Well I find it funny how all these people who make videos “Gear doesn’t matter” use top of the line gear lol. It’s almost as if they try to self gratify.
Rafał Maliszewski maybe... although your statement completely lacks context and citations... i don't know who are these supposed people saying gear don't matter rocking top of line gear... they, indeed, could be full of shit... or not. Beginners might wrongly assume they need a canon 1dx for shooting portraits just because they see me I using one... therefore, why not stating they don't need to spend 7k and they can get similar result with something more modest? Upgrade your skills before your gear type of thing...
So true. Go to any comment sections in places like DPreview or any Facebook group or online message board about an expensive camera brand and you'll find someone saying "gear doesn't matter." Hahaha
To use a computing analogy 'more RAM doesnt make your computer faster. It just stops it slowing down'. In the same way that not having good enough gear will hold you back from capturing challenging shots.
Gear does not matter until it does. It is as simple as that. But there is another point to make about new gear; To me, new lenses are always an inspiration and a challenge to try something new. New gear drives my creativity. There is nothing like unpacking a new lens, go out and try out what it can do for you, where it sucks and developing ideas how to utilize the new piece of kit. Sometimes I even schedule around the gear and not the other way around; Bought a new 105? Set up a portrait shoot. Bought a 2.8 ultra-wide-angle? Go out and shoot Astro.
This is one of the first times that I fully agree with someone on the topic of gear. You've hit the nail on the head! All I will add to this is that you should know your gear to its fullest before you consider upgrading. I see a lot of people blaming their gear for sloppy images, even when the gear is capable of achieving the results they wish to achieve. I believe that gear matters, but I also believe that skill, passion, technique, and profound understanding can render gear almost irrelevant.
100% agreed. I worked my way up the camera chain until the D750 and that does everything I need for lowlight weddings, all the cameras I had before struggled a bit with lowlight. I don't need anything more.
Everyone who says gear doesn't matter, shoots on $3000 camera's. That oughta tell us something right there. I think people just want to believe that it's all down to skill. They want to believe that it's only their photography skills that makes the picture. But I don't see people shooting on 1/2.3 sensors saying gear doesn't matter.....no they're swooning over something with better image quality. You can take a picture of some of the most mundane things on a full frame camera and people will love it. I could shoot an apple on a table splashed with a little water in virtually any lighting on a full frame and people will go "ooh ahh!". Shoot the same scene on a small sensor and people will go "meh".
I have yet to show anyone a good photo and they immediately went "before I decide if I like this, was this taken on a full frame camera or a crop, or god forbid a MFT." I don't shoot on a 3000 dollar camera, and I am going to say that it's my knowledge of exposure and composition that matter the most. But I also know my 70-200mm F2.8 kicks my 55-250mm IS ii in the nuts, so yeah there are scenarios where the gear matters. I think most the time when people say it is a shortened version of the following statement... In the hands of someone that lacks skill or knowledge no gear can make a difference. It is practically the same. In the hands of someone that has some skill and knowledge, you will begin to see the difference in given situations, but if all they use it for is to shoot their pets and kids then they likely spent more money than they needed. In this case the gear didn't matter much, but there are times that it will. In the hands of a pro, their knowledge and skill with exposure, composition, and all the other things that make a photo great can be achieved on jsut about any camera, provided it is capable of performing the task at hand. There are portrait shooters out there that still use cameras that we would all see as ancient. It is their knowledge of how everything affects the end photo that makes it work. And in a lot of cases they are using ASP-C cameras with good lenses and great lighting, just as Dave explained in his video.
Kevin Diaz I would say, a pro (in skill level, not necessarily occupation) will get the best out of any gear he or she is holding. However, all gear doesn't have the same "best" potential, and certainly not for every scenario. I can take pretty good landscape pictures with my phone. But, I take way better ones with my 5DM4 and 16-35 F/4L or 70-200 F/4L. OTOH my 7DM2 kicks the 5DM4's ass at bird photography because it has twice the burst rate and a crop ratio that increases reach 50%, at half the price. If I give my 5DM4 to a beginner to take a family group shot with me included, the shot almost always has enough air space over everyone's head to fly an airplane through. Clearly, not the camera's fault. That person probably does the same thing with a phone or P&S. And that is the point of this video that some commenters seem to be missing. If one lacks an eye for composition, doesn't know what tools best suit a given subject, doesn't understand light and color, or is only taking basic snapshots, save your money with a low-end camera or spend that money (or time) on lessons or self-education. Oh, then there's knowing how to post-process instead of just taking your SD card to the local pharmacy. Whole 'nother video...
Johnny4eyes - I guess you are saying you agree? Cool man. (I wasn't entirely clear on the tone of what you were saying, it felt like it could be either way) Not to split hairs on you but the 7DmkII doesn't have twice the burst of the 5DmkIV. 7FPS vs 10FPS, which is admittedly a much bigger difference than it sounds. I do agree it kills the 5D for birding, or just about any wildlife. I'd shoot with either if I had the cash to back it up. I'd shoot with whatever was put in my hands really, as long as I got to shoot.
Kevin Diaz yeah, we're agreed. I slightly exaggerated about "twice" the burst rate (I knew it's 10 v 7 FPS) but didn't expect to be called on it. ;-D I'm blessed to be able to own both as complementary tools.
Very logical perspective and could not agree more. I was getting sick of hearing guys say gear doesn’t matter, yet they are using the latest full frame cameras with top of the line lenses. Having inferior gear can absolutely hold you back for the exact reasons you mentioned.
The way I like to put it is "Gear doesn't matter. Until it does.", basically agreeing with what you started out with. It doesn't matter what you have or use until it starts holding you back. If you can't use what you have, be it through not being able to use its potential or just not needing much, it doesn't matter. If you find it's not doing *enough,* that's when it matters.
Pretty safe from that Karol as it seems from the leaked images that the Canon show it only having a single card slot :D But honestly, even if it did, no I wouldn't because the Sony does what I need it to do absolutely perfectly so spending money switching all my stuff back to Canon won't gain me any benefit. If in the future my circumstances change and a Canon fulfils my needs more than Sony then I would probably move back But at the moment I wouldn't trust Canon to make that the case, I left Canon because I got bored of waiting for these wonder cameras that would match the sort of progress other manufactures were making, and all Canon gave us was one restricted let down after another because they just wanted to squeeze money from you and force you up the ladder to higher and higher models. So Canon would have to show a big change in mentality before that is likely to happen, because Sony are clearly hungry for success so are prepared to do whatever is needed to sell units where as Canon seem more reliant on brand loyalty to get sales So would never rule out a switch back to Canon, but definitely won't be happening any time soon
"Gear doesn't matter", okay let's do some wildlife photography, birds in flight, I'll take the Sony A9 with the 200-600g, and you take your iphone 3 which is cheaper but as you said, gear doesn't matter.
Agree Dave, gear does matter. I remember earlier versions of Canon does not have the auto ISO and min shutter speed settings, so i ended up getting movement blur in my pics for shooting wedding "walking down the aisle" in changing lighting conditions. So i am pretty grateful for the improvements over the years. Cheers mate..
I think you got it pretty right. Better gear enables you to get the same shot with less effort, but you still have to know what you want before you trip the shutter..
I am guilty myself of chasing gear too much, always complaining about the camera: too slow, focus hits background, noise, and so on. Regarding YT videos on gear vs. on technique, there is a problem with the latter: it's really difficult to find a useful one. Usually these are "10 TIPS THAT WILL MAKE YOU PHOTOGRAPHY LOOK PROFESSIONAL" and they go: 1. Keep horizon straight. 2. Focus on your subject. 3. ... Really? 🙄 Then you find "6 advanced tips": 1. Rule of thirds. 2. Expose to the right. 3. ... These are good, but how many times can you listen about the rule of thirds? So yes, I'd be very interested in technique videos (I find Nigel Danson's videos useful), but only if they addressed what I didn't know. And I don't know what I don't know 😔.
Hi Dave I agree with all that you said. The vision is more important than the gear. The gear is a means to an ends and unless you have a clear vision of what the end in your eyes should look like and how you intend to get there and what the final output is going to be then the gear can some times get in your way. I shoot with cameras from a DIY 6x17 pinhole camera on 120 film up to a DSLR with nice lenses and a range of gear in the middle and I choose the tool for the vision I am trying to get. Great video keep up the good work.
I got into photography last year with plans to shoot travel and landscape. I wanted a better photo than I was capturing with my cell phone. I did some research and decided To get a Fuji xt-2 with the kit 18-55 lens. A couple months after I purchased a used 10-24 and 55-200. I was happy with the results I was getting compared to what I was getting prior with the cell phone. After close to a year with camera I can definitely see its weak points. Limited dynamic range and low light high iso. If I choose to sell my kit and upgrade I’m going to loose money, where if I just purchase a full frame from the start it would have been a cheaper route. Yes I have learned a lot the past year but I would have learned the same with any camera. So yes gear does matter as I know I would have been able to capture better photos with a full frame camera.
There is also something called workflow. The tools in the toolchain matters. If the tools are good, you get away with more. E.g. DPP seems to work better in some cases than PhotoShop. Some use other tools to process raw files before processing them in PS. So the trick for Canon shooters is to get to know which tools to get. That information seems to be difficult to find. Especially the really good noise reduction programs.
If you want something good in your pocket, you don't want a log around full frame camera. That's why I love my Pentax Q-S1 and Nikon 1 J5 to carry around. It's a pity that the manufacturers are ignoring the smaller ICL cameras.
Here is the thing. I'm just getting into this as a hobby. I researched the topic extensively. And everywhere I go people say to start with low end camera and them just upgrade when I get a hold of the craft of the photo and video. I love this. I know I will be learning and improving. Upgrading every year or two is a costly thing. So I decided to go for A7iii straight off the bet and just stick to one eco system. Why would I, a newb, just keep spanding money when I can just but the best and roll with it. I know new things come out every year, bus still why go years and years to the past when I can just embrace the future today
Because realistically you won't need to upgrade every year, lower end cameras are generally an easier learning curve because they are designed to make things simpler to understand for people just starting out. Then depending on the kind of photography you shoot will also affect what kit you use. The A7III is a great camera but for some types of photography it is total overkill, so if you aren't pushing the camera then it's kind of wasted money. I have seen lots of photographers start on APS-C and stay there because it suites them fine, I have seen others go from full frame and downsize to Micro Four Thirds ... So potentially, even buying full frame now, you may find yourself selling your kit and changing in the future anyway
I think the bigger issue we might not be talking about is the fact that as an amateur photographer it can be difficult to know what is holding you back when you don't get the shot you want. Sometimes it's just poor technique, but other times the gear is just not good enough.
I switched from a canon rebel t3i to a Sony a7ii simply because I had outgrew my beginner camera and needed a camera that had a mic jack, better ISO, bracketing, and for sure a better focus system
I am a night club / event photographer and I am using a canon 750d with a kitlens. I get good results AFTER a ton of processing + noise removal. The gear is holding me back when I am shooting in the dark, with no lights, also no ceiling to bounce the flash off of.
Look into the EF 50mm F1.8 (125 USD) and the EF-S 24mm F2.8 (150 USD). These lenses will add a lot more light to your photos than the kit lens, 2-4 times as much at comparable lengths. If you want to spend a little more money the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 is probably the fastest and sharpest crop only lens there is. It does have some AF issues though, so be aware of that. Right around 800 USD, but I have seen them on sale for as low as 600.
Kevin Diaz 18 is not wide enough for what i am shooting, i own the 50 1.8, i had the sigma 17-50 2.8 but had issues so i got rid of it. The 18-35 1.8 is pretty much unusable at 1.8, f2.8 is the lowest i can go when having 3+ people in the photo.
Currently shooting all video/photos with a t2i with an 18-55 and a variable ND filter. If I need more light I use a cheap Chinese light to keep my iso under 800MAX. Never really had issues. Trying to get work to get a new model camera but I'm managing with what I have. Totally agree with you Dave. Depends on what the situation is to pick a camera body/lens combo.
Years ago I upgraded from a very good point-and-shoot camera too an entry level € 400,- DSLR (Canon 1000D + kit lens) and the quality of even the most basic family snapshots was waaaaay better than before out of the box even in auto mode! Especially the difference in colors was amazing! And many hobby/enthusiast photographers also shoot indoor events in which the low light capability of a smart phone (or point-and-shoot back in the day) is not sufficient. So gear actually matters.
I've just come across this video of yours from over a year ago, but I felt the need to comment anyway because what you are talking about never loses its relevance anyway. I just wanted to say that I completely agree with what you said, that's all.
Dynamic range... 's why I shoot with a 10 year old D700 instead of a 5D MK whatever :) Great video, I've been wanting to go off on the gear doesn't matter crowd for ages, just haven't got it together. Now I don't have to.
Totally agree. Five years ago, I started with a 60D. I've upgraded to a 7DM2 and, this year, a 5DM4 (and L class lenses) because I got better. The 60D and kit lens simply can't make the photographs I take now. Skill drove the upgrade, not vice versa.
Sounds like you knew it was time to start moving up. This is logical. I often hear people say things like "I want the best camera/lens so I don't have to waste money buying another one later." This is not logical. People with that mentality are often the same ones that never really develop the skill or even passion needed for photography. For them, the cheapest camera was the best, as it was the least "waste of money." I was the same as you, only with the 80D instead of the 7D. I almost got a 5DIV, but decided to wait and see what happens next. I think the next year or so will be a big one for camera bodies.
I'm with you. I am smack in the middle of the road with this. Gear matters but it is only as good as the photographer's skills allow it to be. I can't get a fisheye picture with any other lens except a fisheye lens. Using ND grad filters allow me to stretch the potential dynamic range in the raw file, making it more editable in post. I have quite a bit of gear for my digital kit but I have a very bare bones kit or my film. A few primes and some filters. That's about it. I can do both and I love both.
Couldn’t agree more. The most annoying comment I’ve seen on a popular FB photography group is: “It’s the surgeon, not the scalpel.” What if the scalpel is dull and rusty? Great video.
I have a Sony super-zoom, HX400V, from 5 years ago that has buit in HDR. Using only JPGs it can shoot amazing landscape because of that, easier than my old canon. I have no expensive gear, but for online posting it is good enough.
A good photographer can take great pictures using cheap gear, also an amateur will take nice photos using a 1dx2 on full auto. Both is correct. Try shooting stars with 3200ISO on a 10 year old camera. Try shooting sports in bright daylight with a canon 1200d. 🤷♂️
Well said. Yes gear does matter, gear will not make you take better pictures, you have to learn to do that. That is exactly the point the better you get at takig pictures and developing a specific style the more you realise what you have is not for you and needs to be upgraded. It is not as much, my gear but my ability of whether my gear can reproduce what I want in that moment. I think that is were gear comes in. Like you said, what type of photography you are in, e.g. if you are in wildlife photography, shooting with a 50mm F1.2 is useless, but a 200-600mm on the other hand will produce breath taking wildlife pictures and again using the 200-600mm for Wedding photography is useless. In short ask yourself, What is my photo shoot focus, and then get into gear that will help you, not make you better, (gear does not make you an awesome photography, skill, talent, creativity and time will) but help you reproduce what you wanna take. Amen. Lastly think of it this way, your camera and equipment is your cup but how you wanna make your coffee in that cup is all up to the size of the cup, its handle, material it is made from (plastic or glass), all of that will determine how your coffee will taste and how long you are going to drink it and whether that will be enough.
Wether your gear is 500 or 10.000 Dollars worth I would advice everyone to know the full potential of your gear. Camera's today like (Fuji XT3 or Nikon D500) have a spectrum of customization and features which can helpfull in certain situations. When you are shooting sports or when lightning situations change quickly you have to respond in a split second. Changing your camera settings manually takes times and the moment of opportunity can be lost. Pre setting your camera and Fn buttons helps to capture this moment but not everybody knows how to do this or even know that certain features excist in their camera.
I agree, perhaps from a different perspective. I'm a fledgling 'photographer' and shoot with a Nikon D7100. I likely don't get +/- 1/2 of what that camera is capable of producing, if that. I am slowly accumulating some better glass and that *is* making a difference, at least to my eye. Totally agree it's about getting out of your gear what it is capable of. I've learned a *lot* by shooting with this camera and have a *lot* more to learn. So I suppose what I'm trying to say is everything is relative, to everything else. I am thoroughly enjoying learning more about this art form all the time and am grateful for a tool like the D7100 (and now some 1.8/2.8/4 prime glass) to help me on the journey/quest. For what it's worth. Great Channel btw!!
Nice video Dave. I would say that when I say "gear doesn't matter" or some version of that, I am usually talking to people that are trying to buy something that won't help do what they want it to do, I.E., make them a better photographer. They are people that have not properly invested the time in learning skill and think that they can bypass that by getting a new camera or an expensive lens. I offer a lot of advice to people on what gear to go after, and the ones that seem to think that putting an 85mm F1.2 on a Canon T6 will be of any benefit to them make me chuckle. People that are looking to spend more on a single lens than their whole setup and they don't even know if it fits on their camera. They of course saw a review, or heard some famous photographer uses it, or their friend that"knows stuff" told them it was the best. To those people the gear isn't as important. This is because they lack the skill to use it to it's real potential anyway, and likely will get caught in the upgrade trap of thinking that getting the latest model of something makes their images better by default. In the hands of the unskilled the gear really doesn't matter. In the hands of the skilled, it only matters if what they have can't do what they are trying to do. Most the time even if they don't have the latest camera they can probably find a way to make it work. Some people get paid very well for their photos, and that is a super competitive place to be; ya'll best believe they want the best they can get to have the edge on the competition. Most people do not fall into that category. I try to jsut be a little better every time I do something, and am constantly reviewing the techniques of others. I still shoot on a Canon, and even though I have some nice lenses I don't have anything that ridiculous (80D camera, best lens is probably 70-200mm F2.8). I try to be realistic about what I need for what I do. But to be honest, a lot of what I do only started to happen when I traded up from my T3i to the 80D and got the 70-200mm lens. But I knew it was time. I was missing too many shots with my 3fps burst, and I didn't have the speed of AF with the mediocre 55-250 IS ii I had. First time I hit the half press on my 70-200mm I flinched because I was not used to that blazing fast speed. I also could not believe the clarity of the images I was getting with it compared to my previous work. So for those looking to upgrade, be sure it is time first. If you don't make money from your photography than every dollar you spend is only well spent if what you get offers something you couldn't do. Just be realistic about the gear you need to do what you want to do. One last thing - I about shit when I saw you whip out that 60D. LOL!
I think the rub comes when someone admires a photo and then assumes it is due to the gear (Uhm, I was there too.). However, it was when I had my first digital camera (Canon Xsi) and moved beyond a kit lens (Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8) that I realized skill, eye, and camera were moving upward and onward.
Great video, well phrased! When I was a relatively new photographer, I was extremely frustrated with my results and everyone said "gear doesn't matter". Since I felt that I already had the knowledge needed to get better results, I tried to convince myself to invest in better equipment. Glad I did! Thing is, I had apparently always had the "eye" and as soon as I started taking pictures I tried to go for quite complex shots. My gear at the time couldn't handle that, and as a result I was constantly disappointed.
Gear does matter. It's just an undeniable fact. If it didn't then all camera manufacturers would make one camera and one lens. Like how smart phone manufacturers do. Nor would you charge for your services. You charge for these services so you can have money to buy better gear then the one you currently have. My photography right now is limited by my camera body (I've reached the limits of what my 750D can do) and I'm struggling to secure gigs in my town because there's a half arsed point and shoot photographer ready to shoot that event with a point and shoot. So I guess I'm stuck with the nifty fifty and 750 for quite some time
It would be more accurate to say "Gear CAN matter', than "Gear DOES matter", as you stated in the video - it all depends on the situation. A couple of days ago I shot a wedding, the lighting during the ceremony was awful - no direct lighting on the front of the bride & groom and a window directly behind them. I knelt down for a number of shots so that the groom was blocking most of the light flooding in through the window behind them, this gave a more-balanced exposure and greatly reduced the haze that was caused by the bright light directly entering the lens (technique and experience trumps over gear), however, I was still shooting at ISO 5000, f/2.8 and 1/125th. If I tried that with a lesser camera the end results would not have been as good and an entry-level camera would have produced unusable images (the gear also mattered in this situation). I could confidently shoot studio portraits or landscapes with a Nikon D3400 and a half-decent lens, but a wedding or indoor sports? Nooo.
Agree 100% I think the key thing about gear is that it is a tool for a spcific job and it doesn't matter how good a tool it is if the person holding it can't back it up
Also: people might say gear doesn't matter in the sense that a good photographer can get good results no matter what. This is not true tho - a good photographer will get the best results possible in the scenario he is in but you simply can't sometimes
I reckon you *do* find pros using 15 year old cameras, but it’ll be top-of-the-line pro cameras that works well for the job at hand. (Maybe not 15, but *easily* 10 years old at least.)
The advancements in tech over the next 20 years will mean the newer generation of photographers will have to deal less with our current limitations in gear like high iso. The tech that is on a Sony A7III will filter down the entry level models similar to the technology in cars.
Good video on the grey area of 'Does Gear Matter' I think there is a lot of gear envy. When new kit comes out people would like to own so start complaining how their current kit is holding them back. Well my first dslr was eos 400D which h was basic and my pals had medium to top end ish Nikon, and I really started disliking my 400D as I was driving a bus in a RAC Lombard rally in the Welsh forest ! However I could not afford a new camera so I practice on techniques and relied less on the cameras abilities or lack off. When I did upgrade to eos 7d it was like having a smart phone, point shoot capture a great image. Then I started going to sports events, indoor sports, motor racing, landscape and the 7D dreaded noise became an issue in low light. And still the bloody Nikon always seemed to be just that little sharper. I have had the 7D for almost 9 years. I have recently purchased a used 7D Mkii and notice the better AF system, more AF points, better low noise performance making my photography life a lot more easy in certain circumstances. I would to own the Sony A7iii and loads of G master lenses, however I do not have 5 grand to blow on new gear so I will solider on using my current gear hoping that the near future I can pick up a used Sony A7iii at a good price !
Something I have been wondering about is the secondary market for Sony cameras. At some point people will sell them off for newer models. I would think they would have to be low enough to be worth the money vs the new model. If they continue with the current price scheme I think it will really hurt Sony, since they will lose new camera sales to that secondary market. Less people will buy the new model if they can get a great price on a used version of a camera that is probably still pretty good. It won't be like PS4 once a PS5 comes out, where the new thing makes the old thing irrelevant and jsut about all the previous users will buy the latest jsut to keep up. I feel like it is likely that they will charge more for cameras once their market share gets to where they want it, which is the dominant share. I think that once that happens the cost of lenses will come down too, since banking on people buying a cheap camera and then expensive lenses making up the profit difference is a foolish plan in the long run. People replace cameras far more often than lenses. Right now though, as they make their play for the market, it kind of makes sense, since those people have little choice if they want to become fully immersed in that system than to start getting the native lenses.
Yes Sir! I still love my 60 D. I got better results than even with RED one, ones we had to shoot in low light conditions...with candles. Our Short Film shot with the RED one was really lower quality, but the one shot on Canon+Nikon lenses was much better. Thanks for your videos man!
Gear is Matter… Creativity is Mind… some photographers can be described with the term: Mind Over Matter… others can be described using the term: Matter Over Mind. When someone says: "Gear don't matter", they are simply letting us know which camp they belong to We all use gear, it's the emphasis on using that gear that makes all the difference of perspective. Some photographers use Primes, some prefer Zooms. Some see themselves as Creatives first, and then Productives. Some are Productives first, Creatives second. None of these are wrong, they are just different. Simples!… You'll never get the two sides to agree, and that's the beauty of art, and being an artist.
Ok i think that gear matters up to a point here's a story my partner went on a wedding course they told her to not buy any gear just use what you have (basic) and wait till you earn then buy as you need i disagreed and heres why at that point I had been buying lenses to satisfy my newly acquired lens fetish and we are talking some serious lenses here (a mostly 2nd hand from MPB) the weddings we did last year were mostly in hotels where the lighting was just dire and without the lenses I had bought we would not have achieved the shots we did so gear does matter yes a good tog can take good shots on basic gear but having the best gear makes the job easier
i think slo mo seems to be the new boundary to pro camera than Amateur huge case M50 lack of v good value featured camera but that sinks it a lot rather than stills performance?
Matt Stanman any camera. If you print a billboard sized photo, you will look at it from 100 feet. Extra megapixels are always welcome, I own a canon 750d (24 megapixels, around 900$ new)
Davor Rozic check out clyde butcher. Huge prints 8ft tall tac sharp when standing right in front of them. Almost as if you are in the scene. That's what I'm after
Matt Stanman Probably a Hasselblad or Phase One medium format with 400MP. Or, a film camera that’s at least 8x10. I’d like to ask what do you want to put in the landscape images?
Matthew Hall I like simple images right now with one or two subjects dominating the scene. This may change when I move to Florida. I also have some interest on urban landscape but have yet to find a worthwhile composition. I have a canon 6d. Images are great, but I feel they start to break down on prints bigger than 20x30.
Matt Stanman Nice! If those options are too expensive (they are for most people), I’d try an upgrade to a 5DS(R) or A7R III and some sharper prime lenses. The cheapest upgrade to sharpness would be a 4x5 film camera, but you would either need to know how to use and develop and enlarge big prints or have the budget for professional enlargements.
Couldn't have put it better, "If you can get the shots you want with what you've got = You don't need new gear. If you can't get the shots you want with your current gear, but new gear will let you get those shots = You need that gear". So the only time gear matters, is if not having the ability to do something that different or new gear will allow you to do, is stopping you getting the shots you want, if it isn't then why would it matter?
People also have to accept that people like to own better gear even if its not always needed. Nobody except cops needs a high-performance car but most of us are ok when people own/want them. Also (as you hint at) there is a underlying process in features that are slowly coming into cameras and most of the time that starts at the high-end 'want to have' cameras. A good example is the sony A9 its a showcase on what the effects will be if we get smarter (not just faster) sensors and how it will effect the way we shoot.
Gear does matter. You can't shoot wildlife with a kit lens, you may shoot concerts with a 450D and an f/4-5.6 lens (I did it once with a 75-300 III) but the photos maybe too noisy or too blurry because of the shake. I love my 50D, it's a great camera and I've produced great shots with it, coupled with good lenses, BUT it's hold. When I shoot wildlife I always risk getting blurry images due to the shake of the camera because in most cases going above ISO 800 would make the shot terribly grainy. But sometimes the camera is perfect for the job and it's me that screws up the shot by forgetting the basics. But I "need" a FF anyway because I want it, so deal with it
I hate when people try to compare a camera to a knife, like a photographer to a chef, it's not the same, a camera is intricate, it has depth and detail to it, it's not something basic as a sharp edge, a better comparison is a racecar, the car does matter, ask any professional, but if you but someone behind the wheel who doesn't know what they're doing, then they become the limitation. Your gear should always be the bottleneck not you
Nice video rant, I agree gears do matter, even I am a hobbiest and use to take pictures of my daughter with crop sensor and then upgraded to canon 6d and it blown me away, then to 5d3 and now rose.
I think gear does matter, but the question is what gear is best for your shooting style. So the first question is what is your shooting style and that is something only you can work out after experimenting. The big problem is modern cameras are becoming a jack of all trades and trying to be a master of all. Especially now when people want to shoot both stills and video from the same camera. So in real life, shadows and highlights are what is there and for some of use we may want are image to reflect that, not create an enhanced photograph.
It’s not that gear doesn’t matter as much as those people who think gear will significantly help them produce a wonderful image. If you can’t create a great image with an entry level camera, having a top of the line professional camera will absolutely not help you a single bit. TH-cam has so many gear heads that simply love the gear more than learning composition and lighting skills.
D3s, D750, 5D2, 6D are all cameras 4 to 10 years old) 60D is only 8 year old ) skill is the key, gear basically gives you quality and convenience when you're paid for it. 'Gear doesn't matter' are the words used for beginners who consider pro level cameras without any experience and specs nerds that don't even have any camera, but always behind your shoulder whispering, your camera sucks, you need the best of the best, only with the most expensive ultra pro camera you can get the greatest photo ever.
Gear matters to professional photographers who earn a living from their equipment. For enthusiasts personal vision, composition, lighting and technique are prerequisites, not how many megapixels the sensor has or whether the body is made of magnesium. Professionals have to please a client. Amateurs can please themselves. Any modern digital camera with Manual mode can make great photographs.
I have a Nikon D500 and shoot mostly wildlife. While I find the D850 tempting, I know that it won't really be better for most of my shots(some would argue it would be worse, since I'd give up some shooting speed). I have, however, found myself limited by my lens. I have a Tamron 18-400mm, which is super versatile, but lacks the sharpness and speed of more purpose-built lenses. I rented a 200-500mm and now I found that every picture I took looked better than the same sort of shots with my super-zoom.
I would agree if they were equal in price, however the nikon is 3 time the price. Is it 3 time better, i don't believe it , and at 5.6, its not versatile lens as the Tamron. I also have both lenses and returned the Nikon and purchase a 300mm 2.8 with a tele and keep the Tamron for versatility.
Gotta say I really hated that 18-400mm. I didn't have one of my own, tried it out at a shop that had one just to try it. Spastic focus, hunted a lot, images were all soft during review when shot wide open at 400mm. It's only real "advantage" is it has a large range it can shoot from, and also since it is so cheap, but I would rather carry two good lenses than that one. If you can afford the 200-500mm then I would say go for it. Your wildlife images will thank you. I would say Juan Lopez has disregarded what you will be using the 200-500mm for, wildlife shooting (which is its main purpose). For that I would say it is at least 3 times the lens that 18-400mm is (and I think it is more like twice the price not 3 times). The F5.6 max aperture is fine since you will probably be shooting at that anyway for increased DOF and sharpness, maybe even narrower like F8 if you have really good light. On the D500 it gives you 150mm more reach over the 18-400mm. It is jsut plain sharper at all FL and aperture settings. It has less overall aberrations and flaring. It has superior build quality and will be a good lens years from now, the 18-400mm will probably start to show signs of age after jsut a few years. I could probably go on but I think I made my point. There are also the Tamron and Sigma 150-600mm lenses too. I personally didn't care for them but I know they are popular.
A couple of things. At 400mm and on the lens is not as sharp, though it isn't what I would call soft either. For me that was an issue since with the Canon 400mm F5.6L I can crop to the same size image and still have one that is a little sharper (though the lack of IS made it too hard to shoot with the 400mm at the end of the golden hour). But I have seen some pretty nice images others have taken with it so I really can't say that it is not sharp. Also, the front end is very heavy, making it hard to balance when shooting by hand. I was trying to prop it up by holding it just behind the front element to support that weight, but the length of the lens made this a little awkward. A monopod or tripod would probably help a lot. Like I said before, it is a popular lens. It didn't get that way for no reason. Sometimes lenses can be popular simply becasue they have a lot of value for their price (18-400mm is a good example here), I think the 150-600mm lenses fall into this category. I would also point out that the one I was testing out was an older lens, though I can't recall if it was Sigma or Tamron. I have not had the chance to try the Tamron G2 model yet. If I was going to rent one to try it would be that one.
Better gears inspire you to go out and shoot more, that’s what matters. People talk shit because they don’t have money to buy better gears. If you give gears out for free, they’ll get line to cover their asses
Gear matters greatly. Once you know the techniques and there are only few new methods being invented over time, gear is everything. And then there is this bullsh*t where people use a cheap camera, their 10 grand iMac Pro and their 70 dollar a month creative cloud subscription, lights worth 5000 dollars and two Ferraris and a nice location with malls and ocean view to show the camera does not matter... eh... yes... and some professional models of course. It’s not the camera - it’s also the lenses worth 20k - I almost forgot...
I love gear but keep shooting with what you have because it's what you know that counts - the most important thing is just work - that's it - if you have old equipment and you still can produce a product give your self a smug pat on the back 😎👌 don't think you can't produce a product with a 'basic' camera because you definitely can. PS Dave I think we share the same accent 😀
I left pro Nikon and Canon gear after 40 years because Sony fullframe mirrorless could make my art easier, faster and more accurate.. Better Gear in the hands of someone who has technique and experience can matter. Thanks Dave. Cheers
It always annoys me when those photographers with 30 grand worth of camera equipment say that gear doesn't matter. If it really doesn't matter then why invest all that cash?
Mate don’t worry about what some say. It is fact that video gear drives more traffic that photo technique. Sadly people cares more about having a Ferrari than learning how to take a high speed curve on it.
Also the idea that buying better gear will give you instant results rather than having to learn and work at it. Almost like a shortcut to better photos.
Im more of a min-maxer. I get the best stuff i can, for the least ammount of money, and push it to its limits. Would i love the a7r III? Hell yes! Can i afford it and is it something i can recouperate some cost with? No.
Buying new gear and thinking that your photos will improve because of that is much easier than actually going out, shoot decent photos and create something unique. That is the only reason you're getting more views on your gear movies. Being creative is the whole key to good photography but not everyone is creative or inventive enough so they think the problem is the equipment. Gear does matter but only for those who aren't confident enough and aren't true artists. I know many Magnum photographers who only have a simple 10 year old camera with only a 50mm who shoot the most amazing photographs and win awards year after year so in that perspective, gear really doesn't matter. This whole discussion is useless and is in some cases (like this one) used to get attention. If that's what you're (ab)using photography for, fine by me but that's not what photography is about.
Sounds fair to me, I think like most I have gone through the gas stage and come out the other side. Now I shoot and if my existing kit can’t do hat I want , I go buy something new.
Couldn't find a way to make a private comment but you have a bit of dust on your sensor in the top right of this video - just FYI. Love the content, keep it up!
Thanks Stvwndr but it's not actually dust (although I did see it and spend 5 mins trying to clean the sensor to get rid of it) It is actually the end of the chain dangling down from my ceiling fan 🤣
Sensible stuff... but please... for the love of all that is holy... put your trousers on the hangar inside the wardrobe, move that white box under your right bicep and straighten up your pillows before you hit record. The OCD amongst us are slightly dying 😂
Well I find it funny how all these people who make videos “Gear doesn’t matter” use top of the line gear lol. It’s almost as if they try to self gratify.
Rafał Maliszewski lol 😂 you are so right 😂
I think they're just trying to say: Just because I can afford it, does not mean you need it to achieve similar results.
Superman's CGI mouth I don’t see that.
Rafał Maliszewski maybe... although your statement completely lacks context and citations... i don't know who are these supposed people saying gear don't matter rocking top of line gear... they, indeed, could be full of shit... or not. Beginners might wrongly assume they need a canon 1dx for shooting portraits just because they see me I using one... therefore, why not stating they don't need to spend 7k and they can get similar result with something more modest? Upgrade your skills before your gear type of thing...
No need to name em you can find those videos easy but here is a few: Peter Mackenon his boy Matti Hapoja, Tony and Chelsea and so on.
It’s funny...the only people who say gear doesn’t matter are the people who already have the expensive gear!
GGG haha they just don't want others to compete with, therefore recommended them the lesser gears
Wrong
So true. Go to any comment sections in places like DPreview or any Facebook group or online message board about an expensive camera brand and you'll find someone saying "gear doesn't matter." Hahaha
To use a computing analogy 'more RAM doesnt make your computer faster. It just stops it slowing down'. In the same way that not having good enough gear will hold you back from capturing challenging shots.
Excellent analogy.
"Technology is always going to progress forward."
"How cute!" - said Canon while releasing EOS RP
My name is Ike and I approve this message!
Photo-Me-Ike where are you from mate...
love your channel!
Photo-Me-Ike ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Photo-Me-Ike I just subscribed to your channel!!!!
Hey thanks Julio!!!
Alexander, I reside in Seattle WA! Thank you!
Gear does not matter until it does.
It is as simple as that.
But there is another point to make about new gear; To me, new lenses are always an inspiration and a challenge to try something new. New gear drives my creativity. There is nothing like unpacking a new lens, go out and try out what it can do for you, where it sucks and developing ideas how to utilize the new piece of kit. Sometimes I even schedule around the gear and not the other way around; Bought a new 105? Set up a portrait shoot. Bought a 2.8 ultra-wide-angle? Go out and shoot Astro.
This is one of the first times that I fully agree with someone on the topic of gear. You've hit the nail on the head! All I will add to this is that you should know your gear to its fullest before you consider upgrading. I see a lot of people blaming their gear for sloppy images, even when the gear is capable of achieving the results they wish to achieve. I believe that gear matters, but I also believe that skill, passion, technique, and profound understanding can render gear almost irrelevant.
100% agreed. I worked my way up the camera chain until the D750 and that does everything I need for lowlight weddings, all the cameras I had before struggled a bit with lowlight. I don't need anything more.
Everyone who says gear doesn't matter, shoots on $3000 camera's. That oughta tell us something right there. I think people just want to believe that it's all down to skill. They want to believe that it's only their photography skills that makes the picture. But I don't see people shooting on 1/2.3 sensors saying gear doesn't matter.....no they're swooning over something with better image quality. You can take a picture of some of the most mundane things on a full frame camera and people will love it. I could shoot an apple on a table splashed with a little water in virtually any lighting on a full frame and people will go "ooh ahh!". Shoot the same scene on a small sensor and people will go "meh".
I have yet to show anyone a good photo and they immediately went "before I decide if I like this, was this taken on a full frame camera or a crop, or god forbid a MFT." I don't shoot on a 3000 dollar camera, and I am going to say that it's my knowledge of exposure and composition that matter the most. But I also know my 70-200mm F2.8 kicks my 55-250mm IS ii in the nuts, so yeah there are scenarios where the gear matters. I think most the time when people say it is a shortened version of the following statement...
In the hands of someone that lacks skill or knowledge no gear can make a difference. It is practically the same. In the hands of someone that has some skill and knowledge, you will begin to see the difference in given situations, but if all they use it for is to shoot their pets and kids then they likely spent more money than they needed. In this case the gear didn't matter much, but there are times that it will. In the hands of a pro, their knowledge and skill with exposure, composition, and all the other things that make a photo great can be achieved on jsut about any camera, provided it is capable of performing the task at hand. There are portrait shooters out there that still use cameras that we would all see as ancient. It is their knowledge of how everything affects the end photo that makes it work. And in a lot of cases they are using ASP-C cameras with good lenses and great lighting, just as Dave explained in his video.
Kevin Diaz I would say, a pro (in skill level, not necessarily occupation) will get the best out of any gear he or she is holding. However, all gear doesn't have the same "best" potential, and certainly not for every scenario. I can take pretty good landscape pictures with my phone. But, I take way better ones with my 5DM4 and 16-35 F/4L or 70-200 F/4L. OTOH my 7DM2 kicks the 5DM4's ass at bird photography because it has twice the burst rate and a crop ratio that increases reach 50%, at half the price.
If I give my 5DM4 to a beginner to take a family group shot with me included, the shot almost always has enough air space over everyone's head to fly an airplane through. Clearly, not the camera's fault. That person probably does the same thing with a phone or P&S. And that is the point of this video that some commenters seem to be missing. If one lacks an eye for composition, doesn't know what tools best suit a given subject, doesn't understand light and color, or is only taking basic snapshots, save your money with a low-end camera or spend that money (or time) on lessons or self-education.
Oh, then there's knowing how to post-process instead of just taking your SD card to the local pharmacy. Whole 'nother video...
Camera plural is cameras, no apostrophe required LOL!
Johnny4eyes - I guess you are saying you agree? Cool man. (I wasn't entirely clear on the tone of what you were saying, it felt like it could be either way)
Not to split hairs on you but the 7DmkII doesn't have twice the burst of the 5DmkIV. 7FPS vs 10FPS, which is admittedly a much bigger difference than it sounds. I do agree it kills the 5D for birding, or just about any wildlife. I'd shoot with either if I had the cash to back it up. I'd shoot with whatever was put in my hands really, as long as I got to shoot.
Kevin Diaz yeah, we're agreed. I slightly exaggerated about "twice" the burst rate (I knew it's 10 v 7 FPS) but didn't expect to be called on it. ;-D I'm blessed to be able to own both as complementary tools.
Very logical perspective and could not agree more. I was getting sick of hearing guys say gear doesn’t matter, yet they are using the latest full frame cameras with top of the line lenses. Having inferior gear can absolutely hold you back for the exact reasons you mentioned.
The way I like to put it is "Gear doesn't matter. Until it does.", basically agreeing with what you started out with. It doesn't matter what you have or use until it starts holding you back. If you can't use what you have, be it through not being able to use its potential or just not needing much, it doesn't matter. If you find it's not doing *enough,* that's when it matters.
if the new Canon EOS R (full fraim mirrorless) will have dual card slots and dual pixel AF in 4k without corp, would you switch back to Canon?
Pretty safe from that Karol as it seems from the leaked images that the Canon show it only having a single card slot :D
But honestly, even if it did, no I wouldn't because the Sony does what I need it to do absolutely perfectly so spending money switching all my stuff back to Canon won't gain me any benefit. If in the future my circumstances change and a Canon fulfils my needs more than Sony then I would probably move back
But at the moment I wouldn't trust Canon to make that the case, I left Canon because I got bored of waiting for these wonder cameras that would match the sort of progress other manufactures were making, and all Canon gave us was one restricted let down after another because they just wanted to squeeze money from you and force you up the ladder to higher and higher models. So Canon would have to show a big change in mentality before that is likely to happen, because Sony are clearly hungry for success so are prepared to do whatever is needed to sell units where as Canon seem more reliant on brand loyalty to get sales
So would never rule out a switch back to Canon, but definitely won't be happening any time soon
Dave McKeegan thank you for your answer.
Focused on both! Both matter! Great video :)
meow
This is the best non rant explanation I have seen on the matter. Good job!!
"Gear doesn't matter", okay let's do some wildlife photography, birds in flight, I'll take the Sony A9 with the 200-600g, and you take your iphone 3 which is cheaper but as you said, gear doesn't matter.
Agree with you totally... Try shooting indoor gymnastics or indoor volleyball with an entry level DSLR and a kit lens...
Agree Dave, gear does matter. I remember earlier versions of Canon does not have the auto ISO and min shutter speed settings, so i ended up getting movement blur in my pics for shooting wedding "walking down the aisle" in changing lighting conditions. So i am pretty grateful for the improvements over the years. Cheers mate..
I think you got it pretty right. Better gear enables you to get the same shot with less effort, but you still have to know what you want before you trip the shutter..
I am guilty myself of chasing gear too much, always complaining about the camera: too slow, focus hits background, noise, and so on.
Regarding YT videos on gear vs. on technique, there is a problem with the latter: it's really difficult to find a useful one. Usually these are "10 TIPS THAT WILL MAKE YOU PHOTOGRAPHY LOOK PROFESSIONAL" and they go:
1. Keep horizon straight.
2. Focus on your subject.
3. ...
Really? 🙄
Then you find "6 advanced tips":
1. Rule of thirds.
2. Expose to the right.
3. ...
These are good, but how many times can you listen about the rule of thirds?
So yes, I'd be very interested in technique videos (I find Nigel Danson's videos useful), but only if they addressed what I didn't know. And I don't know what I don't know 😔.
Good analysis. Can be broken down to “ there are 100’s of right answers, it’s finding the correct one for your use case.”
Hi Dave I agree with all that you said. The vision is more important than the gear. The gear is a means to an ends and unless you have a clear vision of what the end in your eyes should look like and how you intend to get there and what the final output is going to be then the gear can some times get in your way. I shoot with cameras from a DIY 6x17 pinhole camera on 120 film up to a DSLR with nice lenses and a range of gear in the middle and I choose the tool for the vision I am trying to get. Great video keep up the good work.
I got into photography last year with plans to shoot travel and landscape. I wanted a better photo than I was capturing with my cell phone. I did some research and decided To get a Fuji xt-2 with the kit 18-55 lens. A couple months after I purchased a used 10-24 and 55-200. I was happy with the results I was getting compared to what I was getting prior with the cell phone. After close to a year with camera I can definitely see its weak points. Limited dynamic range and low light high iso. If I choose to sell my kit and upgrade I’m going to loose money, where if I just purchase a full frame from the start it would have been a cheaper route. Yes I have learned a lot the past year but I would have learned the same with any camera. So yes gear does matter as I know I would have been able to capture better photos with a full frame camera.
Dave, keep doing what you do, your channel is great.
There is also something called workflow. The tools in the toolchain matters. If the tools are good, you get away with more.
E.g. DPP seems to work better in some cases than PhotoShop. Some use other tools to process raw files before processing them in PS.
So the trick for Canon shooters is to get to know which tools to get. That information seems to be difficult to find. Especially the really good noise reduction programs.
If you want something good in your pocket, you don't want a log around full frame camera. That's why I love my Pentax Q-S1 and Nikon 1 J5 to carry around. It's a pity that the manufacturers are ignoring the smaller ICL cameras.
Here is the thing. I'm just getting into this as a hobby. I researched the topic extensively. And everywhere I go people say to start with low end camera and them just upgrade when I get a hold of the craft of the photo and video. I love this. I know I will be learning and improving. Upgrading every year or two is a costly thing. So I decided to go for A7iii straight off the bet and just stick to one eco system. Why would I, a newb, just keep spanding money when I can just but the best and roll with it. I know new things come out every year, bus still why go years and years to the past when I can just embrace the future today
Because realistically you won't need to upgrade every year, lower end cameras are generally an easier learning curve because they are designed to make things simpler to understand for people just starting out.
Then depending on the kind of photography you shoot will also affect what kit you use. The A7III is a great camera but for some types of photography it is total overkill, so if you aren't pushing the camera then it's kind of wasted money.
I have seen lots of photographers start on APS-C and stay there because it suites them fine, I have seen others go from full frame and downsize to Micro Four Thirds ...
So potentially, even buying full frame now, you may find yourself selling your kit and changing in the future anyway
I think the bigger issue we might not be talking about is the fact that as an amateur photographer it can be difficult to know what is holding you back when you don't get the shot you want. Sometimes it's just poor technique, but other times the gear is just not good enough.
I switched from a canon rebel t3i to a Sony a7ii simply because I had outgrew my beginner camera and needed a camera that had a mic jack, better ISO, bracketing, and for sure a better focus system
I am a night club / event photographer and I am using a canon 750d with a kitlens. I get good results AFTER a ton of processing + noise removal. The gear is holding me back when I am shooting in the dark, with no lights, also no ceiling to bounce the flash off of.
Look into the EF 50mm F1.8 (125 USD) and the EF-S 24mm F2.8 (150 USD). These lenses will add a lot more light to your photos than the kit lens, 2-4 times as much at comparable lengths. If you want to spend a little more money the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 is probably the fastest and sharpest crop only lens there is. It does have some AF issues though, so be aware of that. Right around 800 USD, but I have seen them on sale for as low as 600.
Kevin Diaz 18 is not wide enough for what i am shooting, i own the 50 1.8, i had the sigma 17-50 2.8 but had issues so i got rid of it. The 18-35 1.8 is pretty much unusable at 1.8, f2.8 is the lowest i can go when having 3+ people in the photo.
Hmm, have you looked at the Tokina 11-20mm F2.8? Probably the widest angle wide aperture you can get for your T6i that isn't also super expensive.
Kevin Diaz will look up, thanks
Currently shooting all video/photos with a t2i with an 18-55 and a variable ND filter. If I need more light I use a cheap Chinese light to keep my iso under 800MAX. Never really had issues. Trying to get work to get a new model camera but I'm managing with what I have. Totally agree with you Dave. Depends on what the situation is to pick a camera body/lens combo.
I would show them a video that shows dual pixel AF in action. That might convince them to at least let you get an SL2 or something.
Years ago I upgraded from a very good point-and-shoot camera too an entry level € 400,- DSLR (Canon 1000D + kit lens) and the quality of even the most basic family snapshots was waaaaay better than before out of the box even in auto mode!
Especially the difference in colors was amazing! And many hobby/enthusiast photographers also shoot indoor events in which the low light capability of a smart phone (or point-and-shoot back in the day) is not sufficient.
So gear actually matters.
I've just come across this video of yours from over a year ago, but I felt the need to comment anyway because what you are talking about never loses its relevance anyway. I just wanted to say that I completely agree with what you said, that's all.
Dynamic range... 's why I shoot with a 10 year old D700 instead of a 5D MK whatever :) Great video, I've been wanting to go off on the gear doesn't matter crowd for ages, just haven't got it together. Now I don't have to.
I always have my popcorn ready for the 'but'.
I swear I thought of sticking couple of your 'but'- s and using them as my ring tone.
Where would society be without buts? 😁
I love gear, but mostly for the image quality, as I don’t rely on gear to think, light and compose a shot, that’s all me.
Totally agree. Five years ago, I started with a 60D. I've upgraded to a 7DM2 and, this year, a 5DM4 (and L class lenses) because I got better. The 60D and kit lens simply can't make the photographs I take now. Skill drove the upgrade, not vice versa.
Sounds like you knew it was time to start moving up. This is logical. I often hear people say things like "I want the best camera/lens so I don't have to waste money buying another one later." This is not logical. People with that mentality are often the same ones that never really develop the skill or even passion needed for photography. For them, the cheapest camera was the best, as it was the least "waste of money."
I was the same as you, only with the 80D instead of the 7D. I almost got a 5DIV, but decided to wait and see what happens next. I think the next year or so will be a big one for camera bodies.
I'm with you. I am smack in the middle of the road with this. Gear matters but it is only as good as the photographer's skills allow it to be. I can't get a fisheye picture with any other lens except a fisheye lens. Using ND grad filters allow me to stretch the potential dynamic range in the raw file, making it more editable in post. I have quite a bit of gear for my digital kit but I have a very bare bones kit or my film. A few primes and some filters. That's about it. I can do both and I love both.
Couldn’t agree more. The most annoying comment I’ve seen on a popular FB photography group is: “It’s the surgeon, not the scalpel.” What if the scalpel is dull and rusty? Great video.
I have a Sony super-zoom, HX400V, from 5 years ago that has buit in HDR. Using only JPGs it can shoot amazing landscape because of that, easier than my old canon. I have no expensive gear, but for online posting it is good enough.
A good photographer can take great pictures using cheap gear, also an amateur will take nice photos using a 1dx2 on full auto.
Both is correct.
Try shooting stars with 3200ISO on a 10 year old camera. Try shooting sports in bright daylight with a canon 1200d. 🤷♂️
Davor Rozic I actually stopped using my Canon 20D last year.
At ISO 400 the noise is visible from the moon on a 6x9 print.
TheHellis thank god i dont print my stuff 😂
I could say the same about the noise on ISO 80 on Sony Alpha 100 I own ;)
Well said. Yes gear does matter, gear will not make you take better pictures, you have to learn to do that. That is exactly the point the better you get at takig pictures and developing a specific style the more you realise what you have is not for you and needs to be upgraded. It is not as much, my gear but my ability of whether my gear can reproduce what I want in that moment. I think that is were gear comes in. Like you said, what type of photography you are in, e.g. if you are in wildlife photography, shooting with a 50mm F1.2 is useless, but a 200-600mm on the other hand will produce breath taking wildlife pictures and again using the 200-600mm for Wedding photography is useless. In short ask yourself, What is my photo shoot focus, and then get into gear that will help you, not make you better, (gear does not make you an awesome photography, skill, talent, creativity and time will) but help you reproduce what you wanna take. Amen. Lastly think of it this way, your camera and equipment is your cup but how you wanna make your coffee in that cup is all up to the size of the cup, its handle, material it is made from (plastic or glass), all of that will determine how your coffee will taste and how long you are going to drink it and whether that will be enough.
Wether your gear is 500 or 10.000 Dollars worth I would advice everyone to know the full potential of your gear. Camera's today like (Fuji XT3 or Nikon D500) have a spectrum of customization and features which can helpfull in certain situations. When you are shooting sports or when lightning situations change quickly you have to respond in a split second. Changing your camera settings manually takes times and the moment of opportunity can be lost. Pre setting your camera and Fn buttons helps to capture this moment but not everybody knows how to do this or even know that certain features excist in their camera.
I agree, perhaps from a different perspective. I'm a fledgling 'photographer' and shoot with a Nikon D7100. I likely don't get +/- 1/2 of what that camera is capable of producing, if that. I am slowly accumulating some better glass and that *is* making a difference, at least to my eye. Totally agree it's about getting out of your gear what it is capable of. I've learned a *lot* by shooting with this camera and have a *lot* more to learn. So I suppose what I'm trying to say is everything is relative, to everything else. I am thoroughly enjoying learning more about this art form all the time and am grateful for a tool like the D7100 (and now some 1.8/2.8/4 prime glass) to help me on the journey/quest. For what it's worth. Great Channel btw!!
Amen Brother! Gear and Technique matter.
Self-evident truth but worth assessing. To be a pro you need both (adequate gear and mastering techniques).
Nice video Dave. I would say that when I say "gear doesn't matter" or some version of that, I am usually talking to people that are trying to buy something that won't help do what they want it to do, I.E., make them a better photographer. They are people that have not properly invested the time in learning skill and think that they can bypass that by getting a new camera or an expensive lens. I offer a lot of advice to people on what gear to go after, and the ones that seem to think that putting an 85mm F1.2 on a Canon T6 will be of any benefit to them make me chuckle. People that are looking to spend more on a single lens than their whole setup and they don't even know if it fits on their camera. They of course saw a review, or heard some famous photographer uses it, or their friend that"knows stuff" told them it was the best. To those people the gear isn't as important. This is because they lack the skill to use it to it's real potential anyway, and likely will get caught in the upgrade trap of thinking that getting the latest model of something makes their images better by default. In the hands of the unskilled the gear really doesn't matter. In the hands of the skilled, it only matters if what they have can't do what they are trying to do. Most the time even if they don't have the latest camera they can probably find a way to make it work. Some people get paid very well for their photos, and that is a super competitive place to be; ya'll best believe they want the best they can get to have the edge on the competition. Most people do not fall into that category.
I try to jsut be a little better every time I do something, and am constantly reviewing the techniques of others. I still shoot on a Canon, and even though I have some nice lenses I don't have anything that ridiculous (80D camera, best lens is probably 70-200mm F2.8). I try to be realistic about what I need for what I do. But to be honest, a lot of what I do only started to happen when I traded up from my T3i to the 80D and got the 70-200mm lens. But I knew it was time. I was missing too many shots with my 3fps burst, and I didn't have the speed of AF with the mediocre 55-250 IS ii I had. First time I hit the half press on my 70-200mm I flinched because I was not used to that blazing fast speed. I also could not believe the clarity of the images I was getting with it compared to my previous work. So for those looking to upgrade, be sure it is time first. If you don't make money from your photography than every dollar you spend is only well spent if what you get offers something you couldn't do. Just be realistic about the gear you need to do what you want to do.
One last thing - I about shit when I saw you whip out that 60D. LOL!
I think the rub comes when someone admires a photo and then assumes it is due to the gear (Uhm, I was there too.). However, it was when I had my first digital camera (Canon Xsi) and moved beyond a kit lens (Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8) that I realized skill, eye, and camera were moving upward and onward.
Great video, well phrased!
When I was a relatively new photographer, I was extremely frustrated with my results and everyone said "gear doesn't matter". Since I felt that I already had the knowledge needed to get better results, I tried to convince myself to invest in better equipment. Glad I did! Thing is, I had apparently always had the "eye" and as soon as I started taking pictures I tried to go for quite complex shots. My gear at the time couldn't handle that, and as a result I was constantly disappointed.
Gear does matter. It's just an undeniable fact. If it didn't then all camera manufacturers would make one camera and one lens. Like how smart phone manufacturers do.
Nor would you charge for your services. You charge for these services so you can have money to buy better gear then the one you currently have.
My photography right now is limited by my camera body (I've reached the limits of what my 750D can do) and I'm struggling to secure gigs in my town because there's a half arsed point and shoot photographer ready to shoot that event with a point and shoot. So I guess I'm stuck with the nifty fifty and 750 for quite some time
Totally agree. Perfectly summarized. Thanks!
It would be more accurate to say "Gear CAN matter', than "Gear DOES matter", as you stated in the video - it all depends on the situation.
A couple of days ago I shot a wedding, the lighting during the ceremony was awful - no direct lighting on the front of the bride & groom and a window directly behind them. I knelt down for a number of shots so that the groom was blocking most of the light flooding in through the window behind them, this gave a more-balanced exposure and greatly reduced the haze that was caused by the bright light directly entering the lens (technique and experience trumps over gear), however, I was still shooting at ISO 5000, f/2.8 and 1/125th. If I tried that with a lesser camera the end results would not have been as good and an entry-level camera would have produced unusable images (the gear also mattered in this situation).
I could confidently shoot studio portraits or landscapes with a Nikon D3400 and a half-decent lens, but a wedding or indoor sports? Nooo.
Agree 100% I think the key thing about gear is that it is a tool for a spcific job and it doesn't matter how good a tool it is if the person holding it can't back it up
Also it is only one part of the art. There is much more that goes into photography than having the subject in focus.
Also: people might say gear doesn't matter in the sense that a good photographer can get good results no matter what. This is not true tho - a good photographer will get the best results possible in the scenario he is in but you simply can't sometimes
Doron Paz do you that replying twice to your own original statement is the first sign of delusional behaviour.
I reckon you *do* find pros using 15 year old cameras, but it’ll be top-of-the-line pro cameras that works well for the job at hand. (Maybe not 15, but *easily* 10 years old at least.)
Reminder Ansel Adam's used a box camera. And a large format so technically your gear is better then his but yet he is a better photographer 😊
The advancements in tech over the next 20 years will mean the newer generation of photographers will have to deal less with our current limitations in gear like high iso. The tech that is on a Sony A7III will filter down the entry level models similar to the technology in cars.
Good video on the grey area of 'Does Gear Matter' I think there is a lot of gear envy. When new kit comes out people would like to own so start complaining how their current kit is holding them back.
Well my first dslr was eos 400D which h was basic and my pals had medium to top end ish Nikon, and I really started disliking my 400D as I was driving a bus in a RAC Lombard rally in the Welsh forest !
However I could not afford a new camera so I practice on techniques and relied less on the cameras abilities or lack off. When I did upgrade to eos 7d it was like having a smart phone, point shoot capture a great image. Then I started going to sports events, indoor sports, motor racing, landscape and the 7D dreaded noise became an issue in low light. And still the bloody Nikon always seemed to be just that little sharper. I have had the 7D for almost 9 years. I have recently purchased a used
7D Mkii and notice the better AF system, more AF points, better low noise performance making my photography life a lot more easy in certain circumstances. I would to own the Sony A7iii and loads of G master lenses, however I do not have 5 grand to blow on new gear so I will solider on using my current gear hoping that the near future I can pick up a used Sony A7iii at a good price !
Something I have been wondering about is the secondary market for Sony cameras. At some point people will sell them off for newer models. I would think they would have to be low enough to be worth the money vs the new model. If they continue with the current price scheme I think it will really hurt Sony, since they will lose new camera sales to that secondary market. Less people will buy the new model if they can get a great price on a used version of a camera that is probably still pretty good. It won't be like PS4 once a PS5 comes out, where the new thing makes the old thing irrelevant and jsut about all the previous users will buy the latest jsut to keep up. I feel like it is likely that they will charge more for cameras once their market share gets to where they want it, which is the dominant share. I think that once that happens the cost of lenses will come down too, since banking on people buying a cheap camera and then expensive lenses making up the profit difference is a foolish plan in the long run. People replace cameras far more often than lenses. Right now though, as they make their play for the market, it kind of makes sense, since those people have little choice if they want to become fully immersed in that system than to start getting the native lenses.
Yes Sir! I still love my 60 D. I got better results than even with RED one, ones we had to shoot in low light conditions...with candles. Our Short Film shot with the RED one was really lower quality, but the one shot on Canon+Nikon lenses was much better. Thanks for your videos man!
Gear is Matter… Creativity is Mind… some photographers can be described with the term: Mind Over Matter… others can be described using the term: Matter Over Mind. When someone says: "Gear don't matter", they are simply letting us know which camp they belong to
We all use gear, it's the emphasis on using that gear that makes all the difference of perspective. Some photographers use Primes, some prefer Zooms. Some see themselves as Creatives first, and then Productives. Some are Productives first, Creatives second. None of these are wrong, they are just different. Simples!… You'll never get the two sides to agree, and that's the beauty of art, and being an artist.
Absolutely right!
Ok i think that gear matters up to a point here's a story my partner went on a wedding course they told her to not buy any gear just use what you have (basic) and wait till you earn then buy as you need i disagreed and heres why at that point I had been buying lenses to satisfy my newly acquired lens fetish and we are talking some serious lenses here (a mostly 2nd hand from MPB) the weddings we did last year were mostly in hotels where the lighting was just dire and without the lenses I had bought we would not have achieved the shots we did so gear does matter yes a good tog can take good shots on basic gear but having the best gear makes the job easier
i think slo mo seems to be the new boundary to pro camera than Amateur huge case M50 lack of v good value featured camera but that sinks it a lot rather than stills performance?
If I want to print landscape images 5ft x 8ft. I want them to be tack sharp when viewed from 3 feet away. What camera do I need?
Matt Stanman any camera. If you print a billboard sized photo, you will look at it from 100 feet.
Extra megapixels are always welcome, I own a canon 750d (24 megapixels, around 900$ new)
Davor Rozic check out clyde butcher. Huge prints 8ft tall tac sharp when standing right in front of them. Almost as if you are in the scene. That's what I'm after
Matt Stanman Probably a Hasselblad or Phase One medium format with 400MP. Or, a film camera that’s at least 8x10. I’d like to ask what do you want to put in the landscape images?
Matthew Hall I like simple images right now with one or two subjects dominating the scene. This may change when I move to Florida. I also have some interest on urban landscape but have yet to find a worthwhile composition. I have a canon 6d. Images are great, but I feel they start to break down on prints bigger than 20x30.
Matt Stanman Nice! If those options are too expensive (they are for most people), I’d try an upgrade to a 5DS(R) or A7R III and some sharper prime lenses. The cheapest upgrade to sharpness would be a 4x5 film camera, but you would either need to know how to use and develop and enlarge big prints or have the budget for professional enlargements.
Couldn't have put it better, "If you can get the shots you want with what you've got = You don't need new gear.
If you can't get the shots you want with your current gear, but new gear will let you get those shots = You need that gear".
So the only time gear matters, is if not having the ability to do something that different or new gear will allow you to do, is stopping you getting the shots you want, if it isn't then why would it matter?
People also have to accept that people like to own better gear even if its not always needed. Nobody except cops needs a high-performance car but most of us are ok when people own/want them. Also (as you hint at) there is a underlying process in features that are slowly coming into cameras and most of the time that starts at the high-end 'want to have' cameras. A good example is the sony A9 its a showcase on what the effects will be if we get smarter (not just faster) sensors and how it will effect the way we shoot.
Gear does matter. You can't shoot wildlife with a kit lens, you may shoot concerts with a 450D and an f/4-5.6 lens (I did it once with a 75-300 III) but the photos maybe too noisy or too blurry because of the shake.
I love my 50D, it's a great camera and I've produced great shots with it, coupled with good lenses, BUT it's hold. When I shoot wildlife I always risk getting blurry images due to the shake of the camera because in most cases going above ISO 800 would make the shot terribly grainy. But sometimes the camera is perfect for the job and it's me that screws up the shot by forgetting the basics. But I "need" a FF anyway because I want it, so deal with it
I hate when people try to compare a camera to a knife, like a photographer to a chef, it's not the same, a camera is intricate, it has depth and detail to it, it's not something basic as a sharp edge, a better comparison is a racecar, the car does matter, ask any professional, but if you but someone behind the wheel who doesn't know what they're doing, then they become the limitation. Your gear should always be the bottleneck not you
Bang on as usual Dave
Nice video rant, I agree gears do matter, even I am a hobbiest and use to take pictures of my daughter with crop sensor and then upgraded to canon 6d and it blown me away, then to 5d3 and now rose.
I think gear does matter, but the question is what gear is best for your shooting style. So the first question is what is your shooting style and that is something only you can work out after experimenting. The big problem is modern cameras are becoming a jack of all trades and trying to be a master of all. Especially now when people want to shoot both stills and video from the same camera. So in real life, shadows and highlights are what is there and for some of use we may want are image to reflect that, not create an enhanced photograph.
It’s not that gear doesn’t matter as much as those people who think gear will significantly help them produce a wonderful image. If you can’t create a great image with an entry level camera, having a top of the line professional camera will absolutely not help you a single bit. TH-cam has so many gear heads that simply love the gear more than learning composition and lighting skills.
beautifully described
D3s, D750, 5D2, 6D are all cameras 4 to 10 years old) 60D is only 8 year old ) skill is the key, gear basically gives you quality and convenience when you're paid for it. 'Gear doesn't matter' are the words used for beginners who consider pro level cameras without any experience and specs nerds that don't even have any camera, but always behind your shoulder whispering, your camera sucks, you need the best of the best, only with the most expensive ultra pro camera you can get the greatest photo ever.
Word
Great video , it's very true what you say, great message
Gear matters to professional photographers who earn a living from their equipment. For enthusiasts personal vision, composition, lighting and technique are prerequisites, not how many megapixels the sensor has or whether the body is made of magnesium. Professionals have to please a client. Amateurs can please themselves. Any modern digital camera with Manual mode can make great photographs.
I have a Nikon D500 and shoot mostly wildlife. While I find the D850 tempting, I know that it won't really be better for most of my shots(some would argue it would be worse, since I'd give up some shooting speed). I have, however, found myself limited by my lens. I have a Tamron 18-400mm, which is super versatile, but lacks the sharpness and speed of more purpose-built lenses. I rented a 200-500mm and now I found that every picture I took looked better than the same sort of shots with my super-zoom.
I would agree if they were equal in price, however the nikon is 3 time the price. Is it 3 time better, i don't believe it , and at 5.6, its not versatile lens as the Tamron. I also have both lenses and returned the Nikon and purchase a 300mm 2.8 with a tele and keep the Tamron for versatility.
Gotta say I really hated that 18-400mm. I didn't have one of my own, tried it out at a shop that had one just to try it. Spastic focus, hunted a lot, images were all soft during review when shot wide open at 400mm. It's only real "advantage" is it has a large range it can shoot from, and also since it is so cheap, but I would rather carry two good lenses than that one.
If you can afford the 200-500mm then I would say go for it. Your wildlife images will thank you. I would say Juan Lopez has disregarded what you will be using the 200-500mm for, wildlife shooting (which is its main purpose). For that I would say it is at least 3 times the lens that 18-400mm is (and I think it is more like twice the price not 3 times). The F5.6 max aperture is fine since you will probably be shooting at that anyway for increased DOF and sharpness, maybe even narrower like F8 if you have really good light. On the D500 it gives you 150mm more reach over the 18-400mm. It is jsut plain sharper at all FL and aperture settings. It has less overall aberrations and flaring. It has superior build quality and will be a good lens years from now, the 18-400mm will probably start to show signs of age after jsut a few years. I could probably go on but I think I made my point.
There are also the Tamron and Sigma 150-600mm lenses too. I personally didn't care for them but I know they are popular.
All your point are valid, and i respect it. An its true, the Nikon will last for years and for its purpose its an accurate point.
Kevin Diaz I may rent the Tamron 150-600 before I make a decision. Out of curiosity, what didn't you like about it?
A couple of things. At 400mm and on the lens is not as sharp, though it isn't what I would call soft either. For me that was an issue since with the Canon 400mm F5.6L I can crop to the same size image and still have one that is a little sharper (though the lack of IS made it too hard to shoot with the 400mm at the end of the golden hour). But I have seen some pretty nice images others have taken with it so I really can't say that it is not sharp. Also, the front end is very heavy, making it hard to balance when shooting by hand. I was trying to prop it up by holding it just behind the front element to support that weight, but the length of the lens made this a little awkward. A monopod or tripod would probably help a lot. Like I said before, it is a popular lens. It didn't get that way for no reason. Sometimes lenses can be popular simply becasue they have a lot of value for their price (18-400mm is a good example here), I think the 150-600mm lenses fall into this category.
I would also point out that the one I was testing out was an older lens, though I can't recall if it was Sigma or Tamron. I have not had the chance to try the Tamron G2 model yet. If I was going to rent one to try it would be that one.
A good photographer can take good photos with less-than-ideal equipment or even shitty equipment but quality gear gets you better quality shots.
Better gears inspire you to go out and shoot more, that’s what matters. People talk shit because they don’t have money to buy better gears. If you give gears out for free, they’ll get line to cover their asses
Wow, someone finally said it.
Gear matters greatly. Once you know the techniques and there are only few new methods being invented over time, gear is everything.
And then there is this bullsh*t where people use a cheap camera, their 10 grand iMac Pro and their 70 dollar a month creative cloud subscription, lights worth 5000 dollars and two Ferraris and a nice location with malls and ocean view to show the camera does not matter... eh... yes... and some professional models of course. It’s not the camera - it’s also the lenses worth 20k - I almost forgot...
I love gear but keep shooting with what you have because it's what you know that counts - the most important thing is just work - that's it - if you have old equipment and you still can produce a product give your self a smug pat on the back 😎👌 don't think you can't produce a product with a 'basic' camera because you definitely can. PS Dave I think we share the same accent 😀
If you're stuck with my accent then I feel very sorry for you 🤣
I left pro Nikon and Canon gear after 40 years because Sony fullframe mirrorless could make my art easier, faster and more accurate.. Better Gear in the hands of someone who has technique and experience can matter. Thanks Dave. Cheers
Thats correct. Not always you need high end gear. But i can understand if someone want to buy it anyway :D.
I agree!
It always annoys me when those photographers with 30 grand worth of camera equipment say that gear doesn't matter. If it really doesn't matter then why invest all that cash?
'Professionals would be using cameras from 10-15 years ago, but they're not'
Me sitting here with 10 and 14 year old cameras 'someone here does' 😬
2:32 says it all.. that's when i choose to change gear..
I currently use a T3i (yes really), and if anyone says that gear doesn't matter in front me, there'll be violence.
I think you need to clean your sensor. Top right corner
Not actually a dust spot, it's a chain from my ceiling fan :D
Mate don’t worry about what some say. It is fact that video gear drives more traffic that photo technique. Sadly people cares more about having a Ferrari than learning how to take a high speed curve on it.
Also the idea that buying better gear will give you instant results rather than having to learn and work at it. Almost like a shortcut to better photos.
Terry D ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Speaking of taking shots with ten year old cameras. I could shoot a film camera that is 12 years old and still get great results. Peace, Flood!
Im more of a min-maxer. I get the best stuff i can, for the least ammount of money, and push it to its limits. Would i love the a7r III? Hell yes! Can i afford it and is it something i can recouperate some cost with? No.
Of course it matters and has always been
Can’t get enough gear dude 🤣🤣🤣
Buying new gear and thinking that your photos will improve because of that is much easier than actually going out, shoot decent photos and create something unique. That is the only reason you're getting more views on your gear movies. Being creative is the whole key to good photography but not everyone is creative or inventive enough so they think the problem is the equipment. Gear does matter but only for those who aren't confident enough and aren't true artists. I know many Magnum photographers who only have a simple 10 year old camera with only a 50mm who shoot the most amazing photographs and win awards year after year so in that perspective, gear really doesn't matter. This whole discussion is useless and is in some cases (like this one) used to get attention. If that's what you're (ab)using photography for, fine by me but that's not what photography is about.
FINALLY SOMEONE SENSIBLE ABOUT IT
Well said.
Sounds fair to me, I think like most I have gone through the gas stage and come out the other side. Now I shoot and if my existing kit can’t do hat I want , I go buy something new.
Couldn't find a way to make a private comment but you have a bit of dust on your sensor in the top right of this video - just FYI. Love the content, keep it up!
Thanks Stvwndr but it's not actually dust (although I did see it and spend 5 mins trying to clean the sensor to get rid of it)
It is actually the end of the chain dangling down from my ceiling fan 🤣
Dave McKeegan that bokeh tho ;)
Gear doesn't matter? Ok, try to shoot a DJ or a musician in a dark nightclub with a 28-70 f3.5-5.6 kit lens without flash, just with the disco lights.
Can't work out if this is aimed at people who say gear doesn't matter or if you're presuming I think gear doesn't matter ...
Sensible stuff... but please... for the love of all that is holy... put your trousers on the hangar inside the wardrobe, move that white box under your right bicep and straighten up your pillows before you hit record. The OCD amongst us are slightly dying 😂
A messy background is so distracting...
OMG the black spot in top right corner.......I was trying to wipe my screen for a few seconds
Liked before I even watched because it’s so true it does matter lol