Do you really NEED better gear?

[burningbright]

Seems like a pertinent quote

‘A large-format photographer would stop at a scene, consider it for a while, and then spend long minutes setting up his camera until the scene was framed exactly the way he wanted it. A typical amateur with a 35mm would stop, turn toward the scene, make a handheld exposure or two within the first minute, and leave. The reason the 35mm image doesn't look like the 4-by-5 image is more a result of method than of equipment.’


"Mountain Light", by Galen Rowell

 

[Policar]

‘A large-format photographer would stop at a scene, consider it for a while, and then spend long minutes setting up his camera until the scene was framed exactly the way he wanted it. A typical amateur with a 35mm would stop, turn toward the scene, make a handheld exposure or two within the first minute, and leave. The reason the 35mm image doesn't look like the 4-by-5 image is more a result of method than of equipment.’


"Mountain Light", by Galen Rowell

I mean no offense by this, but as much as Rowell had a great eye, his photography boils down to snapshots taken in extraordinary locations and shot with excellent compositions (and ND grad filters). He was more interested in the location than the gear itself (not that he didn't know his gear really well in order to use it transparently) and so the above quote outlines his attitudes toward snobby large format photographers more than any inherent truth about the necessity to use great gear to get good image quality. He's probably right, and his success speaks to that, but the bias is still there. We complain about how anything but an "L" lens isn't good enough, and yet he got great results using really old optics on very grainy film then printed as cibachromes (not a fun process). The average point and shoot decimates that, image quality-wise.

While digital photography approaches 4x5 quality in many ways, 135 color film just doesn't compare, at all. It's grainy with poor tonality. And while a 5DII and liveview with t/s lenses gets you perspective correction, you don't get that with 135 cameras; even with tilt/shift lenses the ground glass is too small to work precisely. 35mm wide lenses are full of distortion (which, again, digital fixes). And while raw allows you exposure manipulation and single-shot hdr, with film you'd need to use the zone system and that only applies to negative sheet film. Otherwise you have to use the same development process on every negative.

If your needs demand it, expensive gear matters. (And besides, not everyone with a Porsche is a professional race car driver; taking pictures is a hobby for most people, and hobbies are predicated on enjoyment, which expensive gear can provide.)

On the other hand, David Muench (who's pretty good) just switched from a Master Technika to a digital point-and-shoot, which he prefers.

On the other other hand, good luck to Gregory Crewdson shooting on anything other than multiple exposures of 8x10 or maybe medium format digital.

 

[Doylem]

‘A large-format photographer would stop at a scene, consider it for a while, and then spend long minutes setting up his camera until the scene was framed exactly the way he wanted it. A typical amateur with a 35mm would stop, turn toward the scene, make a handheld exposure or two within the first minute, and leave. The reason the 35mm image doesn't look like the 4-by-5 image is more a result of method than of equipment.’

"Mountain Light", by Galen Rowell

There's no reason why we can't slow down with a DSLR, to shoot more 'considered' landscapes. You get the best of both worlds: you don't have to lug a heavy 'view' camera over hill and dale, you don't have to limit yourself to a single shot before reloading and you have all the convenience of the digital format. I often pretend that I'm using a bigger camera, to ensure that every shot counts: any exciuse, really, to 'settle' into the landscape and take my time.

A lot of photographers seem to make gear into a problem; they fret about the equipment they have ("Is it good enough?") and the equipment they don't have ("Do I need it?"). Worrying about gear is, IMO, antithetical to good photography; it focuses our attention onto the means rather than the end. When people ask - in these forums and elsewhere - "Do I need this particular piece of kit?", the answer is always "no". When they really need an item, to further their photography, they will simply know. If they have to save up for a couple of months to buy it, so much the better; they'll appreciate it all the more.

Ideally, our gear should always lag behind our needs, so we only buy what we really need... and aren't just swayed by the latest 'must have' accessory.

 

[legreve]

Photography is in a place of turmoil at the moment.
Looking from my professional point of view, I could choose to think that the manufactures really ****ed people using photography as a way of earning money for our daily life.
The tech development has made it far too easy for amateurs to do trial and error photography. There are no consequences anymore... you're not spending a couple of hundred developing film or taking polaroids.

The fortunate side of the coin is that it more than ever becomes evident that not everyone knows how to proper lighting on a subject, do nice looking arrangements or give thought to finalizing the photo through Photoshop and the likes.
Also people getting into photography often don't have a clue how much money and time is actually put into every job.
The price tags we put on the job isn't pure imagination, it's adjusted based on the amount of expenses along with the decent salery we require to live off the work.

Basicly you don't NEED new gear... I could probably solve many of the jobs with less ( I know I could...), but let's say that I had a client over and he saw me standing there with a G-series canon or the likes, one which he probably just bought for his kids or something. That client is going to take 1-2 minutes thinking wether or not he could do it himself then...

The intelligent client would probably come to the conclusion that the $10.000 generator and lamps I have standing might yield a bit better result than waht he could achieve with his on-camera flash and ****** white substitute for a background.
The slightly less intelligent client would probably pass me on the next one or two jobs, try it himself at his own office and then either be blind and think that the result is just as good (because it's cheaper...? *cough*bs*cough*) or he would come back trying to argue that the price is too high.

Either way, in the last scenario, I would lose revenue... and that in the end is what makes the whole machinery work. Ironicly, I have to buy new and more expensive gear to make money to buy new and more expensive gear.
Simply because people don't know any better and amateurs offer their "services" below 50% of a pro solution.

So yes, as a pro.. I NEED better gear. Currently I'm thinking that the Phase One p21+ isn't good enough for my work anymore. :S

And the moment the 1Ds IV or the 5D mkIII comes I will exchange my 5D for a one of those...

Worrying about gear is, IMO, antithetical to good photography; it focuses our attention onto the means rather than the end. When people ask - in these forums and elsewhere - "Do I need this particular piece of kit?", the answer is always "no". When they really need an item, to further their photography, they will simply know. If they have to save up for a couple of months to buy it, so much the better; they'll appreciate it all the more.

Ideally, our gear should always lag behind our needs, so we only buy what we really need... and aren't just swayed by the latest 'must have' accessory.

I disagree... I never worry about the gear when I'm in the actual situation. The gear and technicallities should be the very backbone of your work. So much that when you grab the camera and pull off the first shot, you wouldn't even actively think about how you set the settings, because it just comes that naturally.

The reason gear does requires focus, is as stated above... it's all a show. And shows still sell. I'm not saying that you absolutely have to have the very best lens there is or the best digi back in the world, but you have to keep ahead of the game.


Having said all that...
Regarding the very decent landscape portraits above, I would boldly state that if I pulled out my Sinar went into those woods, put on the digiback and take my time to frame the image etc. and do the finishing touches, you would be able to see a noticable difference in technical image quality (not bashing the composition etc... just the tech behind it).
------
http://www.legreve.com

 

[Cliff3]

There's no reason why we can't slow down with a DSLR, to shoot more 'considered' landscapes.

Agreed. Technique might be driven by gear, but it doesn't need to be. Arriving at a location an hour or so before dawn or sunset to consider the possibilities and wait for the right light is an activity that is independent of equipment.

When they really need an item, to further their photography, they will simply know.

Exactly. Or to turn it around, if an element of their current kit is holding them back, they will know which piece of equipment it is and specifically how it is holding them back. That knowledge will drive the selection of the replacement.

 

[Eaon]

Here is an example where I think it does matter:

A P&S wouldn't have been able to capture the shallow depth-of-field that I think makes this image. Even with open apertures, the focal length of the lens is so short that it's hard to isolate a subject with a P&S. This was shot at f/4 with a 24-70. Would have been possible to take with a consumer zoom. Since I didn't take a comparison shot, I can't show by example why the pro-zoom mattered.

I love this picture. It tells me a huge story about your cat. Clear chrfr isn't a cat person. That being said, I'm in no real position to critique one way or the other, as you will soon realize. I just like cats.

So, I wasn't sure which thread to put this in, because several threads have all lead me to this same conclusion, but my conclusion that I've reached, purely personally, is that I need to remember to learn how to use the gear I've got rather than to go shopping.

I've been browsing this whole photography section of the forums for about a week now and have been learning tons. I've seen in a few threads people asking "why do we keep talking about this", and I wanted to say because people like me who are just getting in to the game need to keep learning it. I got a Canon T1i on Boxing Day. I've wanted a DSLR for a long time now, and I finally convinced my wife to let me play. (She is, in fact, fantastic. It wasn't like it was a huge debate or anything.) I wanted the T2i, but they ran out before I got to the front of the line. So I had to decide in a moment whether to get the cheaper one, or go buy the T2i somewhere else for more than post-Christmas sale price. I decided on the T1i. It was $300 cheaper, and that was probably the best choice given that I really know nothing about photography. Oh, I can press the button on my point-and-shoot and my iPhone with the best of them, but I know nothing of the art and science of actual photography, so I'm betting the extra $300 wouldn't have made my pictures any better.

Now, I'm a toy lover as I'm sure many here are. I read this thread and the "Help buying a new lens" thread with interest, looking for the answer to which lenses I would want other than the kit one. I thought I would learn some insight on the technology. What I've walked away with, instead, is the understanding that I'm months away, and thousands of shots away, from understanding why I would need anything other than the kit lens (except for the Canon 50mm f1.8, which seems to be seen on these forums and several others I've browsed as "It's only a hundred bucks, just buy it already"). Also that I know nothing about lens technology, so most of the discussion goes over my head anyway. Ruahrc's response about wasting one's money really hit the mark for me and reminded me to get off the camera shop websites and learn how to use the camera first.

So, as you can see, I'm a total n00b at this and don't really have the experience or the equipment to truly address the central theme of this thread. I know very little about doing cool stuff with my camera, and only really learned a couple weeks ago how depth of field is affected by aperture size. But I wanted to put it out there that these are definitely worthwhile threads to have, because lurkers probably learn tons from them.

And your cat is awesome.

 

[xStep]

Learning the ins & outs of the equipment one already has can be advantageous. My point & shoot (Sony DSC-P200) has manual mode that I've taken advantage of many times. Sure the dynamic range is limited compared to better & newer cameras, but I've gotten some interesting results over the years.

These two shots of Hoover Dam are obvious. The first was taken in auto mode while the second was taken in manual mode where I could mess a little with the aperture and shutter speed. I forgot to lower the ISO though which may have helped to reduce the noise. My tripod was a cement fence.

When in auto mode, sometimes, just shifting the camera a bit can have a dramatic affect.

I've even experimented with using the flash in situations where the flash will not bounce off of near by objects. The reason is that the camera will change its settings and I don't have to mess with manual mode. Sometimes the result is the keeper and other times it belongs in the trash can.

I suggest people experiment more with what they have. They'll be pleasantly surprised at the results they can produce and appreciate the new techniques they learn. Those techniques will apply to better equipment.

When I used film, I found I experimented more with Black & White because it was less expensive than color. Having a Black & White darkroom kept the costs down substantially. After the initial investment, digital has brought the cost of experimenting down to free, so it is just limited to the time you are willing to spend on the subject.

 

[Designer Dale]

Might as well toss file format and software into the mix. Both of these are shot in RAW and processed in Aperture 3 with a touch of PhotoShop CS3 in the egret photo. The originals are destined for the trash if shot in jpeg, but being in a "Pro" file format I was able to salvage something usable to me by applying controls in $$$ software packages.





Dale

 

[wonderspark]

Hahaha, Hoover Damn.

 

[xStep]

Hahaha, Hoover Damn.

Thanks for pointing that out. I fixed it.

For as long as can remember I've had this mental block where I often add the n on the end of that particular word.

 

[kallisti]

Thanks to everyone for contributing to this thread. I think it's been a very interesting discussion.

I didn't intend this thread to be about me or my images. I think some people took this the wrong way. I clearly have much to learn about photography. I'm hoping to improve. I think this post really sums up what I was trying to get at:

You both make excellent points. Many relatively new to photography, I'll include myself, can get caught up in the lust to buy expensive equipment while we have not yet practiced the art of picture taking. The key is to realize that picture taking is more than just a great camera and lens. Doylem, out of necessity, you managed to develop your art by using existing equipment. This places you light-years ahead of most who just grab and lens and then realize their pictures are still lacking. Kallisti, on the other hand, realized the cool-aid wasn't the answer and began to develop (no pun intended..well, maybe) his art as well. I think the take home message of Kallisti's thread is that 1) you do not necessarily need the most expensive equipment when starting out in photography, 2) great equipment does not necessarily equate with great photos, 3) sometimes in some circumstances you DO need better, more expensive equipment, and 4) most importantly of all, the new photographer, and most of us for that matter, need to keep practicing and developing the ART of taking great photos. Forums, like this is a great place to learn.

Thanks Kallisti for starting such a great thread!

I also think this post hit the mark:

Photography is in a place of turmoil at the moment.
Looking from my professional point of view, I could choose to think that the manufactures really ****ed people using photography as a way of earning money for our daily life.
The tech development has made it far too easy for amateurs to do trial and error photography. There are no consequences anymore... you're not spending a couple of hundred developing film or taking polaroids.

The fortunate side of the coin is that it more than ever becomes evident that not everyone knows how to proper lighting on a subject, do nice looking arrangements or give thought to finalizing the photo through Photoshop and the likes.
Also people getting into photography often don't have a clue how much money and time is actually put into every job.
The price tags we put on the job isn't pure imagination, it's adjusted based on the amount of expenses along with the decent salery we require to live off the work.

Basicly you don't NEED new gear... I could probably solve many of the jobs with less ( I know I could...), but let's say that I had a client over and he saw me standing there with a G-series canon or the likes, one which he probably just bought for his kids or something. That client is going to take 1-2 minutes thinking wether or not he could do it himself then...

The intelligent client would probably come to the conclusion that the $10.000 generator and lamps I have standing might yield a bit better result than waht he could achieve with his on-camera flash and ****** white substitute for a background.
The slightly less intelligent client would probably pass me on the next one or two jobs, try it himself at his own office and then either be blind and think that the result is just as good (because it's cheaper...? *cough*bs*cough*) or he would come back trying to argue that the price is too high.

Either way, in the last scenario, I would lose revenue... and that in the end is what makes the whole machinery work. Ironicly, I have to buy new and more expensive gear to make money to buy new and more expensive gear.
Simply because people don't know any better and amateurs offer their "services" below 50% of a pro solution.

So yes, as a pro.. I NEED better gear. Currently I'm thinking that the Phase One p21+ isn't good enough for my work anymore. :S

And the moment the 1Ds IV or the 5D mkIII comes I will exchange my 5D for a one of those...



I disagree... I never worry about the gear when I'm in the actual situation. The gear and technicallities should be the very backbone of your work. So much that when you grab the camera and pull off the first shot, you wouldn't even actively think about how you set the settings, because it just comes that naturally.

The reason gear does requires focus, is as stated above... it's all a show. And shows still sell. I'm not saying that you absolutely have to have the very best lens there is or the best digi back in the world, but you have to keep ahead of the game.


Having said all that...
Regarding the very decent landscape portraits above, I would boldly state that if I pulled out my Sinar went into those woods, put on the digiback and take my time to frame the image etc. and do the finishing touches, you would be able to see a noticable difference in technical image quality (not bashing the composition etc... just the tech behind it).
------
http://www.legreve.com

I really like this site. I wish I could contribute more interesting photos. I wish I could create more interesting photos in general. I'm still learning and have a long way to go. Practice, practice, practice. Gear hasn't turned out to be the panacea I was hoping for. I think that this isn't just true for me though. I have a feeling it applies more generally.

I will say that I totally love my M9. Not specifically because of the images it can (or can't) produce compared to other cameras I own. I like it for more visceral reasons. It is small and compact. For much of my shooting away from home I don't want bulk or weight. Compared to my s90, the controls are intuitive and don't involve fussing with menus. It's easy to make necessary adjustments while I am composing. I don't have to fuss with menus. With the camera to my eye I can change the aperture, shutter speed, and focus. I like that the viewfinder includes more of the image than what the lens sees. Composition is easier as I can see what I am including and what I am leaving out. Timing capture is also easier since I can see what is happening outside the frame and thus better decide when to trip the shutter. There is also no shutter lag compared to my s90. Finally, I really dislike composing holding the camera in front of me viewing an LCD image. None of this may directly translate into a comparison of the images created with both, but it does influence how useful each is as a tool. I think the "Leica look" is largely a myth. BUT, I enjoy shooting with my M9 much more than I do my s90. Whether that actually translates into better images--or whether the money was really worth it--is another question entirely.

I am very sorry if I offended anyone. There are many talented people here. While I may not always respond to the individual directions that people have taken their images, that isn't a reflection on their photographic skills. I don't really care for Wagner's music, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a talented composer....

 

[nomade]

Very interesting thread

This is a very interesting discussion. I've been giving photography course for years. Among others, here are advices I keep repeating :

• Photography is light, wait for the light that will improve your scenery
• Whenever possible, use your feet instead of your zoom
• Take your time, relax, try many point of view, come back at another hour if necessary
• Compose to tell a story, observe the rule of third, except when you choose not to observe it
• Forget the megapixels, if you can, invest in good lens and a good tripod
• Keep your lens clean, and then clean them again
• If you use Photoshop, use it lightly. If the picture is wrong go take it again instead of trying to improve it with Photoshop
• If you're on a tight budget, keep your money to go to nice places. If you're rich then spend it on good lenses and go to nice places
• Have fun, experiment and ... have fun
• Read the manual of your gear and practice until you don't have to look at the camera anymore

 

[Attonine]

I think the OP has posted a very interesting question, especially for the digital age where the capabilities of the processor have a direct effect on the image. I have recently experienced that "better", which in my case would have simply been more recent kit, can certainly help improve images, or make capturing them easier. In my specific case this was because of low light capability. I was using a canon 400d, the ISO only goes to 1600, + 17-55 f2.8 strictly at the 17mm end, and was trying to photograph a tango club in Buenos Aires with next to no light. Those using 7D's or 3D's did not suffer my problems. However, this low light issue did force me to think about the shots and develop the technique of waiting for the dancers to pass under a spot light, I achieved some pretty good shots. I have however taken the plunge and just bought a 700D, as I am more and more shooting documentary style photography and really want the low light capability for a trip to shoot Rio Carnival in 4 weeks time!!!!! I am not planning on upgrading for a long, long time.

I have had to move the levels on these 2 sample shots quite a bit using Aperture to lighten the images and turn them into something usable.

 

[sebascrub]

I've thought about this a lot. I just bought my first dSLR last fall and I've greatly been enjoying learning how to properly use it. But for what I do, I've often wondered if a high-end compact (like the Fujifilm X100) wouldn't be better for what I do. I mainly shoot concert photography in dark indie clubs and medium-sized venues and the occasional street shots. It would be awesome to have a smaller camera than my D5000 and 35 f/1.8 (although that's already a pretty small combo) so I don't have to worry about people knocking into the camera, spilling beer all over it, babying it after the show when I'm hanging out with friends, etc, etc.

But, on the other hand, there's a certain cachet that comes with being an "official" photographer and walking into the pit (in larger venues) with a dSLR. I don't think I would be taken as seriously if I walked up to shoot Stone Temple Pilots, for instance, with the X100. For better or worse, people equate dSLRs with more serious photography, though we all know that it's the operator, not the machine.

Last year, before I bought my dSLR, I shot NXNE with a small Canon P&S (I forget the exact model... I borrowed it). The results were more than acceptable, especially at "standard" print sizes in B&W on newsprint. But the reactions I got trying to "skip" the line to get into packed shows with my photo pass and start shooting with a P&S were quite skeptical. Ever since I got my dSLR, though, no one bats an eye — they just look at the credentials and wave me in. Beyond better higher ISO performances and perhaps the choice of faster lenses (still drooling after a 50mm f/1.4 AF-S), the "legitimacy" with which a more expensive camera comes was a major factor in my decision.

But, a photo like the one below (one of my current faves, despite the band itself being somewhat lacklustre) could easily be taken with a P&S, I imagine. An example like this goes to demonstrate that there is so much more than technical considerations when purchasing a camera: there's also a whole host of social and cultural considerations to take into account.


DSC_0038 by sebascrub, on Flickr

 

[VirtualRain]

It's hard to add to what has already been said, but here's a couple of thoughts I have...

As long as manufacturers continue to make bodies that have improved dynamic range, high ISO capability, higher resolution, and more accurate consistent focus performance, I will want to upgrade as these things are all areas that can improve my photos. The same goes for lenses in terms of AF performance, image stabilization, and overall optical performance.

There's no doubt my previous 500D and 18-55 kit lens could take some great pictures, but there's also no doubt that my 7D and 17-55 f2.8 lens has allowed me to push my photography and also get less OOF shots in a variety of situations.

But, I'm also a gear head, and to be perfectly honest, researching, buying, and playing with gear (including trying it in situations that push it to the limits) is as much a part of the hobby as the artistic side for me.

 

[avro707]

Photography is in a place of turmoil at the moment.

Exactly true - and lot of image requests I get are from people who obviously want an image for free, or for low-cost. Since I don't do the photography full-time, and it's not my sole income - I can pick and choose the image requests/projects that I want, and the rest, I politely decline. I never give stuff away - and I always tell people to not give stuff away.

The gear is important, because a top-level camera does allow some photos that might otherwise be impossible - but otherwise, for ordinary stuff, the difference between a lot of DSLR's isn't immediately obvious to the average eye. It also wows some people, I suppose - but the top end camera equipment for me is just a tool to get the job done, and I can get the same thing done perfectly well with a D80, D700 or a D3S for most photos. But then again, I don't think about it, it's instinctive for me. When I first picked up a camera as a kid, not so - but these days, it comes naturally - which is probably a key to getting the consistent good results over and over.

All that said, I'm in the position now where I'm considering giving up photography. I've lost the inspiration and passion that I once had for it. It's been like that for a while and I just don't think I want to be in that game any longer. I've done various different things, photographed famous/powerful people, etc - but none of it gives me the same satisfaction and thrill as it once did.

There is merit in what someone said above about using Photoshop sparingly. I prefer not doing much in Photoshop, even though I know it inside out (used it since Photoshop 5.5 or something like that). The light absolutely does make or break an image. Appealing light can make an image look absolutely stunning.

 

[DaveN]

I don't have any photos at hand but here are my two cents.

Over the years I have owned a Kodak 265 dscn (or something close to that name), a Coolpix 990, a Canon 10D and another Coolpix that I found alongside the road. Of those, the Kodak produced the best color but being one of the first digital cameras it was a real trick getting an action shot because of the huge lag time. The Canon 10D gives me the ability to work with RAW images so I can fix stupid mistakes I made in the field. I'm was always fighting with the Coolpix 990 until it broke (a blessing in disguise) and the other Coolpix isn't much better. That said, unless I am on a vacation hiking in a national park or some other scenic area or at home, it is the Coolpix I found alongside the road that I'll use for photos because of the convenience.

But that really doesn't address your original point... do you really need expensive equipment to take great photos? I'd say you can't go rock bottom but there is diminishing return as you move up in equipment. I don't have anything newer than several years old and IMHO quality has improved over the past few years based on the test photos I've seen.

All that said, I had the joy of shooting a few rolls of Kodachrome the past two years (my last rolls are coming back today). Shooting Kodachrome was a great trip down memory lane. Because each shot costs you and you have a limited supply of film, you are more careful in composing your shots plus you have the excitement of the wait to see how your photos turned out. It was fun but sadly that era is over.

 

[kallisti]

[Edited]
So, I wasn't sure which thread to put this in, because several threads have all led me to this same conclusion, but my conclusion that I've reached, purely personally, is that I need to remember to learn how to use the gear I've got rather than to go shopping.

I've been browsing this whole photography section of the forums for about a week now and have been learning tons. I've seen in a few threads people asking "why do we keep talking about this", and I wanted to say because people like me who are just getting in to the game need to keep learning it.

Now, I'm a toy lover as I'm sure many here are. I read this thread and the "Help buying a new lens" thread with interest, looking for the answer to which lenses I would want other than the kit one. I thought I would learn some insight on the technology. What I've walked away with, instead, is the understanding that I'm months away, and thousands of shots away, from understanding why I would need anything other than the kit lens.

So, as you can see, I'm a total n00b at this and don't really have the experience or the equipment to truly address the central theme of this thread. I know very little about doing cool stuff with my camera, and only really learned a couple weeks ago how depth of field is affected by aperture size. But I wanted to put it out there that these are definitely worthwhile threads to have, because lurkers probably learn tons from them.

And your cat is awesome.

Thanks for the kind words about my cat. While this wasn't a thread asking for C&C about my images, I'm happy the Zoe image did something for you.

I didn't include your comments in my last reply, but I'm happy the thread/topic was helpful for you. While I've greatly enjoyed all of the back-and-forth in this thread, your particular comment made me happy I started the thread in the first place. So thanks for taking the time to post, despite (or because of) the fact you are new to photography and this forum

 

[mtbdudex]

There's no reason why we can't slow down with a DSLR, to shoot more 'considered' landscapes. You get the best of both worlds: you don't have to lug a heavy 'view' camera over hill and dale, you don't have to limit yourself to a single shot before reloading and you have all the convenience of the digital format. I often pretend that I'm using a bigger camera, to ensure that every shot counts: any exciuse, really, to 'settle' into the landscape and take my time.

A lot of photographers seem to make gear into a problem; they fret about the equipment they have ("Is it good enough?") and the equipment they don't have ("Do I need it?"). Worrying about gear is, IMO, antithetical to good photography; it focuses our attention onto the means rather than the end. When people ask - in these forums and elsewhere - "Do I need this particular piece of kit?", the answer is always "no". When they really need an item, to further their photography, they will simply know. If they have to save up for a couple of months to buy it, so much the better; they'll appreciate it all the more.

Ideally, our gear should always lag behind our needs, so we only buy what we really need... and aren't just swayed by the latest 'must have' accessory.

I really like this posts theme, "use your gear until you find out it holds you back".
My take is same, then, wait and see how much it is holding you back.
Is it just a few shots or more that 5%?
Were those "killer shots" that could have garnished you $$'s (if shooting for some income) or gave you that priceless satisfaction we all so crave?
Then study and buy the gear that serves your needs.

It's hard to add to what has already been said, but here's a couple of thoughts I have...

As long as manufacturers continue to make bodies that have improved dynamic range, high ISO capability, higher resolution, and more accurate consistent focus performance, I will want to upgrade as these things are all areas that can improve my photos. The same goes for lenses in terms of AF performance, image stabilization, and overall optical performance.

There's no doubt my previous 500D and 18-55 kit lens could take some great pictures, but there's also no doubt that my 7D and 17-55 f2.8 lens has allowed me to push my photography and also get less OOF shots in a variety of situations.

But, I'm also a gear head, and to be perfectly honest, researching, buying, and playing with gear (including trying it in situations that push it to the limits) is as much a part of the hobby as the artistic side for me.

Now this post is also spot on - for some this is their hobby, and like most hobbies you can get into it at different levels....the sky is the limit, or your expendable $'s.
My buddies at work spend $20-40k, heck $80k+ on their race car hobbies.
My Home Theater buddies spend $20k+ on the gear, some just that much on a Projector and an anamorphic lens, and they upgrade every 2 years, selling their old "gear" for latest gear.


Now, for some who have been doing this for a while, possible that new lens and/or body is a way to re-ignite the passion they once had and lost.

Look at this shot, I saw 5 deer walking on my front property yesterday while there was still light but it was fading fast.
I grabbed mt T1i and 70-200 f2.8 L.

My "gear", the new 70-200 f2.8 L mkII on my 1 year old T1i, even rested it on my front porch ledge as I was shooting.
Even wide open @ f2.8 I had to crank up the ISO to 3200 for just 1/15 sec, then had to being up the exposure in PP, too much noise for the T1i.
I'd say a 7D or a 5D could have taken this noisy shot at same ISO and I'd have had a "keeper".
However, this happens so infrequently for my I'm not rushing out for a better body just yet, until the need dictates the hardware.

 

[kallisti]

I really like this posts theme, "use your gear until you find out it holds you back".

Look at this shot, I saw 5 deer walking on my front property yesterday while there was still light but it was fading fast.
I grabbed mt T1i and 70-200 f2.8 L.

My "gear", the new 70-200 f2.8 L mkII on my 1 year old T1i, even rested it on my front porch ledge as I was shooting.
Even wide open @ f2.8 I had to crank up the ISO to 3200 for just 1/15 sec, then had to being up the exposure in PP, too much noise for the T1i.
I'd say a 7D or a 5D could have taken this noisy shot at same ISO and I'd have had a "keeper".
However, this happens so infrequently for my I'm not rushing out for a better body just yet, until the need dictates the hardware.

Good points made in your post. I wish I had a good deer shot in my collection....

You had the lens for the shot (and arguably the body). While it wasn't taken on a tripod, you indicated that you had external support at the time of image capture. I don't think the presence of "noise" makes or breaks this image (your worry that a better body would have turned it into a "keeper.")

I think this image is all about timing, composition, and light. You were limited in your timing: the deer were there at that particular moment. No way to adjust their position or expression. You were limited in composition by the dictates of the moment. Moving to a different shooting position wasn't an option. The light was what it was. Flash was out of the question as was waiting for different natural light: the shot only existed for that moment.

The image is what it is. Better gear wouldn't have changed it (as it was actually shot with decent gear). Arguably a longer telephoto really filling the frame with the deer *might* have been more interesting, but that is debatable and would be considerably more expensive since it would require a fast telephoto. Any "problems" with the image are problems that likely wouldn't be solved with gear. It's possible that taking the image at a slightly different time might have resulted in a more interesting composition (the deer not stacked on top of each other, but rather more spread out). It's also quite possible that a "better" composition couldn't have been achieved (deer don't arrange themselves for a viewer's benefit; patience might not have played out). This may very well be the best that could have been achieved at the time by any photographer with any gear. I defer to the dedicated nature photographers out there though for a more experienced opinion.

 

[Cliff3]

Along the lines of holding off buying something until your gear holds you back, the photo I posted yesterday in the POTD thread is a candidate. I have been resisting selling my 80-200 f2.8 AF-S lens for a few years, but I know there are many situations I encounter where VR would help me make the shot. One of the things holding me back were the poor reviews of the first version of the 70-200 f2.8 AF-S VR on FX cameras.



This shot was handheld as tripods aren't allowed in the museum. The shot was as good as I could manage, all things considered: 200mm @ 1/100, f2.8 and ISO 5000. I probably could have found a slightly quicker shutter speed by bumping my ISO all the way up to 6400. I don't like to go higher than 6400. VR would have improved the sharpness of the subject, and a skosh more DOF wouldn't have hurt the composition either.

Panning shots at motorsport events are another area where the new lens would be of benefit. My cost delta is around $900 (~$1300+ selling price for the old lens vs $2160 for the new one). Something to ponder.

 

[Phrasikleia]

It's also quite possible that a "better" composition couldn't have been achieved (deer don't arrange themselves for a viewer's benefit; patience might not have played out).

On the contrary, wildlife photographers are the most patient photographers I know! I recently met a very successful one, Suzi Eszterhas, who said she once followed around a family of leopard cubs (I think it was) in Africa for four months just to get the one shot that she really wanted. Getting all of the ingredients of a great wildlife shot to come together in a single image usually takes a staggering amount of patience and planning.

 

[Rt&Dzine]

I've thought about this a lot. I just bought my first dSLR last fall and I've greatly been enjoying learning how to properly use it. But for what I do, I've often wondered if a high-end compact (like the Fujifilm X100) wouldn't be better for what I do. I mainly shoot concert photography in dark indie clubs and medium-sized venues and the occasional street shots. It would be awesome to have a smaller camera than my D5000 and 35 f/1.8 (although that's already a pretty small combo) so I don't have to worry about people knocking into the camera, spilling beer all over it, babying it after the show when I'm hanging out with friends, etc, etc.

Possible solution. If you could pick up a broken dSLR for 'nothing' and wear it solely for professional status but with no fear of knocks, beer spills, etc. But shoot with your high-end protected p&s. The drawback is that the dSLR would be a cumbersome status symbol.

 

[Ruahrc]

I don't think sebascrub's problem was professional appearance- he was just talking about the fact that his camera was larger than he preferred. Bringing a broken DLSR purely for appearance would seem to be even worse no?

The one thing that compact cameras usually lack over DSLRs is focusing ability. Usually because they do not have a phase-detect AF system and instead rely on the slower contrast detection method. If the Fujifilm focused more slowly than the DSLR, I think it would be more difficult to get good shots, especially in a dark fast moving environment like a club.

Ruahrc

 

[Rt&Dzine]

I suggested a possible solution for sebascrub based on these comments. I was thinking of situations with especially wild crowds. But you're probably correct. Not an ideal solution.

Last year, before I bought my dSLR, I shot NXNE with a small Canon P&S (I forget the exact model... I borrowed it). The results were more than acceptable, especially at "standard" print sizes in B&W on newsprint. But the reactions I got trying to "skip" the line to get into packed shows with my photo pass and start shooting with a P&S were quite skeptical. Ever since I got my dSLR, though, no one bats an eye — they just look at the credentials and wave me in. Beyond better higher ISO performances and perhaps the choice of faster lenses (still drooling after a 50mm f/1.4 AF-S), the "legitimacy" with which a more expensive camera comes was a major factor in my decision.