To much focus on kit and not enough on 'seeing'?

Heh! Helpful advice: those who don't want to listen to people excited about their gear should stay out of the gear sections of the forum! Here in the "Talk About Photography" section, we, well, talk about photography (as well as the periodic thread by someone who doesn't like the gear section discussions)!

The question is this: if it's not about the gear, why does the pro use the best stuff? Surely, the reasoning would go, if you can take all great shots all of the time, with anything, the pro will buy cheap, because that keeps their costs down.

For me, this is a hobby. I buy the best I can afford because I want it. I'm a gear-head, so what? But if I were a pro, I'd be a businessman, and I'd need my costs down, because if my costs are down, my profits are up for the same given revenue.

Pros are not buying the best gear because they have an emotional attachment to Canon. And since getting better gear, my keeper rate has gone up by around 20%. Perhaps it's all in my mind?

rdenney wrote in post #5784658
Don't look at the past through rose-colored glasses. There were as many gear-head discussions and arguments in the old days as now, but without the Internet to make them widespread and public. I've seen real arguments over such religious topics as Tri-X vs. HP-5, roll film vs. sheet film, large format vs. small format, thick emulsions vs. thin emulsions, primes vs. zooms, dilution of stop bath, transparencies vs. color negatives, color vs. black and white, Manfrotto vs. Gitzo, Nikon vs. Canon, Leica vs. Zeiss, and on and on and on. People pored over photos of test charts as much in the old days as they do now.

Rick "who, as a Canon F-1 user, remembers the disdain of Nikon owners of decades past" Denney

Wait, as one of the many who frequented Compuserve photography newgroups and those on Prodigy and Genie, even before internet was invented by Al Gore , I know the discussions that took place. Believe me, the current crop of POTN habitue is far, far more obsessed with absolute measures of performance of lenses and the QUANTITATIVE picture taking power of cameras and lenses...the result of pixel peeping which was not previously possible with film! The 'which (film) has less noise' was not the obsession...the grain of film was important, but we did not agonize over it. You chose the film speed needed to do the job, and you accepted the inherent graininess. There was no noise reduction postprocessing, so you didn't obsess over it! Now you hear tons of discussion about FF pixels and lens noise than APS-C pixels, and how Canon has had far lower high-ISO noise than every other brand.

Yes, people have always appreciated good equipment and extracting the max from it. But they didn't worry about MTF measures or Modern Photography rating scales and A vs. B lens comparisons to the same extent as the modern hobbyist.

Last Saturday, I made an early morning run to a wildlife area not far from where I live and began shooting in the dim dawn light.

I hiked into a meadow, and saw a young buck deer walking around feeding. I sat down in the dewy field, and adjusted my exposure for capturing a moving deer in dim light. Well, that required in my situation ISO 3200, and an IS telephoto lens because I was hand-holding. With a lower-quaility camera or lens, I would not have been able to get a useable shot.

Many of us love the photography we do and at the same time love the gear that enables us to, say, photograph a deer on the move at dawn with good results!

How much do you want for your 400L now that you are gonna simplify your kit?

Higher-priced lenses with wider apertures are in a league of their own (i.e. the 1.2s, etc.). Perhaps not everyone needs them, but judging by my experience, it's sure difficult to go back after you've had one. But I've discovered through my many, many purchases and returns of camera equipment that there are both good and bad low-priced lenses and both good and bad high-priced lenses. So I think everyone has to go through their own learning experience of trial and error. No, the most expensive gear doesn't help with your personal knowledge of photography, but you can't say it doesn't have its advantages.

Wilt wrote in post #5784366
Obsession with L lenses, endless discussions of merits of shooting APS-C with a certain FL vs. using FF camera with same lens, discussions of dogmatic 'shoot to the right', pixel peeping, endless 'which body is noisier'...all are indicative of the deterioration of photography as a qualitative art form and craft to photography as a quantitative pursuit, brought on by the evolution to the digital realm and the heavy reliance on computers. But then again, you are posting in the 'Gear Head Forum' after all!

Is this necessarily a bad thing? I have no problem at all admitting that I take a quantitative approach to photography. I am not, and have never been, a creative person. As much as I wish I were, I'm not. When I approach a photograph, I keep in mind a check list of elements that need to be included. I know that proper framing (as in using elements in the photograph to frame subjects), proper ratios (rule of thirds, spirals, etc.), S-shapes and contrasting colours add to a frame because it has been shown that for some reason people are psychologically drawn to appreciate images with these elements.

I am a science student and one day hope to be a scientist. I (try to) use known facts about human behaviour to draw the viewer into my photographs. This is all very qualitative. Everything in my images is an attempt to use what I know works to make a pleasing image. The approach may be different to the quantitative/creative/​artistic approach but far be it from me or anyone here (perhaps barring fine arts or philosophy of art graduates) to tell anyone which approach is better.

"better tools make your images better"

Not necessarily, better.... maybe more on point a better selection of tools will give you more options that can help improve your photographs technically, but the artistic piece of the photo will always be what makes or breaks the image and its true power to convey a message.

iamaelephant wrote in post #5785316
Is this necessarily a bad thing? I have no problem at all admitting that I take a quantitative approach to photography. I am not, and have never been, a creative person. As much as I wish I were, I'm not. When I approach a photograph, I keep in mind a check list of elements that need to be included. I know that proper framing (as in using elements in the photograph to frame subjects), proper ratios (rule of thirds, spirals, etc.), S-shapes and contrasting colours add to a frame because it has been shown that for some reason people are psychologically drawn to appreciate images with these elements.

I am a science student and one day hope to be a scientist. I (try to) use known facts about human behaviour to draw the viewer into my photographs. This is all very qualitative. Everything in my images is an attempt to use what I know works to make a pleasing image. The approach may be different to the quantitative/creative/​artistic approach but far be it from me or anyone here (perhaps barring fine arts or philosophy of art graduates) to tell anyone which approach is better.

I hear what you are saying. As has been stated in other threads, a Ferrari does not make a 'good driver', it merely makes a driver (whether good or bad!) faster! Same with photography...a sharp photo does not improve the aesthetic of the photo, it makes it clearer. But a poor photographer with a sharp photo is merely producing a poor photograph which is sharp. A bad driver with a Ferrari is merely consuming gas more fashionably and more ostentatiously.

OTOH, a good photographer can make a great photo with a point and shoot, and make a wider variety of great photos with a dSLR and good lenses. My point is that we all should be striving for technically great photographs which are articstic in content. You do have have to be 'creative' to do that, although it can help! The lenses of 50 years ago were not as good as the computer designed lenses of today, but that does not stop people today from admiring and envying the work of the great photographers who used that equipment, and my of them were not shot by 'creative types'!

Wilt wrote in post #5785370
I hear what you are saying. As has been stated in other threads, a Ferrari does not make a 'good driver', it merely makes a drive (good or bad!) faster! Same with photography...a sharp photo does not improve the aesthetic of the photo, it makes it clearer. But a poor photographer with a sharp photo is merely producing a poor photograph which is sharp. A bad driver with a Ferrari is merely consuming gas more fashionably and more ostentatiously.

OTOH, a good photographer can make a great photo with a point and shoot, and make a wider variety of great photos with a dSLR and good lense. My point is that we all should be striving for technically great photographs which are articstic in content. You do have have to be 'creative' to do that, although it can help!

Yes admittedly all of the things I mentioned in my post are independent of the camera gear, and you're right. If I take all of those principals and apply them with a basic P&S then I should (in theory, although I'm a bad photographer) be able to make better-than-average images. None of this changes the fact that some images are simply unachievable without the appropriate gear. Try taking images of star fields with an unmodified 30D and without the appropriate (and expensive) equatorial mount. Try shooting wildlife at dusk with a Canon G9. Try photographing a wedding in a large, dark church where flash is forbidden. None of these are possible without the appropriate (and appropriately expensive) gear.

I think it's natural to want the best. Ofcourse there have been times when I think that it's not worth it... that has never happened to me when purchasing a new lens. But, back in my old kit lens days I took just as many photos as I do now, and some of them were damn good. wanting the best tools that you can have to create your art isn't bad. It's a sign of commitment. A musician, a painter or dancer all think the same way. they want the best that they can afford to create their best work. The gear is a part of that yes the eyes behind the camera are more important, yes ultimately the image you have created speak louder than what you created it with. But, we all want to be exceptional. Nobody picks up their camera and wants to create mediocrity and gear is a part of that.

Sari

A very bad Shakespearean actor, after being boo'd and dodging things thrown on stage, turned to the audience in the middle of his lines and shouted,
"Look I didn't write this sh*t, I merely perform it!"

In several highly competitive areas of the photographic world very expensive gear is needed to to even be seriously in the running.

Sportsshooter.com often posts minimum gear requirements for shooters to be considered for assignments.

Talent doesn't mean anything if your gear isn't up to the task!

My .02==Your mileage may vary

ChrisSearle wrote in post #5780914
Taking good pictures is actually to do with 'seeing' , and has little to do with equipment or even location. A good photographer will make a good photograph virtually anywhere and with any equipment. Learning to do this is a slow process requiring lots and lots of practice, reading, looking at other photographs and trying analyse and understand what makes them so good.

Although I agree with some of the things you are saying. I usually avoid commenting on posts like this, however I need to ask.. Why do you have a gear list?

There is a lot of gear obsession and I'm not above the fray there. It also can be tedious to see the obsessive threads from the neophytes who have bought the expensive gear and then can't get a decent shot with it because they don't have the skills.

Even more tedious though are the 'how good a chisl does the sculptor need' or 'does the quality of the pots determine the chef's skills' blather.

The reality is that a chisl is a pretty damn simple thing and the artist determines the sculpture much more than the tool.

A camera is not a simple thing at all, and the final result in photography can be more blended. A crap photographer may not be helped a lot by top end gear and a great photographer might be able to work with a cheap camera. But by and large, great gear can make or break some photos, and there are whole areas of photography that just cannot be done with a pinhole camera.