more expensive the gear the better the photographer?

[marciofs]

The photographer tool is like the Lawer's suit or the Real state's car. If they look expensive it is a sign to others that they have money. And if they have money it means to people they are successful (and therefore good) on what they do. Even if not true, people will take advantage of others perception to feel more confident about themselves.

Also, the expensive tool makes the owner enviable (as the example of success), the others envie is the biggest self reassurance.

I think people feel more confident when they work with gear that make others perceive them as serious or even professional, gaining their respect and credit. It doesn't mean more expensive gear though. But if it looks expensive people tend to give more respect or consider him a more serious photographer.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

more expensive the gear the better the photographer?

Yes, if the more expensive piece of gear was designed with a specific capability that other less expensive similar gear was not, and if that capability was crucial to creating the message a photographer was attempting to convey, then odds are that the resulting efforts by that photographer will be better, however the photographer chooses to define that term.



Ken

 

[marciofs]

A great photographer can make good pictures with a box brownie, an iPhone, a Hasselblad H5D or a Linhof Master Technika. Better photographers tend to have "better" gear because either it gets out of their way and enables them to make the kinds of images they envision in their heads, or because they use their gear so much that they require the kind of durability and features the "better" gear provides. But the reverse corollary is much less true than the original.

A part from what you have already said, better photographers (specially professional ones) have better gear to:

1. Justify their higher rates.
2. to assure their clients the photographer is a real successful established professional. The same way Lawers do with expensive suits and others professional do with others expensive things.

I have covered weddings with "small cameras" and if the photographer is not confident enough, people suspicious look and judgement can shake the photographer because of his "no impressive tools". Or people stop give them their best because they are not sure about the photographer with the same camera model they gave to their daughters.

 

[marciofs]

more expensive the gear the better the photographer?

Yes, if the more expensive piece of gear was designed with a specific capability that other less expensive similar gear was not, and if that capability was crucial to creating the message a photographer was attempting to convey, then odds are that the resulting efforts by that photographer will be better, however the photographer chooses to define that term.



Ken

What you are talking about is not the more expensive gear but the more dedicated tool for certain specifc situation or result.

Pentax make cameras targeting amateurs, but their lenses and camera are often more solid and better than many models that other brands make targeting professional and charging higher prices. While Pentax is more affordable.

Nikon D70 and D70s was cheaper and not considered professional. Yet, is one of the best digital camera ever made by Nikon. More solide, 1/500 sync speed, more dynamic range. People still don't give its proper attention just because its "low price", paying higher prices on cameras more modern but less solid, very slow sync speed, and so on.

Fuji GX680, silly cheap camera for what it offers.

 

[marciofs]

At the end, a good photographer is the one who knows very well his tool in order to make the best with it.

And of course, Light (intensity, position, colour), composition, framing, pos edition, narrative, direction (if it is not a solo work), texture, colours and black, grey and white harmony, etc. These are what matter the most.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I enjoy working with 1st-class equipment;it makes photography more enjoyablewhen you can trust your equipment;money has no purpose other than trading it in for good stuff and Yes,my Hasselblad has made me a better photographer because,with it I new,the weakest link in the chain now was I!

+1

 

[Sirius Glass]

more expensive the gear the better the photographer?

Yes, if the more expensive piece of gear was designed with a specific capability that other less expensive similar gear was not, and if that capability was crucial to creating the message a photographer was attempting to convey, then odds are that the resulting efforts by that photographer will be better, however the photographer chooses to define that term.



Ken

+1

 

[marciofs]

I never had a Hasselblad, but this is not the brand that made the medium format camera which many people reported as always have mechanical problems? While its cheaper competitor Bronica never had such fame. Hasselblad had better glasses though. It was about the glasses and not about the camera itself that wasn't that great as far as I have learned.

 

[removed account4]

TFC

yes durability matters but there are extremely durable cameras that are not extremely expensive.
having expensive camera gear is an ego boost, silken gold on titanium knobs don't really do much
except look good. nickel plated or wood knobs do the exact same thing, but the difference is the silken knobs
make people think "boy that camera is expensive, that person must be good "
a $4000 ebony with a $3000 xxlFA lens in the hands of someone who is incompetent will make the same photographs
as a lesser quality camera and lens in the hands of the same photographer. he or she might feel good using the $7000 rig.
then again the bokeh with the junk lens might be more pleasing.
feeling good about oneself doesn't really translate to making great photographs
anymore than feeling great about oneself behind the wheel of an expensive automobile will make one a better driver.
plenty of kids who feel great about themselves fail both the written and practical driver's education tests.

 

[Kyle M.]

I own an Arca Swiss 4x5 I also own a Rolleiflex, I have owned both a Hasselblad and a Leica. I also have some cheaper cameras Crown Graphic, Busch Pressman, Mamiya C220, and a Fed 5B. My family and friends think I am a great photographer, I feel like a self righteous pompous ass even calling myself good. And I only have 4 or 5 shots that I consider to be real good let alone great. I don't believe that the gear makes the photographer, but I do believe that more expensive gear will lead some to perceive you as good or even great. Others of course will see right through it, in my opinion it's best not to think of yourself as great and let others decide for you. Of course if someone told me I was terrible I would probably take offense even though I should learn to disregard negative comments.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I never had a Hasselblad, but this is not the brand that made the medium format camera which many people reported as always have mechanical problems? While its cheaper competitor Bronica never had such fame. Hasselblad had better glasses though. It was about the glasses and not about the camera itself that wasn't that great as far as I have learned.

The so called Hasselblad problems that you refer to are because the complainers never RTFM. Any camera can be screwed up by an oaf.

 

[GRHazelton]

My first 35mm SLR was a Praktica LTL, then came a Pentax K 1000, followed by a Pentax MX. Then I bought a used Pentax LX and realized that I could no longer blame my failings on my gear, since I now owned a truly professional caliber camera. In truth, my failings were and are my own, not the fault of my gear. Granted, the LX made some things easier, and to a limited extent the technical quality of my shots improved, but any improvement in the quality of composition, etc, was MY responsibility.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

A great photographer can make good pictures with a box brownie, an iPhone, a Hasselblad H5D or a Linhof Master Technika. Better photographers tend to have "better" gear because either it gets out of their way and enables them to make the kinds of images they envision in their heads, or because they use their gear so much that they require the kind of durability and features the "better" gear provides. But the reverse corollary is much less true than the original.

TFC

yes durability matters but there are extremely durable cameras that are not extremely expensive.
having expensive camera gear is an ego boost, silken gold on titanium knobs don't really do much
except look good. nickel plated or wood knobs do the exact same thing, but the difference is the silken knobs
make people think "boy that camera is expensive, that person must be good "
a $4000 ebony with a $3000 xxlFA lens in the hands of someone who is incompetent will make the same photographs
as a lesser quality camera and lens in the hands of the same photographer. he or she might feel good using the $7000 rig.
then again the bokeh with the junk lens might be more pleasing.
feeling good about oneself doesn't really translate to making great photographs
anymore than feeling great about oneself behind the wheel of an expensive automobile will make one a better driver.
plenty of kids who feel great about themselves fail both the written and practical driver's education tests.

John- you've missed a lot of my point in the thread. If I were to address every caveat and possible condition under which the statement "Better photographers have more expensive gear" were false, I'd have bloviated for pages. I said "tend to have" meaning that there is a higher possibility that serious photographers have expensive gear. That doesn't mean that there is an absolute 1:1 correlation between price of gear and quality of work. You can certainly debate the quality of Miroslav Tichy's work from an aesthetic standpoint, but he's certainly far more famous a photographer than anyone reading this post, yet he's working with cameras most people wouldn't even recognize as a camera, more like a pile of debris ready for the trash heap. But for every Miroslav Tichy, there's a Helmut Newton, a Bruce Weber, a Richard Avedon, a Robert Mapplethorpe and an Ansel Adams who all shot with brand-name gear. Is professional panache part of the reason? sometimes yes. Do some pros buy gear by brand name? sure. But would that same pro buy a Hasselblad instead of a Nikon if they were planning to photograph extremely small, extremely fast birds at great distances? No. Would they choose a Canon over Nikon, or Nikon over Canon, or Leica over both? quite possibly. And if they can afford it, and they feel the tool they chose for prestige is still delivering what they need image-wise, then the value equation in their head is being fulfilled and there's no real reason to dispute it.

 

[paul ron]

Is that all I needed? no wonder my pix are so lousy! If I had only known sooner.

 

[mweintraub]

The so called Hasselblad problems that you refer to are because the complainers never RTFM. Any camera can be screwed up by an oaf.

While someone can RTFM a 100 times and do one thing wrong and lock up the machine. It's not about not reading the manual, it's about maybe forgetting one of the many steps you need to follow to not lock up the system.

 

[mweintraub]

I never had a Hasselblad, but this is not the brand that made the medium format camera which many people reported as always have mechanical problems? While its cheaper competitor Bronica never had such fame. Hasselblad had better glasses though. It was about the glasses and not about the camera itself that wasn't that great as far as I have learned.

As someone who shoots with a Bronica SQ-A, I find the Hassy V series and Kiev system a chore to use sometimes. Especially loading. Loading back, making sure color is right and matches the colors, having the back lock up and not usable in the field, etc. With the Bronica, load film in the back, slap on the camera, wind the crank, done.

 

[removed account4]

John- you've missed a lot of my point in the thread.

scott: not really i agree with most of what you have said
i have read most of the 22 pages of posts, ( i don't read people i have on ignore.)

my whole point:
quality of gear has nothing to do with quality of images.
if the person is incompetent, even the most expensive gear won't help.

in other words, no amount of expensive gear will make the elephant in the room disappear.

 

[Vonder]

I'm a professional violinist, and have been Concertmaster of several professional orchestras. I get asked this question in musical guise, hundreds and hundreds of times. My answer is always the same.

"At the highest level of performance, good equipment is essential. What good is a Stradivarius if it cannot play as fast as you can, or the music requires?" ...

/snip

As long as the tool doesn't get in the way of results, use whatever you want.

One guy's opinion.

Just wanted to agree with what others have written about this post. Excellent and thorough, well-written in every way. You pointed out how mastery affects, or interacts with, the equipment you use. I more fully appreciate that now, and I see where I, myself, fit in.

I am master of nothing. While I have, in my day, earned a Master's Degree in Science and defeated a master-level chess player in tournament play, I have never achieved true mastery of anything. My life has been more as jack of all trades. I am ok at a lot of things, but very good at nearly nothing.

Hence, my "choice" of camera is everything. I can't, don't want to, stick to one or a few formats; I want them all. I kid myself sometimes that a certain camera has a special use, a special purpose, but it's seldom the whole truth. I simply like new toys, and I'm ok with that. I have some expensive-to-me equipment but will never invest in any one system. If I do acquire a very good piece of kit I usually end up selling it down the road to fund the high of the new.

With all my gear and all the different stuff I have I'm probably closest to mastery of knowing more about more camera systems than anyone has a logical right to. I'm sure no better as an artist than I was 20 years ago.

 

[baachitraka]

Its always the person who handles the tool.

Many evenings I have spent searching in Leica camera/lens groups inFlickr for ultimate photos but I was terribly disappointed except few exceptions.

At the same time I have seen some outstanding I work shot with Triotar or with Holgas.

There are many factors but it is always the person behind the camera, the fundamental one.

 

[benjiboy]

What do you do if you have the most expensive equipment that money can buy and your work is still crap ?. Having a Stradivarius makes you a Stradivarius owner, not a concert violinist.

 

[Peter Schrager]

Damn I gotta go out and get more expensive equipment. ..actually I've been dumping as much as possible but I do appreciate the stuff I've kept...fun thread folks!!

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Damn I gotta go out and get more expensive equipment...

Only if it's critical to what you are trying to say. And when you have reached the point of having said all that you intended to say, you can then resell and recoup some or all of the expense. I still have 11 nice condition used 5x7 film holders purchased from someone whom I suspect did just that.



Ken

 

[removed account4]

What do you do if you have the most expensive equipment that money can buy and your work is still crap ?. Having a Stradivarius makes you a Stradivarius owner, not a concert violinist.

hi benjiboy

the beautiful thing about it all is that no matter how good(or bad) someone might be with a camera, whether they are the next ansel adams, or saul wright, there is
always a way to improve. if someone has the most expensive equipment money can buy they will have a beautiful, ergonomicly designed, fun/easy to use camera/lens &c
which will be a pleasure to use, improve, and grow into if that same person ( with room to grow ) has a massive bloated ego and thinks they are a genius and masterful
and that they are the best there is / there is no room for improvement, they can still keep doing their thing with a beautiful and expensive camera.
i feel kind of bad for that person because half the fun of making photographs is making bad one and learning from all the dumb mistakes to do better for the next time.

 

[benjiboy]

hi benjiboy

the beautiful thing about it all is that no matter how good(or bad) someone might be with a camera, whether they are the next ansel adams, or saul wright, there is
always a way to improve. if someone has the most expensive equipment money can buy they will have a beautiful, ergonomicly designed, fun/easy to use camera/lens &c
which will be a pleasure to use, improve, and grow into if that same person ( with room to grow ) has a massive bloated ego and thinks they are a genius and masterful
and that they are the best there is / there is no room for improvement, they can still keep doing their thing with a beautiful and expensive camera.
i feel kind of bad for that person because half the fun of making photographs is making bad one and learning from all the dumb mistakes to do better for the next time.

I'm sure you are aware John that these days many well heeled amateurs have a quantity and quality of equipment that many struggling professionals would give their high teeth for because pro's have to justify the purchase of new equipment on the grounds of sales and potential profit, building up their bank balance not their equipment inventory. Many working pro's make their living with equipment with gear that most rank amateurs would scoff at, but because of their skill, photographic knowledge and experience can still produce good work with.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Tichy's work is in museums. For him, it's not about the gear. It's his lust and making pictures of women.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/85005511689272504/