Are we too gear centric?

[fcotterill]

AF on the modern cameras is challenging to understand and optimize. This applies especially in shooting Action scenes and many wildlife subjects. So with one's DSLR and latterly MILC, it is false economy to skimp on decent 3rd party guide because the trade manuals (ie Nikon's) often lack key data, and also don't drill deep enough into specifics.

The other complication is setting, controls, menus differ - not only across brands but between models... compare the different Nikons over the past decade. For example, I just read the latest Z updates on Thom Hogan's new Z Nikon site; he reports "three dozen" ways the Z5 differs from the Z6, and at least some are relevant to using these cameras. Some will likely relate to the AF settings.

Basically, the least painful route is get the relevant ebook. AF setups seem to be the big learning curve, compared to metering less so IMHO. With AF queries/pleas for help, Time and again I'm one of those advising the latest forum poster to get Steve's book(s) and download any relevant official technical guides (eg Nikon's for D5 and Z system AF, D6 most recently, which they do bury somewhat). EDIT: compare the slim manual of a film SLR (eg Nikon F90x) to a current DSLR (eg D780) - simple indicator of more complexity!

Speaking from experience with wildlife, the wrong AF setting(s) can be relied on to trash a fleeting opportunity - especially a fleeting moment with a wild animal. It equally pays dividends to optimize Custom settings for one's needs, which there's no substitute for only trial&error&trying out options. But first read the manual(s), and re-read them! So certainly knowing the gear matters its key features, especially, is unavoidable - Vital in fact. However, ultimately it's down to the old adage of "f8 and be there" in that optimize the settings you are likely to use, and also know how to change settings for a new set of demands - in some cases an switching AF setting/spot exposure must be near-instant! And the #1 rule will always - "Be There!"

 

[Squawk]

I was in a camera club in the early eighties with a Nikon F (even had TTL!!) and in the same club was someone with the go to Russian body. His shots were invariably better than everyone else because he was a better photographer.

That said though when I went from a D800 with a 70-300mm zoom to a D500 with a 400mm f2.8 things came together. Before I had to work really hard, missed lots of opportunities and had a low hit rate. Now the focus speed snaps on and the quality of the glass really shows. So yes, I think the quality of what you use is important in the result provided you have the technique to manage it. But I wouldn’t say I’m gear centric. I’ve 3 lenses and I never even think of looking at another lens (almost – I’d like a macro). Oh, and a good tripod. I think that’s underrated. I think the more photos you take the better you get and the less stuff you want.

One interesting thing though, and here I’ll make a bold prediction – I reckon we’ll never see a thread titled “Are we too knowledge centric?” Thanks Steve for making my knowledge radically better.

 

[Indrajeet Singh]

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.

I agree with you Yezdi, selecting the right is a matter of finding something that suits your style of photography and how well you can adapt to the layout of the buttons and controls.

 

[Rassie]

I believe the question about gear is very relevant in terms of its capabilities versus what one wants to achieve with your photography. If you start out as a beginner gear is probably less important. I had no aspirations of specializing in wildlife photography, landscape, or any other field when I started taking pictures back in the day. That's why I was quite happy with my Kodak Instamatic 50 years ago. Like my sister, who's in her 50's and took up the hobby only about 5 years ago regularly says to me "I still don't know what I want to be when I grow up as a photographer". For such a beginner who has so much to learn about photography any modern digital camera will do to start with and learn the craft. I'll exclude mobile phones and point-and-shoot cameras from this discussion and stick with the more specialized gear.

I found myself gravitating more and more to wildlife, nature and landscape photography as time went by, so now those genres are my main interests. As you learn photography and specialize more and more in a specific field one starts to understand the shortcomings of one's gear. When you can't achieve what you want to do because of equipment limitations you then go looking for something that is more capable and suits your needs better. It's at this point that gear becomes very important. My last DSLR that I bought (Nikon D7500) still suits just about all my wildlife, travel, nature and landscape photography. My most recent acquisition was the Nikon Z6. I wanted a full frame camera for its generally better IQ and dynamic range but the full frame DSLR's were too large and heavy to my liking for travel. The mirrorless cameras changed all that. I now love the Z6 and if I had my way I would use it all the time. But.... its tracking abilities and fast locking of focus of fast-moving wildlife currently is way behind the D7500. Being full frame its reach is also way shorter than the crop sensor. The Z6 is therefore my preferred travel camera for general photography while the D7500 remains the main wildlife camera.

So yes, gear is very important, and becomes more so as you refine your photography skills.

 

[Woodpecker]

So yes, gear is very important, and becomes more so as you refine your photography skills.

Perfectly agree on that and it is the same in other areas.

When I got (re)introduced to nature and wildlife photography years ago it would have been total nonsense to spend a fortune getting a pro body and a super tele prime because I simply wouldn't have been able to use that gear properly. As time goes by you learn by doing - but also from all of you here in the forum and especilally people like @Steve -.
You find out what you want to do, what you really can do - not only because of the capablilities but also from your preferences and the opportunities for different kinds of shooting in your environment - and you run into things that you never thought about before. I just decided to get a used pro body because low light headroom, buffer space and frame rate started to become an issue for me, something that didn't bother me before for various reasons ...

And there is also the other side of the medal. I know it is difficult for a rationalist to understand, but a psychologist will. Particular kinds of "things" can also push you to become better and even be better right away in particular situations, not because you did some super-learning during the night, but because your ambition is triggered to be priviledged to use it or worth using it. The reason can the the "thing" itself or someone who is using it who you admire as a person and/or for the results (s)he achieves with it.
This effect works for music, art, handcrafting etc. I had about three occasions in my entire life to get my fingers on one of the big Steinway grand pianos. I still was the exactly the same person and I certainly did not instantly mutate into a professional concert pianist, but what these instruments managed to squeeze out of me in these moments was still amazing ... and I still haven't bought one because I don't have the money, the space, ... Fortnuately cameras are a bit more compact and cheaper .