Do you really NEED better gear?

[compuwar]

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.

I carry way more weight with a DSLR than I did with view cameras.
When I shot LF, other than a couple of specific instances, I knew I was going to be shooting landscapes and that my field of view was going to be one of two lenses depending on if I was going to shoot with my "crop" 4x5 back or "full frame" at 5x7- even carrying a selection of B&W negative and color positives I think I carry about 25lbs or so more now. It's more difficult to leave a lot of lenses/flashes at home since I might find opportunities to shoot more than just landscapes or architecture.

Paul

 

[sebascrub]

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.

Yeah, but as long as I'm going to lug around a dSLR, may as well use it. Though, a high-end P&S would be incredibly convenient at times. Unfortunately, I can't afford any of the better ones in addition to my dSLR kit.

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

That's definitely something to consider — performance beyond the lens and sensor. I shot a punk show last night at a small club, one of my favourite venues in the city, and I kept wishing I just had a small P&S with a fast lens to just put up to my eye and shoot as the moments dictated it. In those small bars, it doesn't really matter if I have a massive dSLR or not. But I may find it will matter when it comes to things like focusing in the near dark, fast AF, tracking, etc.

But, I shot Motorhead on Thursday night and in situations like those, while a camera like the X100 could potentially work just as well, it's a totally different thing to walk in with a dSLR. It just says that you "know" what you're doing, regardless if you do (as was the case when I shot my first show ). dSLRs carry with them a certain cachet of professionalism, for better or worse. We've all fallen into the trap of buying more/better gear to become "better" photographers and to the lay-person, more expensive gear means a better photographer. Unfortunately, for the kind of semi-amateur shooting I do, these kind of considerations matter. I have to "look" professional and that tends to mean a dSLR of some variety (even a lower end D5000 like mine).

 

[Ruahrc]

This reminds me of a saying I heard once: I think it is appropriate for this thread

"Newbies argue over camera bodies, amateurs argue over lenses, and true professionals just let their pictures do the arguing for them."

Ruahrc

 

[wisty]

This reminds me of a saying I heard once: I think it is appropriate for this thread

"Newbies argue over camera bodies, amateurs argue over lenses, and true professionals just let their pictures do the arguing for them."

Ruahrc

I heard it "a bad photographer worries about the camera, a good photographer worries about the lens, and a great photographer worries about the light".

You need a DSLR for low light, wide shots, long shots, fast shots, and fast moving targets. And for prints.

The reason people buy better gear is that it's the only way you know how to improve your photos. You can *try* to get better at composition, find better subjects, and all that jazz, but you don't know how to do all that - otherwise you would be doing it already.

You can practice, take lessons, look at good photos, and just walk around the street with one eye closed and your hands out framing a 100mm zoom (so you know what everything looks like to the camera), but you don't know what the pay-off will be.

Pay money, get sharper pictures, and have a new toy to play with - the costs and benefits are clear.

 

[DeeEss]

There will never be a yes or no answer to this. If you look at your images and need or want more dynamic range, more IQ, better and smoother colour and tonal range, better ergonomics, size, better bokeh etc then yes.

You need the gear if you need or want the difference. It's quite simple. Expensive gear is seriously expensive so you need to balance it with your current work and your aspirations, or just plain desires.

Sometimes if you just look at your images and don't like the look of it, gear can help. A soft and muddy lens will always look soft and muddy, but to a beginners eye it "just doesn't look right". It's best to learn about your images and determine what it is that needs to change. Buying a camera body is not going to help your composition for example.

If it's enough to get the job done, then fine. But if it's not enough to get to the next level then you could consider upgrading but it's not completely essential. I think you really do know when the time is right to step up. It will be determined by your work level, you clients needs and your bank balance. Generally I find the time is right when the job pays for or gets you some where near the cost of the gear. For example, if you are doing a job that is worth £50K then that £25K back becomes more relevant.

Though Photography is my passion and if it were just a hobby then I would buy what ever I wanted to. And if someone told me it was unecessary I would tell them to go jump. Your pictures are what matters. I find alot of negative comments about people having good gear early on in their hobby or career are just based around jealousy or elitism.

I can see a big difference in an image made with cheap or expensive cameras and my work reflects the need for that difference too. If the difference did not exist people wouldn't be spending great amounts on gear that eliminates that difference.

As for gear and professionals. Well the reason they don't worry so much about gear anymore is probably because they have the gear, have had a it for a while and it has become a part of their work, which is something easy to forget once you've been shooting with something for sometime. Sure, give them a lesser camera and the difference to most peoples eye will be minimal but I guarantee, to them it will be inferior. Personally, I have excpetionally high expectations of my own work and if I can keep myself happy, which is a job in itself, then that is all that matters to me.

Personally speaking gear doesn't ultimately make you take good pictures but new gear certainly can inspire you to take good pictures and individual pieces of gear can help develop your aesthetic. Style is something else though which comes from the heart, not gear. If someone is arguing to the contrary then they are just being elitist. But at the end of the day it really shouldn't be your driving force. Taking pictures and experimenting should be your driving force.

Your gear investment is probably best when it reflects your experience and skill set too. You see a lot of pictures made by people on expensive gear that look average and no different for what they could have created on much cheaper gear because it's badly exposed and retouched or has poor lighting. All the expensive and best gear in the world won't help you craft a photograph. That's experience and skill.

I invest in gear for many reasons, but the main 2 reasons are firstly because I want the best quality I can get and secondly because my business needs to spend money on it to offset tax.

 

[DeeEss]

I heard it "a bad photographer worries about the camera, a good photographer worries about the lens, and a great photographer worries about the light".

It's quite a good quote, but the best photographer worries about neither and takes care of all three.