Two Different Ways of Looking at Cameras

[Luke]

I posted a shot on my flickr today that may be representative of why I love chasing gear and why it (chasing gear) may seem useless as well. And it's appropos (spelling?) that Mr. Flores is in the room. It's my new favorite cat shot (but not necessarily my favorite camera). So what does that mean? I prefer a great shot over a great "technical" shot...the content is king....if I get the shot I'm after, I don't care what camera I used .....
View attachment 66762
he's not known for his smile by Lukinosity, on Flickr

 

[entropic remnants]

They seemed to like your LX7 stuff, but not so much the cows.

I love the OM-D, it is a little jewel of a camera. I like it so much I have two. I just wish it would CAF.

Gary

Doh! I thought you meant AF in general for some reason. Yes continuous tracking AF is definitely shabby.

 

[Steve Noel]

I've been at this long enough to know what I can (and cannot) do, with what ever camera I may be using. But, The camera can help me do the job, or just go along for the ride. I've not had a camera in a few years, that kept me from getting the picture. But, when I "click" with the operational part of the camera, I find I am more creative, because I'm not having to drag the camera up to my way of working. So, I am of the "what can the camera do for me", by working with me.

 

[jloden]

Somewhat tangential to the original question, but related: I've also come to realize *what* you shoot is a critical factor for gear approaches, almost as big as one's inherent attitude towards tools.

I look at people that buy one camera and stick with it, or shoot with one lens (or even a small group of lenses) consistently and sometimes wonder why I seem incapable of it. Sure, part of it is I like my toys, so I'm predisposed to pursue gear. But there's also the simple fact that being relatively new to photography, there's no one genre I shoot - so I find myself trying to have something for everything. I've done wildlife, travel, landscapes, events, portraits and more - but no one thing has stuck for me. Until/unless that changes, I'm likely to always struggle with leaving well enough alone when it comes to my gear, or downsizing/streamlining what I own.

When I examine people I know that use small selections of carefully chosen gear, one common thread is they usually have well-defined areas of interest. They shoot studio portraits, or street photos, or birding. In other words, they're work can be concisely described or categorized. On the other hand, a look at my 500px portfolio which is essentially my favorite shots to date, you'll see portraits, documentary, journalism, wildlife, landscapes, and even architectural stuff. I don't think that makes me a better photographer (if anything, the opposite is likely the case) - but it strongly influences my propensity for gear churn.

To more directly address the original point: as a result I'm often looking at "what can this camera do?" partially because just about every feature of a camera is going to get used *somewhere* in one of the genres I shoot. Instead of being able to say "I do landscapes, I need great low ISO resolution and dynamic range, but high ISO doesn't matter", I end up thinking "well I can use that for landscapes, this for night shots, this for portraits and oh, what about wildlife?" :tongue:

 

[Gary]

... On the other hand, a look at my 500px portfolio which is essentially my favorite shots to date, you'll see portraits, documentary, journalism, wildlife, landscapes, and even architectural stuff. I don't think that makes me a better photographer (if anything, the opposite is likely the case) - but it strongly influences my propensity for gear churn. ...

I would like to think it does make you a better photographer. But it's a two-sided coin ... on one hand ... if you take what you've learned shooting a certain genre and apply it to a new/different genre, to your advantage. Then shooting a bunch of different stuff does help make you a better photographer. That is when experience enhances your skill. On the flip side, shooting a bunch of different stuff does dilute your expertise in one particular genre.

Hey John, this is your thread, what do you think?

Gary

 

[entropic remnants]

I would like to think it does make you a better photographer. But it's a two-sided coin ... on one hand ... if you take what you've learned shooting a certain genre and apply it to a new/different genre, to your advantage. Then shooting a bunch of different stuff does help make you a better photographer. That is when experience enhances your skill. On the flip side, shooting a bunch of different stuff does dilute your expertise in one particular genre.

Hey John, this is your thread, what do you think?

Gary

Well, with regard to your "dilution" comment I don't know as it's quite true as you stated it though there's truth there. I'll modify that slightly and say "chops" in the sense of a musician rather than "expertise". If you play country music all the time, when you go to a jazz jam you might find yourself stumbling until your mind re-wraps itself around jazz -- even if you used to play a lot of jazz. There are some guys who just are always on point with anything -- but for us mere mortals we tend to be most fluid at what we drill on all the time.

So, when you tend to shoot certain genre's you do get somewhat biased in that creative "language" so-to-speak. However, if you had expertise in something else it's just a matter of drill and recall usually to get back to it. At least that's how I perceive it in my own life, lol. I'm picking at nits on your language though probably, sorry.

But on the original topic I think I'm seeing that really those two choices are, as you said, two sides of a coin. There is an interplay between gear capability and your inclination to shoot that can't be ignored. I pride myself -- and pride goeth before a fall, lol -- on being a photographer whose vision and "chops" can to some extent overcome the limitations of the gear I'm using. I work to ensure I have mastered my gear (to my own satisfaction at least) for what I do.

I think I started this topic to a great extent to express an impatience I have with gear discussions sometimes. Yes, I have opinions also but it seems they sometimes go on ad-nauseum and seem to miss the point of what's involved in actually making images. I wanted to see how people think and I'm actually quite impressed with what I've read here.

We had folks who came down more on one side or the other -- but when you read between the lines of their replies you see nobody either said "gear just doesn't matter" or "gear defines your imaging result entirely".

So, from that standpoint, I think only a fool would pedantically defend only one position over the other -- and we don't seem to have any fools here!

Thanks for an enjoyable discussion and if anyone else wants to chime in then keep the comments coming. Your comments have helped me clarify my own thinking on these issues.

 

[TraamisVOS]

Whenever I pick up a new camera I think to myself, "Where are the cats?"

haha