Does Gear Matter? The Three Pillars Of A Great Image

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Steve

Admin
Staff member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Can new gear help you get better photos?

The knee-jerk reaction of most photographers is to yell, "NO!"

Is that really true though? The answer may surprise you.

In this article, we'll look at the three pillars that make great image - gear, technique, and creativity - and how to blend them together to get the best possible images on your memory card.

A must read for any serious photographer.

 
Thanks Steve. As usual, you've artfully blended all of the aspects that make us better photographers while at the same time inspired us to take the time to prepare ourselves for capturing those special moments we all strive to record.
 
Can new gear help you get better photos?...
Well written article as usual, Steve. IMO many of the old conventional wisdom/rule of thumbs of photography no longer apply due to the technology changes. And as you point out the gear issue is certainly situational depending on what one shoots and how one uses images. But certainly for novice shooters the limitations are typically found a few inches behind the VF.

One part of the article that really got my attention was about your wife having more success shooting BIF with the Sony a7r4 than with Nikon DSLRs. Everything I've read about the a7r4 suggests that it is not good for shooting BIF. In the article you mentioned the advanced tracking of the a7r4 being superior to the DSLRs. Can you expound on that? FYI my frame of reference would be D850/D500.
 
Well written article as usual, Steve. IMO many of the old conventional wisdom/rule of thumbs of photography no longer apply due to the technology changes. And as you point out the gear issue is certainly situational depending on what one shoots and how one uses images. But certainly for novice shooters the limitations are typically found a few inches behind the VF.

One part of the article that really got my attention was about your wife having more success shooting BIF with the Sony a7r4 than with Nikon DSLRs. Everything I've read about the a7r4 suggests that it is not good for shooting BIF. In the article you mentioned the advanced tracking of the a7r4 being superior to the DSLRs. Can you expound on that? FYI my frame of reference would be D850/D500.
The actual tracking modes are what made the difference. She was having a tough time keeping a fixed AF area (like GRP or Dynamic) on the bird, where with the Sony she just locks on with the tracking mode and it keeps move the AF area to keep it on the bird. As she gets better at tracking (which she has since then) it gets better.
 
A wall-hanger of an article, Steve, and timely as always. I swapped notes with a couple of photographers recently on the gear topic and they similarly had posed the question: "when you can specifically answer the question of what problem will be solved by a specific piece of gear's addition to your bag, you're ready for the upgrade". That resonated with me. I went through a long deliberation last year on whether to splurge on a D6 (I did, eventually) and it is affording me the opportunity to nab some new keepers. I may have got some of those shots before but there would've been more luck involved. The last two weekends I've been fortunate to get out in the company of some Great Grey Owls. My intent was to capture more interesting flight shots. Better technique and the intent to apply more creativity put a smile on my face more than a few times.
 
I enjoyed reading this yesterday. I would agree that better gear in the proper hands does in fact make a difference. The director of photography for USA Today agrees with this. He is a Canon shooter however when the a1 came out he commented that technology and speed like this will greatly increase the keeper rate and offer unique captures with 30fps that are less likely to happen with slower fps.

I personally welcome technology from whoever makes it. The more I can focus on the art of photography the better. I am more than happy to allow technology to do the heavy lifting.
 
Enjoyable article. Reminds me of going to Sears as a young man interested in woodworking. I asked the old codger running the Craftsman department, "Is this a good router?" He replied, "It's as good as you are, son. It's as good as you are."
 
Can new gear help you get better photos?

The knee-jerk reaction of most photographers is to yell, "NO!"

Is that really true though? The answer may surprise you.

In this article, we'll look at the three pillars that make great image - gear, technique, and creativity - and how to blend them together to get the best possible images on your memory card.

A must read for any serious photographer.

So true Steve
Sadly, being a wildlife photographer (in my case, trying to be wildlife photographer :))
I always need longer glass, I have the Holy Trinity and a Tammy G1 which is driving me nuts, had it repaired under warranty once, now its time for the trash can
People say just get closer, well for some subjects OK but others not so much
Mates iPhone and yes, I now have a pelican case for my rig :)
croc.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Am now thinking best option is a 500 PF but my D4s is only 16mp and cropping is not a good idea
Just have to live with cropping I guess
600 f4 in my country around $14,000
................. Gary
 
Am now thinking best option is a 500 PF but my D4s is only 16mp and cropping is not a good idea
Just have to live with cropping I guess
600 f4 in my country around $14,000
................. Gary

I know what you mean but I'll keep my D4s because if light gets difficult it is still my favourite in terms of Hi ISO IQ.
In situations like shown above with lots of light shooting DX or FX with high res yould be an option if you don't have or can'T get one of the big guns.
I used to shoot one of the good old D7200 with the 500PF giving you the crop factor of 1.5 plus 24 MPixel and for this kind of light it works nicely.
And if you shoot a D850 in DX mode - or you do the corresponding heavy crop in post - you still have 19,5 Mpixel left, which is more than our good old D4s has full frame.
Also, looking at your picture and assuming that it was shot from a boat, that is where a lens like the 500PF is hard to beat. My friend has some of the real big guns up to the 800 f5.6 but the biggest lens he shot from a boat used to be the 200-500. Then he tried my 500PF and the chance for the 200-500 to go for a swim as gone to zero ;).
 
Would today's gear have made Ansel Adams a better photographer (or was it the man who made the photograph)?

Anytime a subject like this is broached, Adams is always dragged out. However, full disclosure, I think many of our modern landscape masters are much better and more creative. I know, it's a blasphemous idea, and just my opinion. Still, I think if you took Adam's work and mixed it in with some of our modern masters, most people would barely notice his stuff. Again, just my opinion.

I also think today's gear would have made a huge impact for him. Just the size alone would open up so many more opportunities to get into places where you just can't physically fit an 8x10 camera. The ease of use would have allowed him to shoot more in a single outing. Even things like zoom lenses would have a huge impact for landscape - a zoom allows you to pick your perspective rather than compromising perspective because you only have a handful of focal lengths at your disposal. There are also countless ways things like dynamic range, cleaner ISOs, and so forth could have a huge impact.

Adams pushed his gear and the technology at the time to the limits, and I have no reason to think he wouldn't so the same now. Again, I still stand by my statement that 80% of a great image comes from behind the viewfinder, but I certainly think Adams would have benefited from modern tech.
 
One thing I will say. If the reviews are accurate and the output from the newest teleconverter's is as good as they say that could be a big benefit of new technologies. Looking at the Z camera's if you can carry a 2x converter and get no degradation compared to the F mount version then yes modern gear helps.
 
Last edited:
Modern gear has given me more excellent images than I could get in 2 decades doing manual focusing. I was good at it after receiving training shooting fast race cars at Indy or sprint cars on dirt for USAC. Using modern equipment I got even better shots of racing, 18 frame Red Fox fight I got-I would have never gotten it if I was using old equipment.
 
Back
Top