bird feeder or three. Great experience and practice! I think of a local park, complete with a pond...Gulls, other birds in the surrounding trees, and once in a great while, a girl in a Bikini. Next Spring, I am going to plant several pots of flowers, hoping to attract some butterflies and Hummmngbirds. Then there is that Bontanical Garden, and the Butterfly House.

 

[fcotterill]

For those of us who started with film, each frame counted. In my case starting with a Minolta SRT101 and old Leicaflex, then upgrading to a newly released FM2 the only tech to adapt to was the metering indicators. Not only cameras have gotten more complex with the lenses (VR and AF), but there are way so many choices in tripods and related support gadgets ie telephoto Gimbals etc. And let's not get into backpacks/hardcases!

A practicable grounding in some of this gear is If one shoots studio or scenes demanding artificial light it also gets gear centric with flashes/LEDs/light boxes/reflectors etc. Fine to get all this kit, quite another to deploy it with excellent results - ie as do the likes of Jeff McNally. One part of the lighting arena I do find distinctly simpler today is when i bought a Hahnel 2 flash kit using in key respects the Nikon CLS. The rechargable batteries are a big plus - less hassle and long lasting and the flashes just work with minimum tweaking An allied refinement are LED ringflashes which get around the older proprietary ring flashes. The new stuff just works and so much simpler than my stalwarts for closeup "mugshots" of bats and snakes etc on museum surveys. These were the SB21A on a F3, and then the R1C1 kit (with its accursed CR batteries).

Again being from the film days, where one learnt to read ambient light (to conserve film etc), the modern cameras are (1) basically full proof and (2) the best sensors tolerate post-processing corrections - and surprisingly well. Modern digital photography has also injected the complexities of capable computer hardware and complex post-processing software. With far too much time expending fighting the latest genomics software and GIS systems, I stubbornly minimize getting too far into the grimy guts of Adobe (!), but there are certainly some photographers who revel in this zone. Rather try and get as much right in camera 'out there'. The Landscape is one genre that's gotten highly technical in PP, well for for at least some people...it's a personal choice as how deep one's drills into this stuff.