Does it even matter?

Just something I've been thinking about lately as I offer gear advice. Does it really even matter which of the similar gear alternatives you choose in the long run? Let say that for every purchasing decision you have made in the last 5 years, that you just listed the two best alternatives down and flipped a coin. Would your images really be any better or worse? Even really any different?

I know personally I put a lot of time into gear swaps and gear selections in the past and I'm just kind of deciding it doesn't even matter. Just pick something and go shoot already.

I buy on the basis that you don't know what it actually costs you to the day you sell it... I've had cheaper lens and lost £400 on them, then had £2k lens I've only lost £100 0r even broken even on them, so I see allot of the better lens as better investments.

Thats me, but I think it doesn't matter to how well you'll do at photography, just to me only makes a difference to cost lol

Nope, apart from minor lens differences, resolution etc almost without exception any slr will do.

Well, I'd have to say "yes" and "no".

Yes, you are right... "Just pick something and go shoot already" is a pretty good philosophy.

But, there are different features to choose among gear, that will or won't make your shooting more enjoyable or even allow you to get a particular shot. Gear is not universally interchangealbe. Needs vary a lot from user to user, so the gear that best fits their particular needs will vary a lot too. (Otherwise, why would Canon make 65 or more different lenses.)

I've built up a lens kit that meets my needs well over nearly 12 years using Canon. It's been a gradual process, but I must have made pretty good choices because I've only done one real "swap". Everything else has continued to serve... first on film, then on crop DSLRs, now on both crop and full frame. I shoot a wide variety of subjects, so have a fairly wide variety of gear.

But the gear I've chosen might not meet someone else's needs very well. I try to remember that when I reply to requests for info. I try to point out both the strengths and the weaknesses of the gear I use or have had opportunity to try over the years.

There's also danger of overwhelming yourself... Being weighed down with too much gear or with gear that you haven't taken the time to choose well or learned to get the very best out of it.

But, in the end, for most of us the purpose is to take shots (not just acquire gear) and "just go shoot already" often is very good advice!

If you don't see the difference, nobody else will either.

If you do see the difference, then it's still probably only you who would still be able to see any difference.

Now, does that mean you're wasting money or time? Only you can answer that and it depends on your needs.

The general idea that you're getting at Taylor (I think anyways) is that most of the time, the gear is not the bottleneck, but the photographer themselves is. Whether that is creativity, perseverance, or just trying things other don't.

It's all relative to what you shoot. Some people like pictures that look like a Holga negative and some people are pixel peepers.

"Photography" in itself consists of many hobbies and professions. Being a gear-head is one of those sub-hobbies, and lots of people really enjoy the time they spend researching, pricing, and negotiating.

Nothing wrong with that. Sometimes the journey is as much fun as the destination.

Could I take good images with my older gear? Certainly. Are there images that I couldnt make as well with the old gear as I can with the new? Certainly. My 300D with a inexpensive zoom doesnt provide the output that my 5DII with a 135L does. Gear matters if you know what you want to do and how to do it.

gonzogolf wrote in post #15501203
Could I take good images with my older gear? Certainly. Are there images that I couldnt make as well with the old gear as I can with the new? Certainly. My 300D with a inexpensive zoom doesnt provide the output that my 5DII with a 135L does. Gear matters if you know what you want to do and how to do it.

That's not exactly what I mean. 300D and 5Dmk2 are not really going to be in the same discussion as two alternatives.

Say you were trying to decide 135L or a 70-200 f2.8. Would your pictures be that different if you'd picked the zoom? You might work slightly differently, but you'd be taking essentially the same images. Or say you had picked Sony 5 years ago and were shooting with a A900 and a CZ 135mm f1.8. Images would be about the same.

I'm not saying gear doesn't matter, I am saying specific gear (probably) doesn't matter. If you pick the Sigma 17-50 or the Canon 17-55, doesn't matter much.

I think of all the differences in gear Ive had ISO is the only thing that has really made a huge difference. Ive always got the shot I wanted, sometimes just required more lateral thinking or techniques. Now though, I took my s95 to New York and was happy with the photos, I took my brothers fujifilm s100 to a remote site, shot on black and white only as an experiment and was happy. I dont think it makes a huge difference.

I do understand completely what the OP is trying to say - in the past year I sold Rebel 500, 28/1.8, 50 1.8, 15mm-85mm and bought 5D II, 28 f/2.8 IS, 50 1.4, 24 - 105. Just yesterday I saw a portrait I took with Rebel & 28 f/1.8 and couldn't believe the color, the sharpness, how beautiful it was. I doubt I could get it any better with my new equipment.

On the otherhand, I captured some beautiful shots of my granddaughter's school program with the 5D ii & 85 f/1.8 that the Rebel could not do. I use the 70-200 for wildlife and birding and I have some gorgeous shots of hawks, with such clarity and contrast that the Rebel couldn't capture.
So yes, we could all make-do with our current equipment and probably 85% of shots would be equal - it's just seeing that 15% that outshine that makes me think "yes, it was worth it".

I once read one of those "advice" thingies printed on the back of a pack of sugar at a Chinese restaurant and it's stuck with me: you need to learn from the mistakes of others because you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.

I'm with Waterrockets. I enjoy the research part of the buying process. I'm also a bit fearful I'll end up making a mistake. POTN serves me well for both issues.

I haven't made enough purchases to know if Taylor is on to something or not but I agree, getting out and shooting is where the rubber meets the road, if the photographs are your main goal.

Sometimes it probably makes little difference. Take a common question like Sigma 85/1.4 vs 85L or some such comparison for example. People obsess over deciding between very, very similar lenses where the often tiny actual differences probably won't really show up in their photos.

There are two places where a somewhat subtle change affected me a lot. I think this generally comes to lenses that will change how you are able to shoot. Examples:

1) I read a lot of iffy opinions on the Canon 100-400L and so I shot sports for about 18 months using a 300/4L with and without a 1.4X TC. Eventually I gave in, sold the prime and got a 100-400L. Man, the IQ difference is not worth mentioning, but I sure can work faster and cover more of the field with the zoom. I really wish I had gotten the 100-400 in the first place and ignored all the naysayers.

2) I had a 1D3 and I did not like using it above ISO 6400. That meant I really needed to shoot indoor sports with primes because so many local gyms are quite dark. When I got a chance, I moved to a 1D4 which was worth about a stop in high ISO. That in turn allowed me to change to a 70-200/2.8, which again really sped up my shooting in basketball and volleyball.

These are very specific examples, but sometimes small differences are really important. And sometimes the small differences are meaningless.

Phoenixkh wrote in post #15501563
I haven't made enough purchases to know if Taylor is on to something or not but I agree, getting out and shooting is where the rubber meets the road, if the photographs are your main goal.

I'm trying to convince myself here as much as anything! I've noticed that if I haven't got a new piece of gear, I don't take as many pictures. So maybe I like photography for all the wrong reasons, too...

tkbslc wrote in post #15501397
I'm not saying gear doesn't matter, I am saying specific gear (probably) doesn't matter. If you pick the Sigma 17-50 or the Canon 17-55, doesn't matter much.

Agreed, the differences between two similar lenses made by different manufacturers will generally not show significantly, unless there is a significant quality difference, or a difference in max aperture.

tkbslc wrote in post #15501397
Say you were trying to decide 135L or a 70-200 f2.8. Would your pictures be that different if you'd picked the zoom? You might work slightly differently, but you'd be taking essentially the same images.

Hmmm, I don't agree here I'm afraid. The pictures are going to be different sometimes. Sure, if you are shooting at f/8 and around 135mm then the images are going to be essentially the same. However, the lenses are actually very different. The prime allows you to shoot at f/2 which is better at throwing the background totally out of focus, the zoom won't be able to give such a nice background. It is better at that particular job.

On the other hand, the zoom is much more versatile and allows you to shoot at the distance which gives you the best perspective, and arrangement of the elements in the scene, whilst still filling the frame with the subject. The prime means that you either stand back and crop a significant amount of the frame away (compared to shooting at 200mm, say) and keep your chosen perspective, or fill the frame by moving forward but lose the perspective that you wanted. Obviously, compared to shooting at less than 135mm, you have no option but to stand further back in order to get the scene in, but the perspective is forced upon you and may not be what you want.

Changes of perspective significantly alter an image, so no, they won't be "essentially the same".

As JeffreyG mentioned about switching from a 300 prime to a 100-400L, a prime in the middle of a zoom range does not mean that it can do the job of the zoom. I also have the 100-400L and a 300 prime (the f/2.8) and they are used in totally different situations. Sure they can be pretty similar at 300mm and f/8, but they are hugely different otherwise for the reasons I gave above, and for the reasons that JeffreyG gave. I also have a 70-200 f/2.8 which is almost covered (focal length wise) by the 100-400L, but again has it's own niche where it gets used because the 100-400L isn't suitable (and vice versa).


Of course, gear is important in that you cannot capture an image with unsuitable equipment for the task at hand. However, the most important factor is the photographer. Without the ability to visualise how they want the finished image to look, or the best perspective to use, they will never get the best out of it.

So, yes, I do echo the sentiment that the important thing is to get out and shoot, and practice. Constantly obsessing over gear is a waste of time, but you do need to think about your needs, and get the right tools for what you want to do.