It is not the gear.

For people who blame the camera. Three minute vid.
https://youtu.be/3RnEo​74Fp4c

Holding a large print away from the camera in a compressed video is hardly convincing.

Guess that's why he shouts the whole time.

.

If one only takes photos of things that sit still and pose for you, then yeah, of course, the camera isn't holding them back. The image he used to "prove his point" didn't seem to be shot in anything that would be considered "difficult conditions". A still, cooperative subject that would sit and pose anywhere the photographer told him to. Sheesh!

If someone is trying to take sublime action shots of a high school football game at night under very dim lights, where flash is not allowed, then the camera is most definitely holding them back. Same can be said for running deer after dusk. Same can be said for birds in flight on a dark, dreary, overcast day. Try to shoot that stuff with your Nikon D-whatever from 2001, then tell me that the camera doesn't matter.

Blanket statements suck.

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18132959
.

If one only takes photos of things that sit still and pose for you, then yeah, of course, the camera isn't holding them back. The image he used to "prove his point" didn't seem to be shot in anything that would be considered "difficult conditions". A still, cooperative subject that would sit and pose anywhere the photographer told him to. Sheesh!

If someone is trying to take world-class action shots of a high school football game at night under very dim lights, where flash is not allowed, then the camera is most definitely holding them back. Same can be said for running deer after dusk. Same can be said for birds in flight on a dark, dreary, overcast day. Try to shoot that stuff with your Nikon D-whatever, then tell me that the camera doesn't matter.

Blanket statements suck.

.

So todays top of the range camera gear will be of no use whatsoever in taking top quality photographs in ten years time then?
The only way you can take a top quality photograph is to use the latest top of the range camera gear?

.

john crossley wrote in post #18132974
So todays top of the range camera gear will be of no use whatsoever in taking top quality photographs in ten years time then?
The only way you can take a top quality photograph is to use the latest top of the range camera gear?

No, what you are saying/asking here is not true at all. The two questions you asked involve blanket statements, and I think you know how I feel about blanket statements.

.

john crossley wrote in post #18132974
. . . of no use whatsoever . . . ? The only way . . . ?

One phrase that applies here is "straw man." Mr. Crossley, arguing against an exaggeration is easy, but it doesn't advance the discussion. I know you're capable of a more reasoned reply.

Without gear, we would struggle to take photos, so a baseline for its importance exists upon which most of us can agree.

But how “importance” or “matters” is defined will vary among the user, whereby ultimately the issue centers more on sufficiency. That is, if a pinhole camera is sufficient for someone, then the gear matters up to that point.

What is certainly true is that expensive gear is not needed to take great photographs, but some folks, depending on their photographic objectives, might need some of the performance features found only in high-end gear…again, what matters is what the individual finds sufficient for their needs (or wants).

Yet, as always, if one is unfortunately a poor photographer (subjectivity noted), then one is a poor photographer irrespective of the gear used.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18132980
.

john crossley wrote in post #18132974
So todays top of the range camera gear will be of no use whatsoever in taking top quality photographs in ten years time then?
The only way you can take a top quality photograph is to use the latest top of the range camera gear?

No, what you are saying/asking here is not true at all. The two questions you asked involve blanket statements, and I think you know how I feel about blanket statements.

.

All blanket statements?

john crossley wrote in post #18132974
So todays top of the range camera gear will be of no use whatsoever in taking top quality photographs in ten years time then?
The only way you can take a top quality photograph is to use the latest top of the range camera gear?

Not what he was saying. He's just saying that a 30D with a 75-300 is going make things a LOT more difficult, if not impossible, to shoot under those less than ideal conditions than a 1D3 and 70-200L. There is only so much skill that can save you under more hostile shooting conditions and that some lower end and/or older gear has limitations that newer and/or high end gear do not have.

*Its not always the gear. (But sometimes might be.)


Cameras are tools, and like any tool you use one suited to the task and goal. Yes, you can drive spikes with the same basic standard handle claw hammer that you might put up trim with, but the task it a whole lot easier if you use a long handled, heavy headed framing hammer.

I've also shot sports using a fully manual C330f medium format camera on various black and white films this year, and I've gotten very usable images out of them. However they're nothing remotely similar to what I produced with my digital camera, and resulted in only a small fraction of the useable volume of photographs I could get from my old 7D bodies, and the quality and volume I could produce from my 7D is less than what I can do with even never and more modern cameras.


Yes, you can produce great images out of older cameras, but you can do more and push your boundaries that much farther using gear that is more suited to the desired results and work flow. If you are shooting very undemanding subject matter under very low demand conditions, then advancing your gear will provide excessively diminished returns.


Advancing tech really doesn't make the good work done with today's tech invalid, but rather limit's one's options as technology advances beyond what could be readily done with far newer kit.

As for phrases like "Its the photographer, not the camera", well then may I ask you to hand me your camera while you demonstrate the awesome and amazing photographs a photographer alone can create? I promise not to pawn it off or anything. At least not too quickly.

It's sometimes the gear.
If I have to push the ISO on the 5D3 up to 12800 in order to maintain an adequate shutter speed, so I can get a clean shot of a moving performer in a poorly-lit performance venue, that's what I'll do. Go ahead and bring out your 20D, or your film camera with fancy ASA400 film (you can push it a couple stops in processing, right?). If you can get the same shot, I'll eat my hat. And I'm not even wearing a hat.


It's sometimes the gear.
Shooting at a nighttime party at the Georgia Aquarium, a couple weekends ago, I really could have used a nice LED panel for WYSIWYG lighting and focus assist. Even with the 5D3 and a f/2.8 lens, I missed focus A LOT. More gear (same camera and lens, more appropriate lighting) would have let me get more shots in less time and in sharper focus. I'm not satisfied with the results I got with the gear that I took.

Snydremark wrote in post #18133217
...older gear has limitations that newer and/or high end gear do not have.

But older gear was NEW GEAR when it was first released and its technology superseded that of its predecessors.

All generalities are false, including this one. (Voltaire)

Hrm,

What are we holding ourselves back from here?

The rant had no subject or point.

There was a good point made about printing a large print from a small resolution file, regardless of it being from an old camera or not. And yes, a very good point that large prints can be made from small resolution files and you likely cannot tell with any kind of accuracy if it came from a 5MP or 18MP or 50MP file in most situations, viewing it from appropriate distances.

But what does that have to do with "holding someone back?" And again, hold them back from what?

Looks like a typical "just post something, they'll watch it, it's all about making views & comments to get income" youtuber.

In the spirit of the idea that we generally all get into often enough, the idea of the gear versus the photographer and how the relationship results in a photograph is a good one, in that yes, we need the gear to even do this, but the gear is not the biggest limitation to a good photograph, and we all agree that good gear helps, but... what was his point? I don't think he even knew if he had one.

Very best,

.

john crossley wrote in post #18133250
But older gear was NEW GEAR when it was first released and its technology superseded that of its predecessors.

Right. But even now, the very latest, state-of-the-art still photo gear will often times be the limiting factor that keeps me from taking the kind of images I want to take. There are some conditions that exist in real life that technology may never be able to overcome. So, to some extent, the gear will always be limiting what we are able to photograph, or how well we will be able to photograph it.

.