The fallacy of the Magic Lens (...or how the wow doesn't come from glass)

I guess there is a certain satisfaction to be gained from all that. I do that with computers...upgrading older ones to make it more "recent"...or as much as I can.

I don't think I neccessarily feel that way with instruments however. I have a few old guitars for sentimental reasons, but I am also aware of what makes a guitar a great guitar as well so it's hard to pass up on that.

But you know what? I used to know this guy with an old beat up ES-175, a typical jazz guitar. The neck was cracked off, there were several holes in it, etc. He fixed the thing up and I swear that thing sounded sweeeeeet. In fact I think all that crap actually made the guitar sound a little different than ones that were in superior condition! I know I used to have a newer version and it didn't sound nearly as sweet as his.

As for my camera gear, I don't feel that way at all...but I am pretty new at this so perhaps that's the reason why. I don't ever feel the itch to check out the 50 1.8 again. Damn man...I spent good money on my lenses...I am going to use them!

cdifoto wrote in post #5609276
Does anyone else feel the way I do in that sometimes having "perfect" gear can be absolutely boring? I find it rather rewarding when I can create a beautiful image with a lens everyone else says is worthless and should be avoided because it'll give you fungus infection.

I dunno...if I was a musician I think I'd want to use that $2000 guitar for the paid concerts but tinker around on my own time with a beat up acoustic POS that I got from a pawn shop.

Having said that, aren't there also some musicians who still use the guitars they learned on back in the day when they were a nobody...even on sold out concert tours? I can't think of any names off hand but I'm certain there are a few who have always used what they "grew up on" and opt to patch it instead of replace it.

The 85L is worth every penny to me, though I really did like the f1.8 version that I sold. Being able to shoot in the f1.2-1.8 range with confidence is worth something when you want to be able to do it. In this sense, having 'better' gear does make a difference both in the technical quality of the final image as well as the creative aspect because I have more lattitude, more control at my disposal, when making creative decisions. I'll agree that there is no inherent magic in the lens, but having a tool like that in my bag inspires me and allows me to push my photography in new directions. I shot for over a year with just two f2.8 zooms and did fine, and my clients were just as happy as they are now, but for myself, I enjoy the work that I'm doing now more than I did then. Maybe I'm the only one that can see the difference, but I don't think so. Fast glass has allowed me to capture more than a few images that aren't possible even at 2.8 - or if they were, they wouldn't have looked the same. Yes, you can back way up, shoot f2.8 at 200mm, but the bokeh is not the same and not as pleasing to me even though it may be as strong at say f1.4 @ 85mm. The look is different - and these are the things that over time will begin to define an individual shooters 'look' or style...it's about finding what works for you and having the confidence to stick with it, whether it's hugely costly, or not.

PS- the music analogy is a good one. A $2k guitar doesn't make me a better player, but it may inspire me to play better. Plugging it into a crappy solid state amp is where the road ends - that's a limitation because it's not going to sound like a warm tube amp no matter what you do - sometimes you have to pony up the money to get the quality stuff. I wouldn't bother playing through a $200 Crate practice amp. when I know the plugging into a Vibrolux Reverb is going to sound 10X better and I'll hear what my instrument really sounds like. Vision first, gear second.

Features help to get a nice photo. Windy day, shaky hands, IS can help.
It's a mix between the quality of the gear (20%) and the tog (70%) and some PP (10%). Methinks anyway,

L

I think the people who are posting "gear DOES matter, not just the photographer" are missing the point, being getting a lens that people refer to as 'magic' isn't going to magically make you a better photographer... you can do that by utilizing the gear you already have to the edges of its capabilities. At least, that's what I've gotten from it.

I don't think you can produce the same shots with a lens at 200mm with an F stop of 5.6 as you can with a 2.8 lens. That is what the difference is.

You can take great shots with a "bad" lens, but you can't do the same things as you can with a great lens.

In a technical aspect, that is correct. The point being, that technical aspect isn't going to make you a better photographer and you could still produce some great photos with that lens at f/5.6

madhatter04 wrote in post #5609395
In a technical aspect, that is correct. The point being, that technical aspect isn't going to make you a better photographer and you could still produce some great photos with that lens at f/5.6

Youre right. Photoshop makes you a better photographer.

I mean c'mon....the word PHOTO is in both. I mean....am I right? Or am I right?

I keeeed.

The only thing I complain about my gear is CRAP 1600 ISO on my XTi. Oh and that my lens doesn't perform well in the dark. :[

Psychobiker wrote in post #5609328
It's a mix between the quality of the gear (20%) and the tog (70%) and some PP (10%). Methinks anyway,

L

+1

I think we are just moving from one extreme to the other - its a mixture of all, better gear may make it easier to obtain a certain shot

The tool still has to fit the job though, doesn't it?

You aren't going to get a nice, frame-filling look at the Blue Angles or Thunderbirds with the 100mm f/2.8 Macro. By the same token, you're working at a disadvantage if you're trying to do Macro with a 500 f/4L .

The fascination and truly magical aspect of photography should be the ability to create art, emotions, beauty. This is not gear-dependent but totally skill and talent dependent.

Many people don't realize this and focus on equipment hoping this will compensate for their lack of skill or talent. Disappointed with their images they enter the gear shopping spree which, surprisingly for them, does not give them stunning images. Then instead of realizing it's not the gear but themselves to blame for this they focus on yet another gear item. And this can go on and on...

Agree and disagree.

No, there is no kind of equipment that is going to make you a "better" photographer. I've seen people on this site with a gear signature as long as a five year old's christmas list, and when I check their site...well, I see images that my five year old nephew could take with a camera phone.

But I do feel that some of my images could have more pop and appeal if taken with the full frame quality of the 5d. You can spot a photo of the 5d from a mile away...at least I can. The crispness of that camera is unbelievable, and the more images I look at, the more recognizable its images become. In this case, yes, the equipment is to hold responsibility of the breathtaking quality. I'm a "gear luster", big deal. But it's because I'm confident in my skill and believe I can take full advantage of the features of better equipment, not because I want to become a "better photographer".

drummerblake777 wrote in post #5609512
You can spot a photo of the 5d from a mile away...at least I can.

I can't. Unless of course the EXIF is intact.

cdifoto wrote in post #5609517
I can't. Unless of course the EXIF is intact.

You cant spot a photo a mile away?

I misread that. I can spot a photo of the 5D a mile away too.