David Gilmore (Pink Floyd guitarist) was asked during an interview if the band was simply all about their gear. His reply; "using that logic I could give anyone a Fender Stratocaster and they would sound like Eric Clapton". He went on to further elaborate that having the right gear helped broaden the creative process, but only if you have the skill to take proper advantage.
David Gilmour is my hero but I don't agree to this. I bet he has not touched a Fender fake in the last 40 years. Ofc a stratocaster and a les paul both sound amazing but that is like comparing a high end canon to a high end nikon and saying gear does not matter.....
@@abmo32 but it doesn't, depending on who you are. As he said, unless you can take advantage of it, there's little point in having it. Skill trumps gear more often the not. But you you may need that higher end gear if you need to take photos of sports, action, wildlife, etc. But where it may not matter, like Tony said, is when you don't need that gear to get the shot you want (e.g. landscapes). Or you don't care about sharpness. Even an entry level Canon shines when you plan your shots/composition.
I think the idea that 'your gear doesn't matter' is rooted in the understanding that success of your art is more dependent on you than the equipment you are using. I'm sure everyone realizes that purchasing more expensive lenses or camera bodies can incrementally increase the quality of their photos and video, but without experience, knowledge, passion and commitment your gear is useless.
True. Camera gears are just tools. Use the ones that make your job easier. I use mine-smartphone and mirrorless systems. Just invest on good lenses and study the art of photography and you'll be fine.
Well said, I sold one of my photos to a cruise company and it was taken with the Nikon D7100 + Nikkor 18-105mm kit lens. My other lens is a Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 It's just a tool, it's like having a sport car it doesn't mean you are a racer driver because you have a ferrari. Though the equpiment makes it easier for your needs. Just like having a good car that suits your needs.
But a 3.5 - 5.6 tangibly restricts its usage when 2.8 or 1.8 or 1.4 or 1.2 is necessary to get the shot. All else being equal, proper bodies for correct ISO performance and fast lenses are paramount to success for example in low light conditions. All skill in the world can't get a shot at f/8 and ISO 3200 if that's what your gear is restricted to.
I want my gear to be good enough that I know it’s my fault if the photo stinks. When I was starting out, I would sometimes blame my lower-end gear for not getting a shot. It was even sometimes true, if the reason was I couldn’t make an adjustment as quickly or as accurately as I needed. Getting rid of that excuse improved my photography, both by giving me that extra flexibility, and by making sure I know that almost any problem is mine, not the gear.
If you've got effectively unlimited funds to invest in your photography hobby then that might make sense, but for someone with a more limited budget, I'd argue that it would make more sense to start off spending less on gear so that they have more money to spend on things like photography courses, or trips to places where they can do a lot of shooting and get practice.....When it comes to good photography, I'd say it's around 80% the photographer's skill/talent, and 20% the gear....Of that 20%, well over half is the lenses, as opposed to the camera body.
If gear really didn't matter, all professional photographers would use cheap entry level cameras to save money, because they could get the same results.
No I don't think so. Most pros feel forced to carry around ludicrously heavy stuff because if they brought a M43rds and a spare lens in a little bag, the clients might say "call yourself a pro and you are shooting with THAT?" There is a lot of penis envy (apologies to Mrs Northrop!) in pro photography. It goes with the general insecurity.
@@fingerhorn4 That is a HUGE part of the problem, always has been. For some reason people equate BIG with PRO, and it hasn't been like that in years. Not too long ago I shot an experimental film using a pair of Google Pixel 2 XL's with Moment lenses; a friend of mine thought it was a joke, until he saw the completed 4k video edited together.
@Alpha Centauri Could not agree more. I may be an extreme case, but while I have a sweet 8mm Meike f/3.5 Fisheye, and a Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens, I STILL got knife fever and ordered the Canon L Series 8-15mm f/4, and a Canon L series 24mm f/1.4. And that's likely just a personal problem. 😅🤣🤣
Because it really don’t do nothing without skill but also it mattersssss 🤣. I just shot a night event with m50+ speedlight + sigma 50-100 1.8 . It was great shoot and all but it’s not the best in low light. “Finally i find that more skill u have more ability to get the best out of what you have but there’s a limit to that”
Gear is only as important as our needs say it is. That's basically it. We can say that everyone needs this camera or that lens, but your gear just has to meet your needs. And to be honest, most of us don't need much.
Seems that Tony and Chelsea have been talking around this very thing for years but have not ever addressed it directly. Most of the camera bodies and lenses made in the last few years are amazing and much better than the needs of the majority of photographers. Of course there are those who routinely push the limits of the best of the gear but those folks represent only a small percentage of the photographic community. For the bulk of photographers, the current generation of low to moderately priced gear is more than they will ever need. IMO
On the Move Real Estate Photography I bet you always make sure you have the right gear with you when you shoot. Shooting wide ? Then I bet you have a wide lens packed = gear. Thus you prove every time you shoot that gear does actually matter.
@@JimSamuel267 Do you really think this video is about making $2 more in affiliate income a month? This video is just making the point that there is a possibility that expense gear might be better in some circumstances, depending on your needs.
Usually these arguments happen when a photographer assumes that everyone shoots only the scenarios he does, should only shoot the way he does, and that the only valid workflow is his chosen workflow.
Yes, that was my thought. There are types of photography where it's reasonable to expect that the photographer will get it right the first time most of the time. For example, most still lives and landscape photography can usually be correct the first time. Virtually anything that involves children, or animals, but I repeat myself, is probably going to be a crap shoot in terms of whether it's even possible to get the shot the first go, no matter how good you are at photography. Likewise, taking photos of bees hovering over flowers or the key moment at a sportsball game are likely going to benefit from having more shots taken. New technology has somewhat reduced the number of shots that it takes, but it's still substantially more than one in most cases.
I recently met a guy at an event who told me gear doesn't matter.... while holding an A7RIII (w/ cage, tripod, G master....) I was like "bro trade me for my plain 77D then"
@@alansach8437 - Yeah, a good analogy is a professional artist using Prisma Colors (or some other high end color pencils) and some random 3 year old kid using whatever color pencils were cheapest at the store....The top quality pencil makes the pro's colors look a bit nicer and more vivid, but if he traded pencils with the kid, he'd still be making very nice artwork, and the 3 year old would still be scribbling (just with more expensive pencils). With photography, I'd say that quality is around 80% the photographer's skill/talent, and 20% the gear....And of that 20%, well over half is the lenses, as opposed to the camera body. So for a beginner with limited funds, it makes sense to get an older model DSLR, if anything splurge on quality lenses, and invest the most in photography courses and/or trips to go practice shooting!
if you want to get paid, gear matters. if you want redundancy, gear matters. if you want to shoot in a storm, gear matters. photography in general doesn't care about your gear, but how you shoot with your gear matters. i love shooting photos with my phone, its quick and easy and i get some great results. but when i have a project, i pull out a "real" camera. i use light modifiers, why, as great as available light is, its limiting. im just a hobbyist with a few paid gigs under my belt, but for me, gear matters.
mine was about size and what is easiest to me. So I'm used to Canon (I like their menus) so last year bought a M50, then went online and bought a load of cheap 7artisans lenses. Is it the best combination? Not at all. Do I enjoy shooting with it and it fits what I want to do? Absolutely :) As Victor has put above, it'd be a whole different matter if it's pro users!
"Your gear doesnt matter" depending on your situation. Sure let me get close to this lion with my 27mm . Im sure he wants his portrait taken and wont eat me.
better yet, just under expose the image by 1 or 2 stops and then bring back the shadows. works great everytime but not more than 400 iso but then again, you dont really need HDR as much in night time.
@@JetCityNinja According to you they are just "spewing shit", and yet, here you are, watching the video and commenting on it. Why is that? Do you not have anything at all better to do? Or is it your life's goal to post negative comments on videos that you think hold no merit? I don't understand people like you. Why do people like you waste their/your time watching videos you clearly have no respect for?
@@techone72893 if he didn't watched the video how in the hell he could tell if they are saying something wrong or right? Perhaps you don't know how people share their opinions! First they are watcing a video and then they decide if they are agrees or disagrees. So my point is that you can't tell to someone, why you watch a video if you don't like it.
I believe a better statement would be "Gear doesn't make you a good photographer." But in order to push your skill higher and higher, you eventually need better and better gear... and commitment.
If every need was based on how something was in the past, then people probably don't need - Fast internet - Reliable power - Easy access to clean drinking water - Smart phones - Access to health care People don't need those things because people were okay before without them!
Real photographers only need one shot argument grabs me a little. Just imagine how fun it is to capture that perfect picture when you only have one chance per second. I am using a 15-year-old DSLR and some other film cameras from the 70-ties. Nothing compares to the feeling of achievement if you also have to fight your gear.
Gear doesn't matter until you realise that your camera is stupidly slow to autofocus (my main reason to upgrade from my first camera) Also, did anyone else hear Kai W twitch when the point about bokeh was introduced?
I, for one, am glad that videos like this are pushing people to focus on their gear and buy new and better stuff. It means a more robust and cost-efficient used marketplace for people like me who are happy buying used gear for cheap because people with more money than sense are always trading-up. Thanks Tony and Chelsea!
it's a golden age in the DSLR market right now. I mean, sure the quality of the gear matters, but something that was great a few years back can still be great now when used by the right photographer Maybe a few years ago the gap between pro-consumer was wider and the price gap was relatively the same, now one can get pro gear from a few years ago and really get a super high level of performance at a very low cost
@@alanhoughton6166 Honestly, at this point there's plenty of awesome used DSLR and mirrorless cameras, and lenses for each system, that it's easy to get reasonably priced, and very capable, gear.
Gear absolutely matters, to a point. If you're using a potato to take pictures versus someone with a multi-thousand dollar set-up. The point of the phrase "gear doesn't matter" means that having good gear doesn't guarantee your pictures won't be crap. You can take a great picture on a cheaper set-up or on an expensive set-up. All things being equal, skillwise, having the better gear will create a better result.
Sometimes you just need the right gear for the job. For instance a good telephoto lens is a must for things like wildlife photography or successful stalking of ex-girlfriends :-)
Gear matters when you've learned enough to know why that particular piece of gear matters. OK gear with good glass will be enough for most people. Learning why something matters is worth more than the gear itself.
What cracks me up is how Tony considers himself technical and 'scientific' yet doesn't know how ISO works and thinks that sensor size changes DOF. drrrrrrrrrrrrrp.
@@tangoingthekitchen i don’t have one after changing career paths. But this does not change that ISO is a function of analog gain on the sensor, not a post process, and DOF is not a function of F ratio, rather that aperture is a parameter of CoF diameter. I also know what all that means, because i have a BFA in Art Technology. Do you?
Thanks for the great video. I will use this as evidence to prove to my wife that I need a new camera (or lens, or tripod, or lens, or camera, or .....). If she is still not convinced can we call you?
The video is a bit of a straw man argument. I don't think anyone believes gear doesn't matter at all. The real argument is that gear doesn't matter as much as talent, practice, and vision, which Tony and Chelsea frequently point out so I know they aren't trying to say gear matters more than anything. Still, everything is relative and a lot of the arguments here are so case specific they don't really apply to most photographers including, I'm guessing, most followers of this channel. It's just my opinion but my guess is that most people saying gear doesn't matter are simply resisting the fairly recent shift in photography as a hobby from learning actual photography skills, history, composition, etc. toward it being taken over by gear heads into it because they like gear more than they actually like photography. This causes shifts in the photo industry where you have less affordable equipment that would satisfy the needs of most photographers. The argument that anyone should buy gear based on the maximum need rather than the average need is a spurious one. This is exactly why less and less people buy cameras and lenses in lieu of using a smartphone to take pictures, it satisfies most of most people's needs and the added cost of camera equipment for most people is too much money for not enough improvement. Most people don't print their pictures at all anymore, let alone print 8x10s or larger.
...it depends on what you are trying to shoot. NOT knowing how to use the gear you have, is the most common fault, that I come across with most everyone i have taught.
If gear does matter or not, depends on the price of said gear. The difference in capabilities between a 100$ point and shoot and a 1000$ interchangeable camera system is usually much larger than between said 1000$ camera and a 2000$ camera.
Of course Eoghan - Like lessons in chess might have prevented Kasparow from losing against Deep Blue... ;) This is 2019 and the eye-AF beats every human hands down. And by hands down, I mean: You could push the trigger with the tip of your nose and still hit the subject's eye.
Gear does matter. I've been shooting wild birds and mammals with my dad since the 60's. Sometimes you cannot physically get closer. Sometimes you SHOULDN'T get closer.
Your dad gave you a gear and said you can get great shots with it. So it starts with the gear. If gear doesn't matter, you don't need that camera to get good picture.
Terence Rudkin, no shade, but presumably you've gotten WAY better as a photographer in the last 60 years.. What do you shoot with now? (Just curious, not tryna be funny/prove a point..).
@@raynaudier8622 My EDC is a Fujifilm X-T3, recent transition from Sony A7II, mostly for the look and feel of a film camera. But I still shoot a Mamiya 7II and a Toyoview 4x5
I recently got an a7iii and some proper lenses after years of shooting with cheaper gear. The biggest advantages are autofocus performance, the ability to shoot faster shutter speeds with good image quality, and of course those blurry backgrounds. My non-photographer friends and family immediately noticed the difference in my photos (without being told that I got a new camera).
Currently have a Canon 6D, was planning to upgrade to EOS RP. Found a RUclips channel of a photographer with 6D that has 1 million shots. Still running like a champ. Changed my mind, spent the money on glass. Glad I did... Glass is King.....
I'm still learning about photography, but a friend let me use a really nice lens on my canon crop-sensor(T6i). Not sure of the exact model of lens, but it stops down to about f.8. That thing was miles better than the kit lenses I have. Even on my entry level dslr it was phenomenal. The clarity was astounding. I can flip thru my pictures and have no problem telling which pics I took with it. So, you're absolutely right. I would buy a nicer lens before buying a new body.
Joe Man My 5DII has 400 000 shots, and was just recently replaced with 5DIII which I got used. I do have some nice glass though. So yeah, go for glass definitely. 6D is a very capable camera.
The "you don't need gear" photographer must think themselves to be the modern Diogenes who threw away his cup after he saw a child drinking water by cupping her hands.
Forget two card slots, I lost an entire concert, from right up front, when one tiny screw jammed the ONE shutter in the camera. One shutter, one memory card, one lens, all the same, one of anything is why we carry two cameras.
This whole "you only need one shot" thing is really not about moving subjects. Honestly, I think that the actual point that's valid, is that taking a lot of poorly thought out and composed photos is not an alternative to thinking about the photo you want and taking less photos with more thought.
Graham, I agree. Back in the film days everything had to be calculated on paper or in your head with using a light meter and/or a gray card as the light changed. Of course, the composition and all the other factors came into play and then one did not know if the exposure turned out good; ie bracketing. Today, I see so many crappy shots that are too dependent on Photoshop to create a decent photo. Can we get an exceptional shot in one exposure with almost no post processing? Yes, but it is rare and all images need a little processing. I try to emphasis to my students to take less photos with more thought which includes composition, exposure and gear.
Gear matters to me to a degree. A lot of my gear facilitated me to get a lot better. Certain situations got easier or at all possible, it was more fun, I learned more... Of course getting new stuff often is a lot of fun in itself and this is part of the whole experience. A mixture of modern consumption and acquiring new skills. I like it a lot, especially when you can create something that you can be proud of with great that you have fun with.
Saying “just get closer to the animal” made me think “how do I get closer to the moon?”. The almost unbelievable truth is that an exceptional artist seeks the correct tool yet the next great image requires a different truth. Something I think you were trying to say with your “right place at the right time” example Chelsea. Than you guys for being so real. I love your passion and humility. It is refreshing ;)
For most wildlife photography you'll need *some sort* of super-tele lens (one that can zoom up to around 500 or 600mm or so), but IMO it'd make more sense for a beginner to get a *relatively* cheap lens of that sort - paying maybe $5-600 used, rather than buying a fancier new one for $2K or more. Then take the money one saved, and use it for more trips out into the wild to do actual shooting and get practice.....It's not that gear doesn't matter *at all* - you need some sort of gear at some level of basic quality (some more expensive than others, depending on the photography niche), but it's just that the gear isn't the main thing that matters.
I think the "your gear doesn't matter" stands true. Skill is infinitely more important than gear in the vast majority of instances. Making beginners think it's so important to have a $4000 camera to make good images is not really realistic. Yes, gear does make a difference, but so many people make it sound like it's the be all end all of photography.
Beginners benefit a lot from having lens option , so a kit zoom and some cheap vintage primes could be a starting point. Presuming beginner doesn’t have ton of hours to train and research, they may not build skill at the pace they need. And skill does not make their scene brighter, only lens, lights or better sensor can do that. (Why does my indoor photos look bad is a fairly common beginner question.)
Understanding you gear is what really matters. When entering any photo opportunity, it is knowing your gear strengths and weaknesses is what matters to capturing a particular image. I will never own a Nikon 600mm F 4, or 500 f 4 or any other lens in the 10K range. What I do own and could afford was a 200-500mm f 5.6. I know what it can and cannot capture. In addition to gear, is surroundings. Long ago, I was fortunate to visit the Slot canyons in Arizona. A unique area of the world and a specific time of the year. This time was in April when the sun enters the canyons to produce the rays of light you have seen captured by many photographers throughout time. I paid for a guide where myself and one other photographer was on this tour. The guide was a Cherokee native who had conducted hundreds of tours over many years. The other photographer was a French native, working for a European magazine. He had a 35K Hasselblad body and probably another 10k in lenses. I had a Nikon D100, 18-55mm f 3.5-5.6, tripcord and a tripod. He split off from our guide and I stayed Cherokee's hip. He came away with virtually nothing, because he got tangled in the other tours and I came away with shots of a lifetime. Photos that are 40x30 inch metal prints that will last the next 50 years. If we all hit the lottery tomorrow and could afford any gear, would we be better? That is the question.
It really goes back to what you define as a good photo. If sharpness and lack of aberrations is your goal then gear absolutely does matter. Even the best photographer can't achieve that with a shitty cheap old lens that's optically terrible. If it's just about composition and creativity to you then by all means go shoot with your iPhone, that's 100% up to the task
Back in the film days. We all used the same film. And we pretty much used the same lenses. If you bought a professional camera. It was built a little tougher. It had 100% viewfinder. And it had less shutter lag. But it was just basically a box. That's when we said the camera doesn't matter. But back then. We used to all talk about film. Hey what film did you use. Hey what film did that guy use. Hey did you hear about this new film. Today that's the sensors. And because the sensors come in the bodies. Well. Now. The camera matters.
Interesting observation, haven’t thought of it that way since I was still young when film was going down. That’s why studying history is important, same patterns and arguments over and over with different disguises.
Great Video. My shots just got so much better, when I switched back from beeing a full time photographer to part time and full time software developer. Finally had the money to buy a D810 and Holy Trinity of Leses. Gear can't stubstitute talent, but support it a lot. Sorry for my lousy English, I'm German / Swiss - so double handicapped...
Simple truth is that you need the right tools for the job. If you don't have them, you can bodge it to a degree, but how much you are able to do that, will depend on how close the gear you have is, to the right gear for the job.
The sort of people who make these comments aren't interested in what you think they are only interested in provoking a reaction. By indulging them you are giving them the attention they crave. Just refuse to engage and they will go elsewhere.
The sort of people who put out these videos that push gear aren't interested in helping people become better photographers. They are only interested in selling through affiliate links.
I shot the 2019 Westminster Dog Show and using the Canon 5D4 I was able to nail more keepers with the better dynamic range and focus tracking. Coupled with skill one photo out of a few hundred made the cover of a magazine. So hey to me my gear backed me up. Totally satisfied with whatever cost I laid out.
Just caught your podcast on the way to work this morning. I bought my first full-frame mirrorless camera. I'm a photographer on a budget (what a concept) and have held off purchasing a full frame camera, I thought, for way too long. FINALLY! With prices dropping on earlier models, I purchase a Sony A7ii. Now I can smugly answer other photographers' questions, "That's a full frame right?" "Yeah." Well let me tell you something. I ran comparisons with my kit lens Sony A7ii with a 24 megapixel sensor with my kit lens Nikon D5500 with a 24 megapixel sensor at 100 ISO, and, even with full frame, the resultant Sony images had the same resolution detail as my Nikon crop sensor. I ran several tests. Always the same result. There are other benefits I'm weighing although, at higher ISO's the full-frame camera had much less noise and I enjoy the narrower depth of field. But being primarily a landscape photographer, I was doing just as well with the crop-sensor Nikon. So now, I am realizing superior results with multiple frames stitched together for my landscapes. So my message to you is appreciate the technology of crop-sensors these days. They are actually performing or perhaps even out performing the earlier full frame models. Cheers!
Gear Matters, Yes it does. And having said that it really depends on the individual. I'm a tech type of person. We don't live in the prehistoric age any longer. Why are TV manufacturers producing 4K tvs now? Because there's a difference! Some people may say, "Oh it doesn't matter", but I can see the difference. I like sharp! Why are camera manufacturers developing higher resolution cameras? Do people actually think a 12 mp picture is sharper than a 42 mp picture? Gear matters to those who want excellence. For those that are not so "picky" gear is not so important. It's that simple. I have a relative that watches TV at 720 and swears he doesn't understand why people need "HD TV"... LOL! Well, maybe he just doesn't have very good glasses or doesn't know the difference. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!
GuyFox It is true, but there’s no point in arguing about it. Ancient Polynesians caught tuna with ropes and spears too. Modern Hawaiians use chase boats and radar, GPS, and electronic reels on carbon rods. Some still enjoy the old ways others don’t, and it shouldn’t be about accusing the other guy is wrong.
Kah Zhoy Lol all analogies aside. Don’t be insane. If you want to get a shot with a shallow depth of field and telephoto compression, guess what? You need a fast telephoto prime or zoom lens
Gear almost always matters. Realistically speaking, a high resolution sensor is needed for even smaller prints. When printing, supersampling is really good to achieve as perception of details can be improved. A large aperture is also important, especially in low light where you may need to increase the ISO. Even the current best DSLRs, lose some fine detail at as little as 800 ISO.
Glass ? Yeah it matters, have fun focusing on a bird with a 35mm or getting a headshot of a Lion with a 24mm (well, you can do the last one, but you are not the one who's gonna publish the picture) Light modifier etc? Yes it matters, Body ? You will always want the best one, but is it needed ? I don't think so, bodies will "only" allows you to have more keeper, but aside from that ... video is another subject though. My main complain is people who thinks they just CAN'T do anything without [insert brand]'s new $4k camera, no, you can, it's more difficult, yes, you have to adapt, yes, but I am pretty sure that as long as you have the glass, the rest is basically only a question of simplicity efficiency, not need. The gear elitism is somewhat tiresome too. From my point of view, you only need the body you can afford with a budget you are willing to use as long as you already have the rest.
Gear matters to a certain amount, but it's no guarantee for good pictures. And esp. for photography you don't need to have the newest and best/hippest equipment. Invest in good hardware and you can normally use it for a long time. I still use my old Canon 5D Mark II and the images are still amazing and I cannot really see the difference to my Mark IV. Glass is a different story. Good glass is not cheap ... but when you take care of it - you can use it almost forever :)
The problem is people are too uneducated to know if they need the gear and how to use it. I cannot count the times sports parents see us at high school games and decide to "save" money and buy their gear (often too little as too much) and get frustrated about not getting the pix we get. Then way too few bother to ask us how. Hubris and ego simply gets in the way. Then a small but vocal minority of photogs throw the typical misinformation that T&C cover in the video - again, ignorance and hubris and fragile egos at play. Gear matters - right gear for the right needs. Photo skills matter. Willing to be humble and ask and learn matters. Teaching matters. Photography requires thinking and communication and that's where it begins and ends. Love to T&C and crew!
Great episode, Northrups! Usually, (most) photography vloggers are too artsy to make any logical sense of what they are preaching from their imaginary "high horses". But you guys are so far above all that childish "gear-doesn't-matter" tragicomedy. I really enjoy watching every second of your podcasts. Never stop making them, please :). Very informative, very funny, all makes perfect sense. And it's nice to know that I'm not the only "crazy" person who refuses to blend into this cult of ignorance and artsy preachers, who apparently are taking over photography by spreading silly ideas, lies and misusing science.
I get a lot of people asking me what camera should I get and first thing I say is "I apologies for answering your question with another question, but what do you want to take pictures of?" Seems like the best way to get the right answers and the gear they really needs instead of something they'll never use.
Gear only matters to the point where any additional investment or features don't have any significant improvement for the types of photography you do, beyond that you would already have a specialty and need an very specific gear, like photographing particles colliding.
My Wallet wishes gear doesn’t matter. As a casual hobbyist it’s hard to justify the cost of glass. In the old days, we didn’t have the choices like today and it really came down to mostly talent, regardless of your social economic position . But today, It’s become a professional or rich persons art.
From the complete amateur, hobby photographer end of the scale: Gear absolutely matters! Even when I'm just trying to get nice digital shots of grandchildren at family gatherings, the quicker focusing time and frame rate of my new Canon gives me lots more good images than I was catching with my previous camera. I was better than my equipment before; now my equipment is better than me, and I feel challenged to make the best use of what I've got. Thanks Tony and Chelsea for stoking my new enthusiasm.
I think you nailed it here. For the lesser experienced gear greatly matters. All this modern technology helps more amateur photogs take photos that only years ago were only in the realm of the very experienced photographer.
On your astro example, FoV and DoF can be calculated for equaliancy but the physical specs of the lens never change. A f1.4 or 1.8 or 3.5 is a f1.4/1.8/3.5 no matter sensor size. Say that astro photo was taken on a FF sensor, 24mm, f2.0, ISO 3200, 25 sec. I could match the FoV and exposure on a m43 sensor with 12mm, f2.0, ISO 3200, 25 sec. However that photo would have more noise (bad) but the DoF would be different due to the focal length difference (more DoF from the m43 sensor would probably be desired in this case, so good). I could then use the wider focal length to my advantage by increasing my shutter length without the appearance of star trails to maybe 50 seconds and then lower my ISO to 1600 to earn back some noise performamce. The photo would be exposed similar and have the same FoV. Noise comparison would depend on a lot of factors including thermal design of the camera bodies but would probably be closer than you expect. Point is that understanding your gear matters and the technical aspect of photography is nuanced. No simple answers when comparing real world shooting situations.
It's no simple. If the lens you use is designed for a micro four third body, at the same aperture, it will gather less light than one designed for full frame. To do a more visible comparison, the lenses on phones are now usually f1.7, but this doesn't equal a f1.7 lens on a full frame. The f number is only the focal length / aperture diameter. It's only a fraction. So the sensor size matters if the lens you put on it is the right lens. Because you'll gather more light on a larger surface on a bigger sensor. If you have bigger aperture on a lens made for a smaller sensor (with a smaller focal length), then you can equal the amount gathered on a bigger sensor.
To start a f number is not a t (transmission) number. The number and type of lens elements and coatings will affect light through the lens but it can be useful approximation. Total light over the entire sensor sure, but the larger sensor has more area. The light per sq mm (or any other area measurement) will be roughly the same with the same f number between sensor size.
@@ninjanekonico I believe in the exposure triangle. So the exposure will be similar at say f1.7, 1/100 sec, 100 ISO no matter the camera. IPhone included unless Apple is misidentifying their specs.
Anybody who says "gear doesn't matter" either has no clue or is so used to good gear that they forgot how crappy bad gear can really get. I switched from a Canon APS-C to a D810 and it makes a huge difference. If someone still wants to tell me "gear is irrelevant", please link an image of feeding osprey you shot with your smartphone along with your comment.
@@mygi43543 Honestly, I think the way people phrase it is nonsense. What's true is that good gear doesn't guarantee good photos. But bad gear can ruin shots that would have worked with good gear. It matters.
You wouldn't call a Canon APS-C camera crappy if you had entered the world of digital photography with an ODYS 2.1 MP fix focus plastic lens camera like I did ;D It all depends on what you're used to. Photographers in 2069 will laugh about our primitive gear - some smartphones have more image-processing AI built in than pro cameras that cost 20 times as much - but they will still recognise the skill and creativity of the best of us. If photographers are still a thing in 2069, that is. Maybe cave painting and scull carving will be the next big thing by then.
Gear matters to a degree. A landscape photographer producing average work through poor understanding of composition and light, upgrading to a high end camera, will be the same average photographer. Meanwhile a sports/wildlife photographer already coming up with the goods with mid range gear can upgrade and reap the rewards.
I would like to add that landscape photography also benefits from gear upgrades. I switched from a canon aps-c to a D810 and it makes a huge difference in my landscape imagery. The photographer didn't change. The gear matters.
@@youknowwho9247 yes, the point being that if you can get great images already, upgrading is going to enhance your work, but if you don't understand composition or light, an upgrade is not going to make your photos better aesthetically.
@@rjphotos Which is why I believe the problem with this "gear doesn't matter" lie is phrasing. What's true is that gear won't make a bad photographer take good images. But a good photographer will certainly get better results with better gear. Therefore "gear doesn't matter" is a mantra really only suited for beginners and bad photographers, who need to learn the craft first.
What matters is knowing how to use the gear and knowing which gear to use, and when. Just buying expensive stuff and expecting it to be amazing. Know your craft, fill your tool box, and know how to use the tools like an expert.
Well put! Fact is that the majority of photographers, especially amateur photographers, never learn how to use the capabilities of the gear they own before they are convinced by manufacturers that they "need" new gear to "unlock their potential "! Bull! What they really need is to learn how to use what they have, and take lots of pictures! How many can honestly say, "I have pushed my current equipment to the limit!"? I've watched many photographer friends buy fancy new gear only to totally ignore the new features and shoot exactly like they shot the old one.
I got into it with a RUclipsr that created a video telling new photographers to get the cheapest camera possible as gear doesn’t matter and if they gave up they wouldn’t be out a lot of money. Of course gear matters! It needs to be the right fit for your photographic goals. You hit the nail on the head when you said, “Sometimes the gear you need is expensive, and that sucks.”
There was a Facebook video about a year ago where a teenager would walk through the park at a certain time during the day to feed the animals (squirrels, birds, etc.) for about a few months. After doing the same routine the animals started to trust him and would come to the boy to pick the food from his hands. He then used that opportunity to capture photos while the animals grab the pieces of food from his hands. So yes...you can get close to the animals.
On a 3 week trip to South Georgia Island and Antarctica I pulled out a Canon 500mm f/4 IS II (love that lens) with a 1.4x III on a monopod (I think it was a 5D III) because the whales were quite far that day. A fellow Canon shooter went out of his way to come over to tell me "it's the photographer's skill that gets the best shots, gear doesn't matter". I didn't know how to respond so I just gave a weak "yup". At the end of the trip he shared ZERO shots with the rest of us. If you are going to try to insult others skills then maybe you should come up with the goods.
Robert Barta that Zero shots thing is so true. I get that from phone users all the time, eg at a low light event. Phone boy starts out ' my phone takes excellent pictures, I dont need your big camera...'. After 30 mins, all the phones ae now noticiably absent, and Im still shooting away by myself. Same at kids sports.
😁Had the same thing happen, metal band concert, I'm using an old Nikon D2x (!😁APS-C, noisy at ISO 800!, 12Mp), another friend of the band is using a modern tiny camera; he says to me, "You know, you don't have to use a big DSLR anymore..". (The camera name & model are taped over, not showing D2x). When we both posted the pix on FB, I just.. to say anything would've been mean, so I was quiet.
I am relatively new to photography, and within the past 8 years have realized that gear does matter lenses matter, and as one becomes more serious about the level they want to be at this becomes obvious. Ans as Chelsea said it sticks that gear is expensive but it is what it is. I have taken really nice shots with my iPhone, and with my "cheaper" camera, and then I upgraded and the difference is huge. The bottom line, however, and other commenters have mentioned this, it is a personal thing and each photographer has to decide what works for them and what they are happy with and what their goals are that lead to that being happy with what they are utilizing. Great discussion !!!
I'll give you just one example where gear was not only important, but vital. An ex prime minister (of Australia) gave a speech in my home town. How did I get him to look at me for the photograph? I did it by having the best gear in the room, and he assumed I was a professional and therefore posed for me in particular. Not really the sort of reason you would expect, but it was a case where gear absolutely mattered. Politicians are like that. These days I don't have the best gear, because I'm retired and have a skiing addiction that costs around $20 000 per year. I can either ski, or have great camera gear, but not both.
I couldn't make it through this one. As someone who has shot for over 40 years, while in principle some of your stuff you complained about is sort of right.... it still just lends itself to the current "if I only had better gear, I'ld be a better photographer". For example on the old photographers and their work not being as good as today - and these photographers would love to have today's advancements. Sure... I get that. Ultra sharp focus would be cool to have on every shot. But take the picture of the girl running from a bombing naked in Vietnam - an iconic image from my era. That picture is still great today - regardless of not being today sharp. It tells a story. So I guess it depends on why you photograph. Are you trying to prove you can get the perfect header shot - or are you trying to tell a story that is compelling. I've seen plenty of tac sharp photos of nothing..... no story .... no human interest. Ive also seen many many images that aren't technically perfect, but convey a story, and emotion, or take you to another place. Nothing wrong with today's technology - but the pretense that unless you have the ultimate gear, your going to come up sharp is a false narrative. It is a crutch. A good photographer can create an image that is compelling without perfect gear. This obsession over gear is absurd. Now that said, as a sports photographer I tell people that ask me if they can get shots like I do, I am honest with them. Unless they have a 400 f2.8 or 600 f4 - your not getting that shot. But that doesn't mean you can't get compelling sports photos. Just not that one. So work on the others.
D31 5M I’ve Generally found that people who have to resort to personal insult usually have little clue what they are talking about. As mentioned by someone else a great guitarist can make an ordinary guitars sing... where as an average guitarist will only marginally sound better using the most fantastic guitars out there. An expensive camera in the hands of a nob just gives you more tac in focus low noise shots of a poorly composed and boring subject. They don’t make anyone a better photographer.
@D31 5M Really.... I can show you stuff taken over time on a 10D, 20D, 1D mk1, 50D, 1D mk2 N, 7D, A6300... by today that is all my lower end stuff. Take your pick.... its almost all sports...and please make sure you show me your shots so I can see your stuff. If your going to call someone out... please show what you got.
Actually the gear doesn't matter thing is mostly for beginners. It's to teach them how to make use of what is available to them and so they don't spend too much on a camera and lens and pressure themselves to take better photos to justify their purchase. But once that beginner has stepped out of the beginner phase and actually starts to take on clients and do actual work, then that is the scenario where gear will help a lot. Having a nice selection of lenses and bodies to work with really boost what one can do in tight deadlines set by ever so demanding clients.
It is my first pro camera when I switched from Canon 5D mk2. I can't bring myself to sell it after I switched to Sony A7iii! I bonded with that camera and relied on it in many shoots and it's still a very able camera!
At my age, 65, I find that gear matters in the sense that to get a particular shot I need the help that gear affords me. A tri pod. I'm a little shaky sometimes. Long lens. I can't climb up or down or over things like I used to. Camera with good auto focus with a reasonable FPS. My eye site isn't what it once was. Just my $.02 worth from an age demographic that after 50+ years still likes to get out there and take some photos. Loved the pic of the MF-2. Remember seeing something like that with a long lens at Canaveral for some launches. Your content is the best!
I have shifted to higher ISOs to get a higher SS and cover some natural camera vibration. I used to be able to hand hold a normal lens down to 1/4 second in decent conditions just fine - now, 1/60 or higher all the time with any lens...
Gear is important to some degree. I'm a good photographer, but there's some photos I just can't take because I don't have the gear needed to do it. Hopefully one day I can update from my old Canon 60D
To be fair, Ansel Adams probably had better dynamic range and resolution than any digital camera could match. Those huge 8x10 negatives are still the state of the art for some things :-)
you largely controlled your dynamic range by testing the film batch for base recording level exposure, and then development times to find your normal 0 there... then for the various expansion and contraction times (+1,2,3, and -1,2,3) to move yourself around... placed your shadows on zone 2 or 3, checked the fstop difference to the hottest white you wanted detail in and marked it down so you developed to hold detail in those whites without blowing out... it was almost all hand controlled...
LangstoniusRex Actually, a true scientist is a skeptic and would test the hypothesis rather than just dismiss it. Scientism isn’t the same as science. 😋
@@JonathanAcierto i get it. you _really_ need to be right. So...ok? You can go and let those science teachers know you stuck it to some guy on the internet, even though the point of the comment went past you like a satellite in orbit. *gives you all the gold stars*
It's about constancy, good gear ups your keeper rate, and if you shoot professional events like weddings that you only one chance to get an in focus, sharp picture, gear makes a huge difference. If you shoot for fun, gear wont make you a better photographer.
I can tell you, IBIS has almost eliminated camera shake, EYE AF has increased the number of shots with the eye in focus, and electronic view finder has all but eliminated any issues with difficult exposure.
@@ChopperChad I think he's talking about an equatorial mount with a siderial drive, so that the stars don't move in the camera's field of view. The stacking part should be pretty self-explanatory; you just line up all the images as layers so that all the features match between layers, then just use "addition" mode for all but the bottom layer... These deep-sky astro-photographers usually take pictures over several nights. Their biggest enemies are: 1. The weather/viewing conditions (even on clear nights, atmospheric turbulence can turn an image into a study of big smeary blobs of light.) 2. Sensor thermal noise (The random noise cancels out with stacking, and the sensor gain variance and stuck pixels can be evened out using dark frame images) 3. Tracking, the boring art of making sure your equatorial head is properly pointed at the north (or south, for those south of the equator) pole of the sky, and that your target stays in the cross-hairs of your tracking device. Having a line where you wanted a dot, just because your drive battery died, thus ruining a whole night of effort, can be seriously annoying! ;)
Often, people who get very near to animals had them domesticated first. Some own a bear at home. Some even own a panther at home. For others it is deadly to get that close. But yes, fleas do live on some skin and hair.
Gear matters. For ease of use, for durability, for wildlife, for astro, for lowlight, for bokeh, for dynamic range and very rarely also for a billboard. And for the the satisfaction factor. Feel free to add to the list!
Some people have a hard time when it comes to reasoning and that's why they think that if you say "gear matters", you're saying "talent does not matter".
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
David Gilmore (Pink Floyd guitarist) was asked during an interview if the band was simply all about their gear. His reply; "using that logic I could give anyone a Fender Stratocaster and they would sound like Eric Clapton". He went on to further elaborate that having the right gear helped broaden the creative process, but only if you have the skill to take proper advantage.
And that's why he's the best guitarist of all time imo ;)
correctomundo
David Gilmour is my hero but I don't agree to this. I bet he has not touched a Fender fake in the last 40 years. Ofc a stratocaster and a les paul both sound amazing but that is like comparing a high end canon to a high end nikon and saying gear does not matter.....
@@abmo32 but it doesn't, depending on who you are. As he said, unless you can take advantage of it, there's little point in having it. Skill trumps gear more often the not. But you you may need that higher end gear if you need to take photos of sports, action, wildlife, etc. But where it may not matter, like Tony said, is when you don't need that gear to get the shot you want (e.g. landscapes). Or you don't care about sharpness. Even an entry level Canon shines when you plan your shots/composition.
@Zzzz oop and who the hell are you?
I think the idea that 'your gear doesn't matter' is rooted in the understanding that success of your art is more dependent on you than the equipment you are using.
I'm sure everyone realizes that purchasing more expensive lenses or camera bodies can incrementally increase the quality of their photos and video, but without experience, knowledge, passion and commitment your gear is useless.
Well said.
True. Camera gears are just tools. Use the ones that make your job easier. I use mine-smartphone and mirrorless systems.
Just invest on good lenses and study the art of photography and you'll be fine.
Truth
Well said, I sold one of my photos to a cruise company and it was taken with the Nikon D7100 + Nikkor 18-105mm kit lens. My other lens is a Sigma 18-35mm 1.8
It's just a tool, it's like having a sport car it doesn't mean you are a racer driver because you have a ferrari.
Though the equpiment makes it easier for your needs. Just like having a good car that suits your needs.
But a 3.5 - 5.6 tangibly restricts its usage when 2.8 or 1.8 or 1.4 or 1.2 is necessary to get the shot. All else being equal, proper bodies for correct ISO performance and fast lenses are paramount to success for example in low light conditions. All skill in the world can't get a shot at f/8 and ISO 3200 if that's what your gear is restricted to.
I want my gear to be good enough that I know it’s my fault if the photo stinks. When I was starting out, I would sometimes blame my lower-end gear for not getting a shot. It was even sometimes true, if the reason was I couldn’t make an adjustment as quickly or as accurately as I needed. Getting rid of that excuse improved my photography, both by giving me that extra flexibility, and by making sure I know that almost any problem is mine, not the gear.
If you've got effectively unlimited funds to invest in your photography hobby then that might make sense, but for someone with a more limited budget, I'd argue that it would make more sense to start off spending less on gear so that they have more money to spend on things like photography courses, or trips to places where they can do a lot of shooting and get practice.....When it comes to good photography, I'd say it's around 80% the photographer's skill/talent, and 20% the gear....Of that 20%, well over half is the lenses, as opposed to the camera body.
@@Bike_Lion respect, highly doubt toney ever bought a lens from goodwill and wonders why he can't capture a lightning bolt in a storm.
If gear really didn't matter, all professional photographers would use cheap entry level cameras to save money, because they could get the same results.
No I don't think so. Most pros feel forced to carry around ludicrously heavy stuff because if they brought a M43rds and a spare lens in a little bag, the clients might say "call yourself a pro and you are shooting with THAT?" There is a lot of penis envy (apologies to Mrs Northrop!) in pro photography. It goes with the general insecurity.
@@fingerhorn4 That is a HUGE part of the problem, always has been. For some reason people equate BIG with PRO, and it hasn't been like that in years. Not too long ago I shot an experimental film using a pair of Google Pixel 2 XL's with Moment lenses; a friend of mine thought it was a joke, until he saw the completed 4k video edited together.
But why would you use cheap entry level camera when you can afford them as a pro ?
@Alpha Centauri Could not agree more. I may be an extreme case, but while I have a sweet 8mm Meike f/3.5 Fisheye, and a Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens, I STILL got knife fever and ordered the Canon L Series 8-15mm f/4, and a Canon L series 24mm f/1.4. And that's likely just a personal problem. 😅🤣🤣
I shoot with M4/3s and it’s a massive camera
I usually go around with a 40-150 2.8, TT685 and an EM1X
"your gear doesn't matter"
*has the best gear available*
ok
Ha! I keep thinking the same thing when I hear that from people who own expensive gear.
Because it really don’t do nothing without skill but also it mattersssss 🤣. I just shot a night event with m50+ speedlight + sigma 50-100 1.8 . It was great shoot and all but it’s not the best in low light.
“Finally i find that more skill u have more ability to get the best out of what you have but there’s a limit to that”
Gear is only as important as our needs say it is. That's basically it.
We can say that everyone needs this camera or that lens, but your gear just has to meet your needs.
And to be honest, most of us don't need much.
You are correct. But they won't make as much affiliate income if you don't keep buying expensive gear.
Seems that Tony and Chelsea have been talking around this very thing for years but have not ever addressed it directly. Most of the camera bodies and lenses made in the last few years are amazing and much better than the needs of the majority of photographers. Of course there are those who routinely push the limits of the best of the gear but those folks represent only a small percentage of the photographic community. For the bulk of photographers, the current generation of low to moderately priced gear is more than they will ever need. IMO
@@chipdorman5385 Urging people to buy more high-priced gear means more affiliate income for them.
On the Move Real Estate Photography I bet you always make sure you have the right gear with you when you shoot. Shooting wide ? Then I bet you have a wide lens packed = gear. Thus you prove every time you shoot that gear does actually matter.
@@JimSamuel267 Do you really think this video is about making $2 more in affiliate income a month? This video is just making the point that there is a possibility that expense gear might be better in some circumstances, depending on your needs.
Just get closer to the animals....Sure, I'll pop my 14mm prime on and get right up to that Wild Lion 😋
Check out David Yarrow photography .com for somebody who gets up close with wild animals.
LMAO!
Nice one😂😂😋
That's why cat content is much more abundant.
@Tomek Rospondek Learn to fly. As simple as that 😁
My wallet figures out my gear needs.
Mine also!
Broque
Same :)
No-one needs gear. You don't even need a camera.
Get a bigger wallet.
Usually these arguments happen when a photographer assumes that everyone shoots only the scenarios he does, should only shoot the way he does, and that the only valid workflow is his chosen workflow.
^^^ This ^^^
Just had this exact argument this morning... a year after you made your comment ;-)
Yes, that was my thought. There are types of photography where it's reasonable to expect that the photographer will get it right the first time most of the time. For example, most still lives and landscape photography can usually be correct the first time. Virtually anything that involves children, or animals, but I repeat myself, is probably going to be a crap shoot in terms of whether it's even possible to get the shot the first go, no matter how good you are at photography.
Likewise, taking photos of bees hovering over flowers or the key moment at a sportsball game are likely going to benefit from having more shots taken. New technology has somewhat reduced the number of shots that it takes, but it's still substantially more than one in most cases.
I recently met a guy at an event who told me gear doesn't matter.... while holding an A7RIII (w/ cage, tripod, G master....) I was like "bro trade me for my plain 77D then"
If you were on his left, he must have remarked intended for the guy on his right who had an A9.
@@genghis2510 The A7R3 is better than the a9. XD
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH it is like Rich people saying OH MONEY DOESNT MATTER AT ALL :))))) hahahahha
Gear makes it easier for a skilled photographer to get the image he/she wants, but it doesn't turn a hack into a skilled photographer.
@@alansach8437 - Yeah, a good analogy is a professional artist using Prisma Colors (or some other high end color pencils) and some random 3 year old kid using whatever color pencils were cheapest at the store....The top quality pencil makes the pro's colors look a bit nicer and more vivid, but if he traded pencils with the kid, he'd still be making very nice artwork, and the 3 year old would still be scribbling (just with more expensive pencils).
With photography, I'd say that quality is around 80% the photographer's skill/talent, and 20% the gear....And of that 20%, well over half is the lenses, as opposed to the camera body.
So for a beginner with limited funds, it makes sense to get an older model DSLR, if anything splurge on quality lenses, and invest the most in photography courses and/or trips to go practice shooting!
if you want to get paid, gear matters. if you want redundancy, gear matters. if you want to shoot in a storm, gear matters. photography in general doesn't care about your gear, but how you shoot with your gear matters. i love shooting photos with my phone, its quick and easy and i get some great results. but when i have a project, i pull out a "real" camera. i use light modifiers, why, as great as available light is, its limiting. im just a hobbyist with a few paid gigs under my belt, but for me, gear matters.
mine was about size and what is easiest to me. So I'm used to Canon (I like their menus) so last year bought a M50, then went online and bought a load of cheap 7artisans lenses. Is it the best combination? Not at all. Do I enjoy shooting with it and it fits what I want to do? Absolutely :) As Victor has put above, it'd be a whole different matter if it's pro users!
Nothing like a perfect lighting. Having soft box for paid work is necessary
@Pixelchaser I think that was the point of the video.
@Pixelchaser The meaning of the title is that gear does matter. The lie being: Gear doesn't matter
I totally agree...
"Your gear doesnt matter" depending on your situation. Sure let me get close to this lion with my 27mm . Im sure he wants his portrait taken and wont eat me.
That “Madelyn can’t read now” comment was hilarious! 😂
I haven't laughed that hard at ANY video in a long time😁😁😁😁
Bob Bob “RIP Madelyn” lmao!!
"Forget HDR, just bump up the contrast to 82" - Jared Polin
better yet, just under expose the image by 1 or 2 stops and then bring back the shadows. works great everytime but not more than 400 iso but then again, you dont really need HDR as much in night time.
And if you add +82 saturation you just got Ken Rockwell!
mykel8 when you get both jokes, you spend too much time on internet lol
Actually just dont HDR! Boom problem solved
You mean 100
Damn Tony. You must be 60 pounds lighter. That's some baggage you just unloaded!
spewing shit from both ends doubles weight loss within a given timeframe.
@@JetCityNinja According to you they are just "spewing shit", and yet, here you are, watching the video and commenting on it. Why is that? Do you not have anything at all better to do? Or is it your life's goal to post negative comments on videos that you think hold no merit? I don't understand people like you. Why do people like you waste their/your time watching videos you clearly have no respect for?
oakie
Let's keep things respectful
@@techone72893 C'mon, lay off Oakie. He's one of those single slot guys, getting closer to animals and taking one shot only.
@@techone72893 if he didn't watched the video how in the hell he could tell if they are saying something wrong or right? Perhaps you don't know how people share their opinions! First they are watcing a video and then they decide if they are agrees or disagrees. So my point is that you can't tell to someone, why you watch a video if you don't like it.
I believe a better statement would be "Gear doesn't make you a good photographer." But in order to push your skill higher and higher, you eventually need better and better gear... and commitment.
Practice practice practice , and just because it's said on the " tube " doesn't make it the gospel or it's written in stone .
If every need was based on how something was in the past, then people probably don't need
- Fast internet
- Reliable power
- Easy access to clean drinking water
- Smart phones
- Access to health care
People don't need those things because people were okay before without them!
Actually we don't need smartphones... just a phone that is portable and a piece of paper and a stamp.
@@Nate6571 That point was more about the hypocrisy of those people. I'm sure they couldn't live without their smartphones.
Those that survived XD
Real photographers only need one shot argument grabs me a little.
Just imagine how fun it is to capture that perfect picture when you only have one chance per second. I am using a 15-year-old DSLR and some other film cameras from the 70-ties. Nothing compares to the feeling of achievement if you also have to fight your gear.
Gear doesn't matter until you realise that your camera is stupidly slow to autofocus (my main reason to upgrade from my first camera)
Also, did anyone else hear Kai W twitch when the point about bokeh was introduced?
For some scenarios slow AF isn’t a drawback, so you can’t generalize. Gear doesn’t matter *for some photographers*. For others it does.
If AF is too slow, there's always manual focus 😁👍
I don´t think Robert Capa had AF when he shot pics of soldiers storming the beach at Normandy... Pull that lens, bro.
@@Biring1 Maybe that's why most his pictures were out of focus?
BOKKKKEH!
I, for one, am glad that videos like this are pushing people to focus on their gear and buy new and better stuff. It means a more robust and cost-efficient used marketplace for people like me who are happy buying used gear for cheap because people with more money than sense are always trading-up. Thanks Tony and Chelsea!
If you actually thought that gear doesn't matter, you wouldn't shop used. You wouldn't shop gear at all.
it's a golden age in the DSLR market right now. I mean, sure the quality of the gear matters, but something that was great a few years back can still be great now when used by the right photographer
Maybe a few years ago the gap between pro-consumer was wider and the price gap was relatively the same, now one can get pro gear from a few years ago and really get a super high level of performance at a very low cost
@@alanhoughton6166 Honestly, at this point there's plenty of awesome used DSLR and mirrorless cameras, and lenses for each system, that it's easy to get reasonably priced, and very capable, gear.
Gear absolutely matters, to a point. If you're using a potato to take pictures versus someone with a multi-thousand dollar set-up. The point of the phrase "gear doesn't matter" means that having good gear doesn't guarantee your pictures won't be crap. You can take a great picture on a cheaper set-up or on an expensive set-up. All things being equal, skillwise, having the better gear will create a better result.
25:25
Sometimes you just need the right gear for the job. For instance a good telephoto lens is a must for things like wildlife photography or successful stalking of ex-girlfriends :-)
Real stalkers use 28 mm primes. You have much more impact if you boldly jump into her face.
🤣🤣🤣 This thread. Love it.
Gear matters when you've learned enough to know why that particular piece of gear matters.
OK gear with good glass will be enough for most people.
Learning why something matters is worth more than the gear itself.
probably the best reply I've heard on this subject...
Absolutely correct.
''cars didn't have seat belts and some people didn't die'' this cracked me up ahah
What cracks me up is how Tony considers himself technical and 'scientific' yet doesn't know how ISO works and thinks that sensor size changes DOF. drrrrrrrrrrrrrp.
@@squirming_squirrels where is you photography website?
@@tangoingthekitchen i don’t have one after changing career paths.
But this does not change that ISO is a function of analog gain on the sensor, not a post process, and DOF is not a function of F ratio, rather that aperture is a parameter of CoF diameter.
I also know what all that means, because i have a BFA in Art Technology. Do you?
Thanks for the great video. I will use this as evidence to prove to my wife that I need a new camera (or lens, or tripod, or lens, or camera, or .....). If she is still not convinced can we call you?
Haha I might do the same
How do you know his wife's name is chuck?
Real men don’t ask their wife’s permission, it’s the other way around.
@@newmedia2335 real men don't shave either. :)
@Aryan lol man-cave, use to be man’s house, now the new man Cave lol no I shouldn’t.
Gear totally matters. Try taking a photo with a YO-YO!
Thanks for the tip. Great results. Who would've thought?
If only a YO-YO wasn't soo expensive compared to camera gear.
I feel like people have on gurushots
Looks and gear matters. No matter what they tell you.
The video is a bit of a straw man argument. I don't think anyone believes gear doesn't matter at all. The real argument is that gear doesn't matter as much as talent, practice, and vision, which Tony and Chelsea frequently point out so I know they aren't trying to say gear matters more than anything. Still, everything is relative and a lot of the arguments here are so case specific they don't really apply to most photographers including, I'm guessing, most followers of this channel. It's just my opinion but my guess is that most people saying gear doesn't matter are simply resisting the fairly recent shift in photography as a hobby from learning actual photography skills, history, composition, etc. toward it being taken over by gear heads into it because they like gear more than they actually like photography. This causes shifts in the photo industry where you have less affordable equipment that would satisfy the needs of most photographers. The argument that anyone should buy gear based on the maximum need rather than the average need is a spurious one. This is exactly why less and less people buy cameras and lenses in lieu of using a smartphone to take pictures, it satisfies most of most people's needs and the added cost of camera equipment for most people is too much money for not enough improvement. Most people don't print their pictures at all anymore, let alone print 8x10s or larger.
...it depends on what you are trying to shoot. NOT knowing how to use the gear you have, is the most common fault, that I come across with most everyone i have taught.
If gear does matter or not, depends on the price of said gear. The difference in capabilities between a 100$ point and shoot and a 1000$ interchangeable camera system is usually much larger than between said 1000$ camera and a 2000$ camera.
The law of diminishing returns :)
Agreed. The moment you miss 1 of 100 pictures taken by bad focussing instead of 20/100, you realize, that Eye-AF is what you needed.
Frog FWK or a lesson in focusing?
Of course Eoghan - Like lessons in chess might have prevented Kasparow from losing against Deep Blue... ;) This is 2019 and the eye-AF beats every human hands down. And by hands down, I mean: You could push the trigger with the tip of your nose and still hit the subject's eye.
Gear does matter. I've been shooting wild birds and mammals with my dad since the 60's. Sometimes you cannot physically get closer. Sometimes you SHOULDN'T get closer.
In 1959 my dad gave me a camera, Argus C3. He said this camera will take better pictures then you ever will, meaning gear does not matter.
Your dad gave you a gear and said you can get great shots with it. So it starts with the gear. If gear doesn't matter, you don't need that camera to get good picture.
@@gavin92618 My dad was saying I was the limiting factor, not the camera
Terence Rudkin, no shade, but presumably you've gotten WAY better as a photographer in the last 60 years.. What do you shoot with now? (Just curious, not tryna be funny/prove a point..).
@@raynaudier8622 My EDC is a Fujifilm X-T3, recent transition from Sony A7II, mostly for the look and feel of a film camera. But I still shoot a Mamiya 7II and a Toyoview 4x5
Terence Rudkin, 📷 you are the MAN.. 4x5 LIVes..
I recently got an a7iii and some proper lenses after years of shooting with cheaper gear. The biggest advantages are autofocus performance, the ability to shoot faster shutter speeds with good image quality, and of course those blurry backgrounds. My non-photographer friends and family immediately noticed the difference in my photos (without being told that I got a new camera).
I think the argument is valid when said to counteract gear lust, to talk down yourself or friends from buying expensive gear they want but don't need.
Oh it’s not the gear. It’s not the photographer. It’s the DOG that matters! (I love it when Pixel makes an appearance💕)
I'll vote for the dog. :-)
Currently have a Canon 6D, was planning to upgrade to EOS RP. Found a RUclips channel of a photographer with 6D that has 1 million shots. Still running like a champ.
Changed my mind, spent the money on glass. Glad I did...
Glass is King.....
I'm still learning about photography, but a friend let me use a really nice lens on my canon crop-sensor(T6i). Not sure of the exact model of lens, but it stops down to about f.8. That thing was miles better than the kit lenses I have. Even on my entry level dslr it was phenomenal. The clarity was astounding. I can flip thru my pictures and have no problem telling which pics I took with it.
So, you're absolutely right. I would buy a nicer lens before buying a new body.
Joe Man
My 5DII has 400 000 shots, and was just recently replaced with 5DIII which I got used. I do have some nice glass though. So yeah, go for glass definitely. 6D is a very capable camera.
Hey if that body doesn't limit your work then great for you. Everyone has different needs.
Joe Man no thanks I sold my 6d and 7d brought 5d m3 and m4
The "you don't need gear" photographer must think themselves to be the modern Diogenes who threw away his cup after he saw a child drinking water by cupping her hands.
Trust me, gear matters !
No. I dont trust you
Forget two card slots, I lost an entire concert, from right up front, when one tiny screw jammed the ONE shutter in the camera. One shutter, one memory card, one lens, all the same, one of anything is why we carry two cameras.
This whole "you only need one shot" thing is really not about moving subjects. Honestly, I think that the actual point that's valid, is that taking a lot of poorly thought out and composed photos is not an alternative to thinking about the photo you want and taking less photos with more thought.
Graham, I agree. Back in the film days everything had to be calculated on paper or in your head with using a light meter and/or a gray card as the light changed. Of course, the composition and all the other factors came into play and then one did not know if the exposure turned out good; ie bracketing. Today, I see so many crappy shots that are too dependent on Photoshop to create a decent photo. Can we get an exceptional shot in one exposure with almost no post processing? Yes, but it is rare and all images need a little processing. I try to emphasis to my students to take less photos with more thought which includes composition, exposure and gear.
I'll think about that!
Gear matters to me to a degree. A lot of my gear facilitated me to get a lot better. Certain situations got easier or at all possible, it was more fun, I learned more... Of course getting new stuff often is a lot of fun in itself and this is part of the whole experience. A mixture of modern consumption and acquiring new skills. I like it a lot, especially when you can create something that you can be proud of with great that you have fun with.
Saying “just get closer to the animal” made me think “how do I get closer to the moon?”. The almost unbelievable truth is that an exceptional artist seeks the correct tool yet the next great image requires a different truth. Something I think you were trying to say with your “right place at the right time” example Chelsea. Than you guys for being so real. I love your passion and humility. It is refreshing ;)
For most wildlife photography you'll need *some sort* of super-tele lens (one that can zoom up to around 500 or 600mm or so), but IMO it'd make more sense for a beginner to get a *relatively* cheap lens of that sort - paying maybe $5-600 used, rather than buying a fancier new one for $2K or more. Then take the money one saved, and use it for more trips out into the wild to do actual shooting and get practice.....It's not that gear doesn't matter *at all* - you need some sort of gear at some level of basic quality (some more expensive than others, depending on the photography niche), but it's just that the gear isn't the main thing that matters.
I think the "your gear doesn't matter" stands true. Skill is infinitely more important than gear in the vast majority of instances. Making beginners think it's so important to have a $4000 camera to make good images is not really realistic. Yes, gear does make a difference, but so many people make it sound like it's the be all end all of photography.
Beginners benefit a lot from having lens option , so a kit zoom and some cheap vintage primes could be a starting point. Presuming beginner doesn’t have ton of hours to train and research, they may not build skill at the pace they need. And skill does not make their scene brighter, only lens, lights or better sensor can do that. (Why does my indoor photos look bad is a fairly common beginner question.)
Understanding you gear is what really matters. When entering any photo opportunity, it is knowing your gear strengths and weaknesses is what matters to capturing a particular image. I will never own a Nikon 600mm F 4, or 500 f 4 or any other lens in the 10K range. What I do own and could afford was a 200-500mm f 5.6. I know what it can and cannot capture. In addition to gear, is surroundings. Long ago, I was fortunate to visit the Slot canyons in Arizona. A unique area of the world and a specific time of the year. This time was in April when the sun enters the canyons to produce the rays of light you have seen captured by many photographers throughout time. I paid for a guide where myself and one other photographer was on this tour. The guide was a Cherokee native who had conducted hundreds of tours over many years. The other photographer was a French native, working for a European magazine. He had a 35K Hasselblad body and probably another 10k in lenses. I had a Nikon D100, 18-55mm f 3.5-5.6, tripcord and a tripod. He split off from our guide and I stayed Cherokee's hip. He came away with virtually nothing, because he got tangled in the other tours and I came away with shots of a lifetime. Photos that are 40x30 inch metal prints that will last the next 50 years. If we all hit the lottery tomorrow and could afford any gear, would we be better? That is the question.
It really goes back to what you define as a good photo. If sharpness and lack of aberrations is your goal then gear absolutely does matter. Even the best photographer can't achieve that with a shitty cheap old lens that's optically terrible. If it's just about composition and creativity to you then by all means go shoot with your iPhone, that's 100% up to the task
Back in the film days. We all used the same film. And we pretty much used the same lenses. If you bought a professional camera. It was built a little tougher. It had 100% viewfinder. And it had less shutter lag. But it was just basically a box. That's when we said the camera doesn't matter. But back then. We used to all talk about film. Hey what film did you use. Hey what film did that guy use. Hey did you hear about this new film. Today that's the sensors. And because the sensors come in the bodies. Well. Now. The camera matters.
Interesting observation, haven’t thought of it that way since I was still young when film was going down. That’s why studying history is important, same patterns and arguments over and over with different disguises.
Great Video. My shots just got so much better, when I switched back from beeing a full time photographer to part time and full time software developer. Finally had the money to buy a D810 and Holy Trinity of Leses. Gear can't stubstitute talent, but support it a lot.
Sorry for my lousy English, I'm German / Swiss - so double handicapped...
Gear to a certain extent does matter. Hard to take wildlife photos with a 24mm F2.8
😂😂
why, just get closer. /s
nilssab yes let’s just get closer to a lion to photograph it or to a fox that will run away if too close. Come on lol
Simple truth is that you need the right tools for the job. If you don't have them, you can bodge it to a degree, but how much you are able to do that, will depend on how close the gear you have is, to the right gear for the job.
The sort of people who make these comments aren't interested in what you think they are only interested in provoking a reaction. By indulging them you are giving them the attention they crave. Just refuse to engage and they will go elsewhere.
The sort of people who put out these videos that push gear aren't interested in helping people become better photographers. They are only interested in selling through affiliate links.
@@JimSamuel267 Presumptuous you both are...
I shot the 2019 Westminster Dog Show and using the Canon 5D4 I was able to nail more keepers with the better dynamic range and focus tracking. Coupled with skill one photo out of a few hundred made the cover of a magazine. So hey to me my gear backed me up. Totally satisfied with whatever cost I laid out.
Just caught your podcast on the way to work this morning. I bought my first full-frame mirrorless camera. I'm a photographer on a budget (what a concept) and have held off purchasing a full frame camera, I thought, for way too long. FINALLY! With prices dropping on earlier models, I purchase a Sony A7ii. Now I can smugly answer other photographers' questions, "That's a full frame right?" "Yeah." Well let me tell you something. I ran comparisons with my kit lens Sony A7ii with a 24 megapixel sensor with my kit lens Nikon D5500 with a 24 megapixel sensor at 100 ISO, and, even with full frame, the resultant Sony images had the same resolution detail as my Nikon crop sensor. I ran several tests. Always the same result. There are other benefits I'm weighing although, at higher ISO's the full-frame camera had much less noise and I enjoy the narrower depth of field. But being primarily a landscape photographer, I was doing just as well with the crop-sensor Nikon. So now, I am realizing superior results with multiple frames stitched together for my landscapes. So my message to you is appreciate the technology of crop-sensors these days. They are actually performing or perhaps even out performing the earlier full frame models. Cheers!
Gear Matters, Yes it does. And having said that it really depends on the individual. I'm a tech type of person. We don't live in the prehistoric age any longer. Why are TV manufacturers producing 4K tvs now? Because there's a difference! Some people may say, "Oh it doesn't matter", but I can see the difference. I like sharp! Why are camera manufacturers developing higher resolution cameras? Do people actually think a 12 mp picture is sharper than a 42 mp picture? Gear matters to those who want excellence. For those that are not so "picky" gear is not so important. It's that simple. I have a relative that watches TV at 720 and swears he doesn't understand why people need "HD TV"... LOL! Well, maybe he just doesn't have very good glasses or doesn't know the difference. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!
Lolol saying “gear doesn’t matter” is like saying you can catch a marlin with the cheapest fishing rod.
GuyFox It is true, but there’s no point in arguing about it. Ancient Polynesians caught tuna with ropes and spears too. Modern Hawaiians use chase boats and radar, GPS, and electronic reels on carbon rods. Some still enjoy the old ways others don’t, and it shouldn’t be about accusing the other guy is wrong.
Yes, and you can fry a mean egg in a shovel, but the pan sure makes it a lot easier.
LOL, most people couldn't catch a marlin even if given the best fishing rods. So why bother buy those expensive rods out of their ability to use them?
Kah Zhoy Lol all analogies aside. Don’t be insane. If you want to get a shot with a shallow depth of field and telephoto compression, guess what? You need a fast telephoto prime or zoom lens
Gear almost always matters. Realistically speaking, a high resolution sensor is needed for even smaller prints. When printing, supersampling is really good to achieve as perception of details can be improved. A large aperture is also important, especially in low light where you may need to increase the ISO. Even the current best DSLRs, lose some fine detail at as little as 800 ISO.
Glass ? Yeah it matters, have fun focusing on a bird with a 35mm or getting a headshot of a Lion with a 24mm (well, you can do the last one, but you are not the one who's gonna publish the picture)
Light modifier etc? Yes it matters,
Body ? You will always want the best one, but is it needed ?
I don't think so, bodies will "only" allows you to have more keeper, but aside from that ... video is another subject though.
My main complain is people who thinks they just CAN'T do anything without [insert brand]'s new $4k camera, no, you can, it's more difficult, yes, you have to adapt, yes, but I am pretty sure that as long as you have the glass, the rest is basically only a question of simplicity efficiency, not need.
The gear elitism is somewhat tiresome too.
From my point of view, you only need the body you can afford with a budget you are willing to use as long as you already have the rest.
I once heard a man say "I can stop a bullet... Once"
agreed.
Gear matters to a certain amount, but it's no guarantee for good pictures. And esp. for photography you don't need to have the newest and best/hippest equipment. Invest in good hardware and you can normally use it for a long time. I still use my old Canon 5D Mark II and the images are still amazing and I cannot really see the difference to my Mark IV. Glass is a different story. Good glass is not cheap ... but when you take care of it - you can use it almost forever :)
The problem is people are too uneducated to know if they need the gear and how to use it. I cannot count the times sports parents see us at high school games and decide to "save" money and buy their gear (often too little as too much) and get frustrated about not getting the pix we get. Then way too few bother to ask us how. Hubris and ego simply gets in the way. Then a small but vocal minority of photogs throw the typical misinformation that T&C cover in the video - again, ignorance and hubris and fragile egos at play.
Gear matters - right gear for the right needs. Photo skills matter. Willing to be humble and ask and learn matters. Teaching matters. Photography requires thinking and communication and that's where it begins and ends.
Love to T&C and crew!
Excellent point.
The skills of the photographer, not the most expensive gear, have and will always be the most important piece of ""gear"" in the kit.
Great episode, Northrups! Usually, (most) photography vloggers are too artsy to make any logical sense of what they are preaching from their imaginary "high horses". But you guys are so far above all that childish "gear-doesn't-matter" tragicomedy. I really enjoy watching every second of your podcasts. Never stop making them, please :). Very informative, very funny, all makes perfect sense. And it's nice to know that I'm not the only "crazy" person who refuses to blend into this cult of ignorance and artsy preachers, who apparently are taking over photography by spreading silly ideas, lies and misusing science.
I get a lot of people asking me what camera should I get and first thing I say is "I apologies for answering your question with another question, but what do you want to take pictures of?" Seems like the best way to get the right answers and the gear they really needs instead of something they'll never use.
Gear only matters to the point where any additional investment or features don't have any significant improvement for the types of photography you do, beyond that you would already have a specialty and need an very specific gear, like photographing particles colliding.
My Wallet wishes gear doesn’t matter. As a casual hobbyist it’s hard to justify the cost of glass. In the old days, we didn’t have the choices like today and it really came down to mostly talent, regardless of your social economic position . But today, It’s become a professional or rich persons art.
From the complete amateur, hobby photographer end of the scale: Gear absolutely matters! Even when I'm just trying to get nice digital shots of grandchildren at family gatherings, the quicker focusing time and frame rate of my new Canon gives me lots more good images than I was catching with my previous camera. I was better than my equipment before; now my equipment is better than me, and I feel challenged to make the best use of what I've got. Thanks Tony and Chelsea for stoking my new enthusiasm.
I think you nailed it here. For the lesser experienced gear greatly matters. All this modern technology helps more amateur photogs take photos that only years ago were only in the realm of the very experienced photographer.
On your astro example, FoV and DoF can be calculated for equaliancy but the physical specs of the lens never change. A f1.4 or 1.8 or 3.5 is a f1.4/1.8/3.5 no matter sensor size.
Say that astro photo was taken on a FF sensor, 24mm, f2.0, ISO 3200, 25 sec. I could match the FoV and exposure on a m43 sensor with 12mm, f2.0, ISO 3200, 25 sec. However that photo would have more noise (bad) but the DoF would be different due to the focal length difference (more DoF from the m43 sensor would probably be desired in this case, so good). I could then use the wider focal length to my advantage by increasing my shutter length without the appearance of star trails to maybe 50 seconds and then lower my ISO to 1600 to earn back some noise performamce. The photo would be exposed similar and have the same FoV. Noise comparison would depend on a lot of factors including thermal design of the camera bodies but would probably be closer than you expect.
Point is that understanding your gear matters and the technical aspect of photography is nuanced. No simple answers when comparing real world shooting situations.
It's no simple. If the lens you use is designed for a micro four third body, at the same aperture, it will gather less light than one designed for full frame.
To do a more visible comparison, the lenses on phones are now usually f1.7, but this doesn't equal a f1.7 lens on a full frame.
The f number is only the focal length / aperture diameter. It's only a fraction.
So the sensor size matters if the lens you put on it is the right lens. Because you'll gather more light on a larger surface on a bigger sensor.
If you have bigger aperture on a lens made for a smaller sensor (with a smaller focal length), then you can equal the amount gathered on a bigger sensor.
To start a f number is not a t (transmission) number. The number and type of lens elements and coatings will affect light through the lens but it can be useful approximation.
Total light over the entire sensor sure, but the larger sensor has more area. The light per sq mm (or any other area measurement) will be roughly the same with the same f number between sensor size.
@@kentsutton4973 so you think a smartphone with a f1.7 lens gather the same amount of light than a full frame with a f1.7 lens ?
@@ninjanekonico I believe in the exposure triangle. So the exposure will be similar at say f1.7, 1/100 sec, 100 ISO no matter the camera. IPhone included unless Apple is misidentifying their specs.
Anybody who says "gear doesn't matter" either has no clue or is so used to good gear that they forgot how crappy bad gear can really get. I switched from a Canon APS-C to a D810 and it makes a huge difference.
If someone still wants to tell me "gear is irrelevant", please link an image of feeding osprey you shot with your smartphone along with your comment.
Totally agree !
@@mygi43543 Honestly, I think the way people phrase it is nonsense. What's true is that good gear doesn't guarantee good photos. But bad gear can ruin shots that would have worked with good gear. It matters.
You wouldn't call a Canon APS-C camera crappy if you had entered the world of digital photography with an ODYS 2.1 MP fix focus plastic lens camera like I did ;D
It all depends on what you're used to. Photographers in 2069 will laugh about our primitive gear - some smartphones have more image-processing AI built in than pro cameras that cost 20 times as much - but they will still recognise the skill and creativity of the best of us. If photographers are still a thing in 2069, that is. Maybe cave painting and scull carving will be the next big thing by then.
Gear matters to a degree. A landscape photographer producing average work through poor understanding of composition and light, upgrading to a high end camera, will be the same average photographer. Meanwhile a sports/wildlife photographer already coming up with the goods with mid range gear can upgrade and reap the rewards.
I would like to add that landscape photography also benefits from gear upgrades. I switched from a canon aps-c to a D810 and it makes a huge difference in my landscape imagery. The photographer didn't change. The gear matters.
@@youknowwho9247 yes, the point being that if you can get great images already, upgrading is going to enhance your work, but if you don't understand composition or light, an upgrade is not going to make your photos better aesthetically.
@@rjphotos Which is why I believe the problem with this "gear doesn't matter" lie is phrasing.
What's true is that gear won't make a bad photographer take good images.
But a good photographer will certainly get better results with better gear.
Therefore "gear doesn't matter" is a mantra really only suited for beginners and bad photographers, who need to learn the craft first.
What matters is knowing how to use the gear and knowing which gear to use, and when. Just buying expensive stuff and expecting it to be amazing. Know your craft, fill your tool box, and know how to use the tools like an expert.
Well put! Fact is that the majority of photographers, especially amateur photographers, never learn how to use the capabilities of the gear they own before they are convinced by manufacturers that they "need" new gear to "unlock their potential "! Bull! What they really need is to learn how to use what they have, and take lots of pictures! How many can honestly say, "I have pushed my current equipment to the limit!"? I've watched many photographer friends buy fancy new gear only to totally ignore the new features and shoot exactly like they shot the old one.
I got into it with a RUclipsr that created a video telling new photographers to get the cheapest camera possible as gear doesn’t matter and if they gave up they wouldn’t be out a lot of money. Of course gear matters! It needs to be the right fit for your photographic goals. You hit the nail on the head when you said, “Sometimes the gear you need is expensive, and that sucks.”
Gear makes it easier. You can get the same photo, but the better gear you have reduces the work you need to do.
Not always. Having more gear increases the work if you are constantly having to choose and configure your gear.
Sounds like Fred didn't watch the video. Probably thinks his phone can do great with wildlife and sports.
Yeah just tell that rare bird to hold still while you get another 50 feet closer because you can't afford a 600mm :P
There was a Facebook video about a year ago where a teenager would walk through the park at a certain time during the day to feed the animals (squirrels, birds, etc.) for about a few months. After doing the same routine the animals started to trust him and would come to the boy to pick the food from his hands. He then used that opportunity to capture photos while the animals grab the pieces of food from his hands. So yes...you can get close to the animals.
On a 3 week trip to South Georgia Island and Antarctica I pulled out a Canon 500mm f/4 IS II (love that lens) with a 1.4x III on a monopod (I think it was a 5D III) because the whales were quite far that day. A fellow Canon shooter went out of his way to come over to tell me "it's the photographer's skill that gets the best shots, gear doesn't matter". I didn't know how to respond so I just gave a weak "yup". At the end of the trip he shared ZERO shots with the rest of us.
If you are going to try to insult others skills then maybe you should come up with the goods.
Robert Barta that Zero shots thing is so true. I get that from phone users all the time, eg at a low light event. Phone boy starts out ' my phone takes excellent pictures, I dont need your big camera...'. After 30 mins, all the phones ae now noticiably absent, and Im still shooting away by myself. Same at kids sports.
😁
😁Had the same thing happen, metal band concert, I'm using an old Nikon D2x (!😁APS-C, noisy at ISO 800!, 12Mp), another friend of the band is using a modern tiny camera; he says to me, "You know, you don't have to use a big DSLR anymore..". (The camera name & model are taped over, not showing D2x). When we both posted the pix on FB, I just.. to say anything would've been mean, so I was quiet.
I am relatively new to photography, and within the past 8 years have realized that gear does matter lenses matter, and as one becomes more serious about the level they want to be at this becomes obvious. Ans as Chelsea said it sticks that gear is expensive but it is what it is. I have taken really nice shots with my iPhone, and with my "cheaper" camera, and then I upgraded and the difference is huge. The bottom line, however, and other commenters have mentioned this, it is a personal thing and each photographer has to decide what works for them and what they are happy with and what their goals are that lead to that being happy with what they are utilizing. Great discussion !!!
The tools don’t make the chair,
Better tools will not limit your creativity, rather will inspire you to learn and be better.
I'll give you just one example where gear was not only important, but vital. An ex prime minister (of Australia) gave a speech in my home town. How did I get him to look at me for the photograph? I did it by having the best gear in the room, and he assumed I was a professional and therefore posed for me in particular. Not really the sort of reason you would expect, but it was a case where gear absolutely mattered. Politicians are like that.
These days I don't have the best gear, because I'm retired and have a skiing addiction that costs around $20 000 per year. I can either ski, or have great camera gear, but not both.
I couldn't make it through this one. As someone who has shot for over 40 years, while in principle some of your stuff you complained about is sort of right.... it still just lends itself to the current "if I only had better gear, I'ld be a better photographer". For example on the old photographers and their work not being as good as today - and these photographers would love to have today's advancements. Sure... I get that. Ultra sharp focus would be cool to have on every shot. But take the picture of the girl running from a bombing naked in Vietnam - an iconic image from my era. That picture is still great today - regardless of not being today sharp. It tells a story. So I guess it depends on why you photograph. Are you trying to prove you can get the perfect header shot - or are you trying to tell a story that is compelling. I've seen plenty of tac sharp photos of nothing..... no story .... no human interest. Ive also seen many many images that aren't technically perfect, but convey a story, and emotion, or take you to another place. Nothing wrong with today's technology - but the pretense that unless you have the ultimate gear, your going to come up sharp is a false narrative. It is a crutch. A good photographer can create an image that is compelling without perfect gear. This obsession over gear is absurd.
Now that said, as a sports photographer I tell people that ask me if they can get shots like I do, I am honest with them. Unless they have a 400 f2.8 or 600 f4 - your not getting that shot. But that doesn't mean you can't get compelling sports photos. Just not that one. So work on the others.
Mark Austin beautifully said sir
Exactly
D31 5M I’ve Generally found that people who have to resort to personal insult usually have little clue what they are talking about. As mentioned by someone else a great guitarist can make an ordinary guitars sing... where as an average guitarist will only marginally sound better using the most fantastic guitars out there. An expensive camera in the hands of a nob just gives you more tac in focus low noise shots of a poorly composed and boring subject. They don’t make anyone a better photographer.
@D31 5M Really.... I can show you stuff taken over time on a 10D, 20D, 1D mk1, 50D, 1D mk2 N, 7D, A6300... by today that is all my lower end stuff. Take your pick.... its almost all sports...and please make sure you show me your shots so I can see your stuff. If your going to call someone out... please show what you got.
@D31 5M Jeez man, no one even cares what you think.
Actually the gear doesn't matter thing is mostly for beginners. It's to teach them how to make use of what is available to them and so they don't spend too much on a camera and lens and pressure themselves to take better photos to justify their purchase. But once that beginner has stepped out of the beginner phase and actually starts to take on clients and do actual work, then that is the scenario where gear will help a lot. Having a nice selection of lenses and bodies to work with really boost what one can do in tight deadlines set by ever so demanding clients.
I’m still rocking my Nikon d700, I paid £200 for a mint body with 8k use on the shutter.
For 90% of shooters, it’s all you actually need.
50450720 until you do video as well lol great camera but so heavy !
It is my first pro camera when I switched from Canon 5D mk2. I can't bring myself to sell it after I switched to Sony A7iii! I bonded with that camera and relied on it in many shoots and it's still a very able camera!
Gear does matter, but in order of importance it's photographer > lens > camera
can a photographer take a picture without any type of camera??
At my age, 65, I find that gear matters in the sense that to get a particular shot I need the help that gear affords me. A tri pod. I'm a little shaky sometimes. Long lens. I can't climb up or down or over things like I used to. Camera with good auto focus with a reasonable FPS. My eye site isn't what it once was. Just my $.02 worth from an age demographic that after 50+ years still likes to get out there and take some photos. Loved the pic of the MF-2. Remember seeing something like that with a long lens at Canaveral for some launches. Your content is the best!
I have shifted to higher ISOs to get a higher SS and cover some natural camera vibration. I used to be able to hand hold a normal lens down to 1/4 second in decent conditions just fine - now, 1/60 or higher all the time with any lens...
Its always the person with $10K lenses and 20 bodies that say that, just like rich people say money doesn't matter!!
I live like a poor person to buy gear. T...T
I appreciate all the people with deep pockets buying expensive gear because it keeps the camera companies in business which helps us all.
My mentor in photography taught me how to make a photo with film and a empty box of matches with a pin hole.
Sounds great, but did they teach you to take a picture with only a spoon? Gear really does not matter. :)
Gear is important to some degree. I'm a good photographer, but there's some photos I just can't take because I don't have the gear needed to do it. Hopefully one day I can update from my old Canon 60D
That's really new compared to my Canon 300d
To be fair, Ansel Adams probably had better dynamic range and resolution than any digital camera could match. Those huge 8x10 negatives are still the state of the art for some things :-)
you largely controlled your dynamic range by testing the film batch for base recording level exposure, and then development times to find your normal 0 there... then for the various expansion and contraction times (+1,2,3, and -1,2,3) to move yourself around... placed your shadows on zone 2 or 3, checked the fstop difference to the hottest white you wanted detail in and marked it down so you developed to hold detail in those whites without blowing out... it was almost all hand controlled...
Yes indeed. It's fascinating to see his negs compared to the final prints. Master of the craft!
'Because they are misusing science!'
-falls out of chair laughing. Is Tony my spirit animal?
LangstoniusRex Actually, a true scientist is a skeptic and would test the hypothesis rather than just dismiss it. Scientism isn’t the same as science. 😋
@@JonathanAcierto 'Thats just like your opinion, man'
@@LangstoniusRex Hm, then all my science teachers who taught me the scientific method must have been wrong.
@@JonathanAcierto i get it. you _really_ need to be right. So...ok? You can go and let those science teachers know you stuck it to some guy on the internet, even though the point of the comment went past you like a satellite in orbit. *gives you all the gold stars*
My grandmother did not have a fridge, so you don't need one either. Who needs a fridge anyway?
It's about constancy, good gear ups your keeper rate, and if you shoot professional events like weddings that you only one chance to get an in focus, sharp picture, gear makes a huge difference. If you shoot for fun, gear wont make you a better photographer.
Good gear does not "up your keeper rate." Knowledge and experience ups your keeper rate.
I can tell you, IBIS has almost eliminated camera shake, EYE AF has increased the number of shots with the eye in focus, and electronic view finder has all but eliminated any issues with difficult exposure.
Gear does matter but gear shouldn't be the only thing that matters.
Capa landed at Normady Beach with the troops on D-Day and lost most of his shots due to a mistake by a lab technician.
Trent Garverick maybe that was a good thing those rolls were lost.
@@bngr_bngr Perhaps but we will never know.
Gear matters of course, but expensive gear doesn't make a good photographer, but for sure it makes a good one even better.
Chuck Norris takes Pulitzer prize shots using only his bare hands and a blink of an eye. He could do with one hand only, but he prefers them in 3D.
Imagine rocking up to a wedding, shooting it with 1 shot, and telling the client "oh I'm a real tog, I only take one shot"
I’m doing astrophotography. Gear doesn’t matter if you have an equator for stacking multiple photos : )
@@ChopperChad I think he's talking about an equatorial mount with a siderial drive, so that the stars don't move in the camera's field of view. The stacking part should be pretty self-explanatory; you just line up all the images as layers so that all the features match between layers, then just use "addition" mode for all but the bottom layer...
These deep-sky astro-photographers usually take pictures over several nights. Their biggest enemies are:
1. The weather/viewing conditions (even on clear nights, atmospheric turbulence can turn an image into a study of big smeary blobs of light.)
2. Sensor thermal noise (The random noise cancels out with stacking, and the sensor gain variance and stuck pixels can be evened out using dark frame images)
3. Tracking, the boring art of making sure your equatorial head is properly pointed at the north (or south, for those south of the equator) pole of the sky, and that your target stays in the cross-hairs of your tracking device. Having a line where you wanted a dot, just because your drive battery died, thus ruining a whole night of effort, can be seriously annoying! ;)
And that equatorial mount is not gear? LOL
@@90make my thoughts exactly, he needs the equatorial gear plus a powerful PC which is more gear on top of that.
Tuomas.M that’s the joke
Imagine having a sigma 14mm f1.8 plus that now we are talking
I think the problem is ( which I’m guilty of) is that most people want to upgrade their gear before mastering their current gear.
On Safari, in some countries, you are not allowed to "Get closer to the animals".
Often, people who get very near to animals had them domesticated first. Some own a bear at home. Some even own a panther at home. For others it is deadly to get that close. But yes, fleas do live on some skin and hair.
Gear matters. For ease of use, for durability, for wildlife, for astro, for lowlight, for bokeh, for dynamic range and very rarely also for a billboard. And for the the satisfaction factor.
Feel free to add to the list!
Yeah, sure... Remind us, what gear do you use to record videos?
GEAR DOESN'T MATTER lol
Some people have a hard time when it comes to reasoning and that's why they think that if you say "gear matters", you're saying "talent does not matter".