A nice take on an age old question:
https://petapixel.com/2017/08/01/camera-gear-matter-hear-five-photographers-think/
https://petapixel.com/2017/08/01/camera-gear-matter-hear-five-photographers-think/
Does Gear Matter?
- Thread starter Woodyg3
- Start date
It does to me. If it matters or not to these other 5 photographers ,really has no effect on my life.
How is that Sigma 100-400 working out for you?
I've been eyeing a Tokina 100-300mm f/4 at KEH for a few days.
https://www.keh.com/shop/tokina-100-300mm-f-4-if-atx-autofocus-lens-for-nikon-77.html
https://www.keh.com/shop/tokina-100-300mm-f-4-if-atx-autofocus-lens-for-nikon-77.html
Gear absolutely matters in some situations more than others. However, the more you know the more you can extract from the gear you have. Don K. is a prime example. He was on here with a D5100 many years ago and I always said he could pull more from that camera than anyone I know.
Don't know. Walked into Guitar Center and walked out with an Ibanez acoustic solid top :indecisiveness:. Go figure.
I've got one of them I actually like the sound out of it has a little twang for the country tunes
I've got one of them I actually like the sound out of it has a little twang for the country tunes
I loved the sound of it. I tried a whole bunch of them out. I had about 300 bucks to spend (actually by the time I bought some extra strings and a Capo plus tax , I was 400 dollars poorer) and this just stood out. It actually sounded better than some of the 6-800 dollar ones I tried..
It came down to this and an Alverez. I'll post a pic in a little while.
Dawg Pics
Senior Member
I am not much of a player, but the shape of Ibanez necks feel odd in my hand. I have an inexpensive Alvarez. I like it. The set-up needs to be tweaked some.
Dawg Pics, and her D300?
is that the F2.8 or F4 version?
I think the answer was easier to give when we were still shooting analog. Back then, gear made life easier, but it mattered little, if at all, to how good a picture you were able to shoot.
In the digital world, things changed quite a bit, at least initially. I have taken some great shots with a D100 or D200 but, looking at them again, I wish I had the kind of cameras back then that I have today so these pics were at higher resolutions and had less noise than they do. As technology progressed, this has almost become a moot point given how good today's sensors are, but then another phenomenon crept up: with my D500 with good glass and at relatively high ISOs, I now get wildlife and particularly bird shots I would never have been able to get before (except for on a very lucky day), neither with a digital nor with an analog camera.
So, my bottom line is that gear matters to me in some areas of my shooting, while very little or not at all in most others.
In the digital world, things changed quite a bit, at least initially. I have taken some great shots with a D100 or D200 but, looking at them again, I wish I had the kind of cameras back then that I have today so these pics were at higher resolutions and had less noise than they do. As technology progressed, this has almost become a moot point given how good today's sensors are, but then another phenomenon crept up: with my D500 with good glass and at relatively high ISOs, I now get wildlife and particularly bird shots I would never have been able to get before (except for on a very lucky day), neither with a digital nor with an analog camera.
So, my bottom line is that gear matters to me in some areas of my shooting, while very little or not at all in most others.
If i use my D70 for say a spider shot with flash at a low iso display it on the web you wouldnt know it was 6mp and low DR, put a 100-400 on it in for a bird in flight it would be obvious, so i sort of agree with you.
Couldn't agree more. It always comes down to what you want to do with the shot. Plus, we've all heard the (very true) phrase that "the best camera is always the one you have with you".