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

It is all subjective.. to each his own. Period.

Wilt wrote in post #5784898
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.

I'm not talking about such modern innovations as Compuserve. I'm talking about camera club conversations, contests, and camera store salespeople, of which there were MANY more in those days than now. It was the SLR camera boom, which was an even bigger boom than the digital camera boom.

There were plenty of people who would study grain structure under a microscope, comparing the relative effects of a range of developers, etc. Edmund Scientific probably sold more Air Force test charges than Norman Koren has sold copies of Imatest.

The difference was that the discussions were relatively submerged in small groups and clubs, not splattered all over the internet. Gear-heads have always been with us, and they are no worse now, in my view, though their topics of conversation may have changed.

I will allow this: Digital images do allow automated quantitative analysis in ways film images do not (Imatest is just one example). But those quantifications have led to better understanding of many issues, too. Back when camera geeks were photographing that Air Force test target, they were trying to resolve line pairs at the finest possible resolution. Lenses were designed using ray-tracing algorithms. Now, we test lenses based on their ability to reproduce spatial frequencies over a range of frequencies, and that has led to much better understanding of the relationship between contrast and acutance. And we design lenses to optimize that accuracy over a range of spatial frequencies. Thus, we can now buy lenses that purposely have poor performance at a modulation transfer of 10%, but that have excellent modulation transfer at 50%. That helps digital cameras to avoid aliasing without loss of acutance. Or something like that.

Whether we care to discuss it or not, we still benefit from those advancements.

Thus, we geeks are useful even if annoying at times.

Countering quantifiable effects, though, is an increasing awareness of subtle qualities of rendering. For example, we never discussed bokeh in the old days, but we do now.

Another point--digital cameras have done something that film cameras were increasingly incapable of doing: Getting people out there making photos. Now, if we just figure out how to keep them.

Rick "with geek cred going back nearly 40 years" Denney

I use my equipment, and I don't want it to limit me...

ChrisSearle wrote in post #5780914
Reading some of the threads on this forum you could be forgiven for thinking that many dSLR owners seem to think that expensive camera and lens = great photographs. There seems to me to be a general concern with 'shapness' as though that made the photograph. OK, if you are taking 'technical' or 'scientific' shots then of course the image that you make should be as accurate a reproduction of reality as you and your equipment can make but for making good photographs, pictures that evoke an emotional response, that you would look at for pleasure, hang on the wall , I contend that the price of the equipment used has very little to do with it. I note a large amount of concerns that people may have bought the 'wrong' camera, as if a more expensive one or one from another manufacturer would be 'better'. Likewise a large number of people who are amazed that their new dSLR is not taking making photographs that are any 'better' than their P&S.
Does this surprise anybody else or is it just me?
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.

Yeah! Glad to hear the magic word.....'seeing'.

Thats what it should be all about. SEEING.. Everything else just supports the vision. Not the other way around; or it shouldn't be anyway.

ChrisSearle wrote in post #5780914
Reading some of the threads on this forum you could be forgiven for thinking that many dSLR owners seem to think that expensive camera and lens = great photographs. There seems to me to be a general concern with 'shapness' as though that made the photograph. OK, if you are taking 'technical' or 'scientific' shots then of course the image that you make should be as accurate a reproduction of reality as you and your equipment can make but for making good photographs, pictures that evoke an emotional response, that you would look at for pleasure, hang on the wall , I contend that the price of the equipment used has very little to do with it. I note a large amount of concerns that people may have bought the 'wrong' camera, as if a more expensive one or one from another manufacturer would be 'better'. Likewise a large number of people who are amazed that their new dSLR is not taking making photographs that are any 'better' than their P&S.
Does this surprise anybody else or is it just me?
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.

You make some valid points Chris.

I also believe one way to make photographs with more emotional impact is to listen. Listen to yourself and trust your intuition.

I would rather have gear that can do what I need (and stuff I don't know yet) than know I *could* do something, and not have the gear for it. And, as anything in life, you pretty much get what you pay for. Cheaper camera's mean less weather-proofing, louder AF, less sharp at certain apertures, not enough power to light far enough away, cheap fabric that rips easily, etc...

Like some others above me said, I don't want to worry about my equipment performing and getting in the way of me seeing.

Kind of funny actually. Everyone saying that gear doesn't matter, so why isn't it okay to have higher-priced gear if it doesn't matter? It comes across as a lot of bitter people who can't afford it bashing others, mainly newbies, over their purchase of L gear? I don't think that's the message you're trying to get across? I guess it should be more like not all 'pro' equipment guarantees decent results? Or sometimes learning is easier on something without all the bells and whistles? I'm just trying to phrase it a better way to not make it seem like some people 'deserve' the gear more than others because I don't think that is accurate. And I think people are already aware - or will be soon after their purchase - that photography is more than gear, but the person behind it. After all my buying and selling and buying and selling again, I've learned that the gear can be expendable. Even across brands. It's so cliche, but it really is a tool. And if you need to change that tool around a bit, or get new tools, or downgrade, it's not the end-all. But having said that, your gear needs to work for you. Seeing is one thing. Capturing with the desired results is another - which does include the tool you are using.

Mum2J&M wrote in post #5809875
Kind of funny actually. Everyone saying that gear doesn't matter, so why isn't it okay to have higher-priced gear if it doesn't matter? It comes across as a lot of bitter people who can't afford it bashing others, mainly newbies, over their purchase of L gear? I don't think that's the message you're trying to get across? I guess it should be more like not all 'pro' equipment guarantees decent results? Or sometimes learning is easier on something without all the bells and whistles? I'm just trying to phrase it a better way to not make it seem like some people 'deserve' the gear more than others because I don't think that is accurate. And I think people are already aware - or will be soon after their purchase - that photography is more than gear, but the person behind it. After all my buying and selling and buying and selling again, I've learned that the gear can be expendable. Even across brands. It's so cliche, but it really is a tool. And if you need to change that tool around a bit, or get new tools, or downgrade, it's not the end-all. But having said that, your gear needs to work for you. Seeing is one thing. Capturing with the desired results is another - which does include the tool you are using.

Gear does matter - you can't shoot a bird in flight full frame at 200 yards with a 400D and kit lens, nor can you shoot decent ball sports with a P&S. Those are relatively specialist situations that require relatively specialist gear. The point of the OP (I believe) is that many people get too focused on gear and forget that it's not the only aspect of photography. In general, better gear will let you do things poorer gear won't, and it will yield better results if you know how to get the most out of it. You still need skill, you still need a clue about composition, light, shape, colour, etc. You still need to see.

There aren't as many wankers as you think there are; they're just the loudest.

Gear matters to me. I love having the most expensive great stuff in the room. And I think having the right equipment doesn't make me a better photographer, it makes my job as the photographer easier. Let's face it, everyone, you can get great shots with the kit lens, but it's so much more fun to have the 24-70.

SuzyView wrote in post #5815317
Gear matters to me. I love having the most expensive great stuff in the room. And I think having the right equipment doesn't make me a better photographer, it makes my job as the photographer easier. Let's face it, everyone, you can get great shots with the kit lens, but it's so much more fun to have the 24-70.

I agree Suzy. And us gal photogs have a right to shop around and change our minds, right?