isn't about time we admit that cameras aren't holding us back...

Tom makes a good point about trying to photograph in very taxing circumstances, in which case even the current high end gear is lacking. However, for most hobbyists and even pros even a prosumer level camera has more capabilities than is necessary to do the job. When I first got into photography it was hard not to be overcome by GAS and I spent a lot of money because of it. However, once I quit buying and focused on shooting I've found my skills are finally getting to the point where I can actually take advantage of the full capabilities of my gear.

-Joe

I needed more FPS than the 60D could offer. Had made up my mind to find a used 1D4, but then I learned that the 7D2 was going to be released. Sometimes I wish I had gone with the 1D4. Upgraded from the 100-400 v1 to a 400 f/5.6 for sharpness. Glad I did.

My computer will be 10 y/o this December. Time to start thinking about replacing her.
My car is a 2000 with 225,000 miles. Another 200K left in the diesel.
I'm getting up there myself.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18628430
Blanket statements like this will almost always have exceptions.

There are times in my wildlife shooting when my cameras do 'hold me back' from getting the types of images that I want to create.

Some such instances involve some recent opportunities to photograph owls at nesting sites. . I've recently been shooting at two different nest sites, one a Barn Owl nest colony and the other a Great-horned Owl nest. . At each place, the owls are extremely nocturnal. . The adults do not show up at the nests until well after sunset, when dusk is well under way and complete darkness is not too far off.

There is still enough light for my autofocus to work, but the resultant images are absolutely deplorable, from an image-quality standpoint. . My primary objective is to capture the wonderfully intricate feather detail on the stunning plumage of the adult Barn Owls. . My sensor is not capturing all of the tiny little feather segments when I photograph the owls under such extreme low-light conditions.

If I had a camera that could capture extremely fine, intricate detail at very high ISOs, such as 51,200, and do so with no noise grain whatsoever, then I would be able to accomplish my objective on the Barn Owl shoot. . Because my bodies cannot produce the results I want at even 3200 ISO, I do feel as though my cameras are holding me back.

Whenever we want/need extremely high image quality, and we are shooting in extremely low light (like almost complete darkness), then how can one say that the cameras are not holding us back? . It's not like I can go there and shoot the owls in better light, because they don't come out of their holes until it is extremely dark. . Using flash is not a viable option because it startles the owls and causes them to behave unnaturally.

The above example is just one instance in which I feel that my camera is holding me back from accomplishing my objective. . There are other scenarios in which my current cameras hold me back but I don't feel like writing about all of those instances right now so I'll just wrap this post up for the time being.

.

What you want may not ever exist. Almost complete darkness, and to want to shoot something moving, such as an owl? That means you need an exposure time much less than a second. Just how many photons will each pixel see? Do you think each pixel will see the same number of photons? Sorry, but simple statistics works against you, even if each pixel had 100% efficiency converting photons to signal.

Look up "Poisson distribution" and "shot noise"

DreDaze wrote in post #18628206
so i'm a few beers in...otherwise i woudln't have even done this thread...but i see so many threads where people are complaining about their cameras, and how they need the newest, latest, greatest...yeah, there are new gadgets and everything...but for the most part, i feel like 90% of what people are using cameras for could be done with a camera from 5 years ago...would it be a little bit tougher to accomplish, yeah...pretty much...but what are the things you can accomplish with a new camera that you couldn't with a camera that came out 2 years ago? is it all just cleaner ISO? educate me on what i'm missing out on...cause i'm due for a new camera soon...and i'm wondering if it's worth it to bother spending more for the latest, and greatest

My current setup, 7D2 with 100mm L macro and 100-400mm II (plus a few other gadgets) gives me great results for what I shoot (mostly birds and bugs), and I am very satisfied with its performance.

BUT - I'm getting older, and some of that stuff is getting heavy. The 100-400 II is built like a tank, Roger Cicala says, and it feels like it. The 7D2 is also quite heavy. Others here on POTN are also looking for lighter-weight gear.

But lighter gear like the Rebels or the 4/3 line or the Sony 1"-type has various performance deficiencies, and often limitations in accessories like lenses.

I'm waiting and watching. Things are moving, maybe something will come along. How about a Sony APS-C mirrorless with top AF? The current Sony 100-400mm is a bit lighter than the Canon and combined with the right mirrorless might serve me for a few years. Or maybe a 4/3 offering with the Oly 300mm/4. Some Potners have gone to the Sony RX10 IV, and that looks to be a great alternative in good light (but maybe not so great in marginal light, and maybe not great for macro).

In short, I'm interested in smaller and lighter gear that gives me equivalent performance to my current heavy gear.

I’m fortunate to have found the right camera and lens for me, with the former 50-years-old and the latter 60-years-old. Desire no other kit, digital or film, old or new. Well, actually, a mint Leica M2 Luftwaffe outfit would be swell, but even if I could afford it, I probably wound’t use it, so what’s the point!

It’s like airfrogusmc said, find the gear that fits your needs or desires; photography allows for simple to complex, ancient to modern. If you need technological advancements to best attain your objectives, that’s understandable, and I think most people (even diehard “it’s the photographer, not camera” advocates) recognize this. But sufficiency is going to greatly differ with different photographers; this is not a an objectively measurable pursuit like racing cars.

So absolutely, gear can certainly be important, but this importance is NOT correlatively linked with technology and cost. For me, ergonomics is a crucial consideration.

But ultimately, if one is not currently adept at photography, the latest and most expensive usually isn’t going to ameliorate one’s visual deficiencies. That is, clean 1.5 trillion ISO doesn’t matter if you suck. And I think this is the point that the OP is stressing. No doubt, for some, buying up is necessary for their style of photography. But buying up is not going to buy skill.

"Simplicity is a prime requisite. The equipment of Alfred Stieglitz and Edward Weston represent less in cost and variety than many an amateur "can barely get along with." Their magnificent photographs were made with intelligence and sympathy-not with merely the machines. Many fields of photography demand specific equipment of a higher order of complexity and precision; yet economy and simplicity are relative, and the more complex a man's work becomes, the more efficient his equipment and methods must be."-Ansel Adams

Still as true today as it was 75 years ago when Adams wrote it.

And something from Weston.
"The fact is that relatively few photographers ever master their medium. Instead they allow the medium to master them and go on an endless squirrel cage chase from new lens to new paper to new developer to new gadget, never staying with one piece of equipment long enough to learn its full capacities, becoming lost in a maze of technical information that is of little or no use since they don't know what to do with it." - Edward Weston

As Haas was getting at in the quote I posted in post #6 is the one thing no camera can do is see. That is something you have to master yourself.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18628590
"Simplicity is a prime requisite. The equipment of Alfred Stieglitz and Edward Weston represent less in cost and variety than many an amateur "can barely get along with." Their magnificent photographs were made with intelligence and sympathy-not with merely the machines. Many fields of photography demand specific equipment of a higher order of complexity and precision; yet economy and simplicity are relative, and the more complex a man's work becomes, the more efficient his equipment and methods must be."-Ansel Adams

Still as true today as it was 75 years ago when Adams wrote it.

And something from Weston.
"The fact is that relatively few photographers ever master their medium. Instead they allow the medium to master them and go on an endless squirrel cage chase from new lens to new paper to new developer to new gadget, never staying with one piece of equipment long enough to learn its full capacities, becoming lost in a maze of technical information that is of little or no use since they don't know what to do with it." - Edward Weston

As Haas was getting at in the quote I posted in post #6 is the one thing no camera can do is see. That is something you have to master yourself.

Ya yah, let's see Adams do BIF with his wooden view camera.

Archibald wrote in post #18628597
Ya yah, let's see Adams do BIF with his wooden view camera.

Why would he do that? It wasn't who he was as a photographer. Did you read the quote? You must have missed this part "Many fields of photography demand specific equipment of a higher order of complexity and precision"

Archibald wrote in post #18628597
Ya yah, let's see Adams do BIF with his wooden view camera.

So is that to say that anyone can shoot like Adams with a more advanced camera than he used?

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18628601
Why would he do that? It wasn't who he was as a photographer. Did you read the quote? You must have missed this part "Many fields of photography demand specific equipment of a higher order of complexity and precision"

I understood what you were trying to say, and agree with the spirit of it, from the perspective of serious landscape and studio photography. Of course we need talent and vision to take great photographs. The philosophy can also be extended to other genres that are practiced today.

But things are much different today for almost all of us. Our digital gear gives us big advantages regardless of skill level or knowledge of photography. Photography is fun! Most of the general populace out there today is no more educated in photography than they were a generation ago... but pictures are much better because of better gear.

So - point taken, for the best images we need talent, knowledge and hard work. But many of us don't need to achieve such artistic excellence. We have fun and get the great shots we want.

The original issue was whether the gear we have now is already sufficient. Time will tell, but most likely there will be further improvements that will help us take better pictures. I've already mentioned the weight issue for me. Another thing I would like is bird eye focus. It would be marvelous for us birders!! I bet it will be here within 5 years.

Archibald wrote in post #18628628
I understood what you were trying to say, and agree with the spirit of it, from the perspective of serious landscape and studio photography. Of course we need talent and vision to take great photographs. The philosophy can also be extended to other genres that are practiced today.

But things are much different today for almost all of us. Our digital gear gives us big advantages regardless of skill level or knowledge of photography. Photography is fun! Most of the general populace out there today is no more educated in photography than they were a generation ago... but pictures are much better because of better gear.

So - point taken, for the best images we need talent, knowledge and hard work. But many of us don't need to achieve such artistic excellence. We have fun and get the great shots we want.

The original issue was whether the gear we have now is already sufficient. Time will tell, but most likely there will be further improvements that will help us take better pictures. I've already mentioned the weight issue for me. Another thing I would like is bird eye focus. It would be marvelous for us birders!! I bet it will be here within 5 years.

No amount of equipment can make up for lack of vision.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18628637
No amount of equipment can make up for lack of vision.

No amount of vision can make up for lack of equipment.

Archibald wrote in post #18628644
No amount of vision can make up for lack of equipment.

Again as I have already said it's all there to read finding equipment that matches the way you see and work is the key.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18628649
Again as I have already said it's all there to read finding equipment that matches the way you are and work is the key.

Agreed.

The OP's issue is, do we already have enough?

I had a 4x5 view camera, it was great for landscapes but useless for airshows and motorcycle racing. You don’t need vision to take a lot of shots I like to take.

I admit it, I am a button pusher and not an artist. I liked using my view camera and planning my shots out so as not to waste film, but first an foremost I prefer the kind of photography that requires quick autofocus and a steady hand and not an artists eye.