Why obsess over gear?

Damn Brit · 04-09-2010, 03:02 PM

Obsessing over the gear is the 'lemming approach' to taking better pictures. A good photographer posts a picture and says "Hey guys, look what I took with such and such lens'. Although people subconsciously realise that the photographer took the picture, not the lens, people ignore their inner voice and crave the lens (or whatever other piece of equipment).
If you have the worst equipment in the world and stick with it, your photography will improve. If you have the best equipment in the world your photography is likely to achieve the opposite because people will have higher expectations of you.

johnmflores · 04-09-2010, 04:07 PM

The father of modern public relations (and advertising, arguably) was Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud. He moved marketing away from a simple, rational accounting of product benefits and towards the idea that products can embody emotions and desires and impart a positive halo upon the owners of those products. This is the core of modern branding, and the foundation of modern, consumer societies. This is what compels many to obsess over gear - marketers have been very effective at making people believe that the shortest path to self-actualization - becoming a better photographer - is by buying new gear.

If you are interested, I highly recommend "The Century of the Self," a documentary on some of these ideas, stretching from Freud to his nephew Bernays, to American advertising in the middle of the 20th century and, interestingly, to Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign in 1980. Through the magic of the Internets, it's available on YouTube...

You Tube

tokyoso · 04-09-2010, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Damn Brit

Obsessing over the gear is the 'lemming approach' to taking better pictures. A good photographer posts a picture and says "Hey guys, look what I took with such and such lens'. Although people subconsciously realise that the photographer took the picture, not the lens, people ignore their inner voice and crave the lens (or whatever other piece of equipment).
If you have the worst equipment in the world and stick with it, your photography will improve. If you have the best equipment in the world your photography is likely to achieve the opposite because people will have higher expectations of you.

very well said. although lens brochures feature tons of great images taken with said lenses, people usually dismiss that as being pro bono work. no i couldn't have done that!

now, if you get on the internet and google up some pics taken with pentax lenses posted on pentaxforums.com then it feels like amature shots and people will want to buy that lens because hey thats taken by a amature just like me and he couldn't have taken it or pp'd it any better than i do. now i NEED that lens.

**rparmar** · 04-09-2010, 04:34 PM

The best way to cure the probem is to buy a film camera and normal lens and shoot nothing else.

You may find you have never been happier.

jct us101 · 04-09-2010, 05:27 PM

You know, the people who say that if they buy the most expensive camera and lens they'll be able to get the best photos out there bother me. I pride myself on buying older cameras that are outdated and don't have things like 3 inch LCDs, and then I like to show them how much more awesome my bridge photo is than their little flower macro that they took with a $1000 lens.

RioRico · 04-09-2010, 10:00 PM

I don't feel like a lemming. (Hey, I'm PENTAXIAN now! No Canikonympus sap here!) I'm resistant to marketing, as evidenced by my few AF lens and my pile of old cheap glass. (And I don't watch TV.) I'm a bottom-feeding thrift-shop kinda guy when it comes to optics. More for less, that's my motto.

I won't attribute motives to others; everyone is free to make their own decisions and mistakes. I can only examine my own obsessions and note that I've pretty much stopped accumulating books, instruments, electronics, indigenous pottery, wall-art, cookware, and yes, even lenses. And that my rather large pile of lenses still occupies rather less volume and expense than my pile of AV gear, or stringed instruments, or even pottery. (A couple craft items are each worth more than all my photo gear.)

How others deal with their obsessions is their problem, not mine, as long as they don't get too uppity in my presence. I especially don't want to hear from Scientologists.

mysticcowboy · 04-09-2010, 10:38 PM

If you are always shopping for new gear in your mind, changing cameras won't make it stop. Pentax, Olympus, Nikon, it doesn't matter. It's craving. I have it too, big time. I bought my K20D last April and limited myself to two lenses for the year. Do I want more? Absolutely. Will more lenses make me a better photographer? Not likely.

What I've found is that the more I just get out and shoot, the less I lust after more gear. Yes, if I got some long glass I'd spend more time looking for birds to shoot. I don't have a long lens so I'm forced to look for closer and larger subjects. I'm a better photographer for the discipline of really learning my camera and lenses. But, boy does that new 18 megapixel Canon look good... ;-)

michael mckee
My Port Townsend – A City in Photographs – 365

AOShep · 04-09-2010, 11:06 PM

A few years ago National Geographic had an issue highlighing digital images where the editor told all of the mags photographers they had to use an entry level DSLR cameras. They had to put away their pro level camera. Most of them objected but if they wanted in on this issue they had to shoot by the rules. The editor wanted to demonstrate that great pictures are created by good photographers, not top notch gear.

tokyoso · 04-10-2010, 05:20 AM

Originally posted by RioRico

I don't feel like a lemming. (Hey, I'm PENTAXIAN now! No Canikonympus sap here!)

Hmm.. might need to throw lumix into that mix soon. being a lemming sucks...

TOUGEFC · 04-10-2010, 05:24 AM

Originally posted by AOShep

A few years ago National Geographic had an issue highlighing digital images where the editor told all of the mags photographers they had to use an entry level DSLR cameras. They had to put away their pro level camera. Most of them objected but if they wanted in on this issue they had to shoot by the rules. The editor wanted to demonstrate that great pictures are created by good photographers, not top notch gear.

That sounds very interesting, would love to see that issue!

johnmflores · 04-10-2010, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by RioRico

I don't feel like a lemming. (Hey, I'm PENTAXIAN now! No Canikonympus sap here!) I'm resistant to marketing, as evidenced by my few AF lens and my pile of old cheap glass. (And I don't watch TV.) I'm a bottom-feeding thrift-shop kinda guy when it comes to optics. More for less, that's my motto.

I won't attribute motives to others; everyone is free to make their own decisions and mistakes. I can only examine my own obsessions and note that I've pretty much stopped accumulating books, instruments, electronics, indigenous pottery, wall-art, cookware, and yes, even lenses. And that my rather large pile of lenses still occupies rather less volume and expense than my pile of AV gear, or stringed instruments, or even pottery. (A couple craft items are each worth more than all my photo gear.)

How others deal with their obsessions is their problem, not mine, as long as they don't get too uppity in my presence. I especially don't want to hear from Scientologists.

Maybe you unwittingly fell into the jaws of Pentax marketing with all their talk of compatibility with older glass. Because while Canon and Nikon's compatibility don't go as far back into the ancient past as Pentax, there is probably a lot of good to great glass from the 80s and 90s that will mount on current dSLR bodies. And because they are much bigger than Pentax, there's probably a bigger used market too.

Canon, due to their short registration distance, has great adaptability with older glass - including Pentax and Nikon lenses - yet they don't really promote that fact all that much in their marketing. Seems like they are successful enough without it.

Lemmings, after all, don't feel like lemmings either.

RioRico · 04-10-2010, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by johnmflores

Maybe you unwittingly fell into the jaws of Pentax marketing with all their talk of compatibility with older glass.

I can honestly say, NOPE. I didn't read Pentax or any other brand-specific forums when researching my first dSLR purchase. I didn't read Pentax marketing hype. (Did Pentax even HAVE marketing hype in the US in early 2008?) If anything, I leaned towards Sony, followed by Olympus, as I'd used and loved their cams. I fondled some Nikons and was impressed, and some Canons and was unimpressed. Pentax wasn't even on my radar when I started the search. And I didn't even consider the legacy-lens market, not until much later. Availability of old glass was never a factor.

Nope. I went to dpreview and other photo review sites, read tech reports, but especially USER RATINGS. I saw what was being bitched about. I saw that, for the money and megapickles, Pentax cams got bitched about less and rated higher.

And (as I sometimes repeat here) I asked myself: What do I want to do that I can't do with what I have? Where my Sony DSC-V1 lacked was: ultrawide, ultralong, and low-noise low-light. Everyone has long and fast lenses. So I looked foremost at ultrawide / fisheye lenses, and the only ones I could afford were from Pentax and Olympus. And Olympus had issues; I didn't think I'd be happy with then-current Oly cams for any length of time.

I'm trained in systems analysis. I applied that training, building spreadsheets and charts of features and gripes and price-performance etc. I crunched numbers. And that led me to Pentax. Despite marketing, despite biases, I came to Pentax. In pre-dSLR days I never used Pentax. I've owned (and still do) Olympus, Canon, Minolta, Sony, Kodak (one of the best!)(and some of the worst), Yashica, others, but never Pentax. Yet cold analysis led me to Pentax.

Quote:

Lemmings, after all, don't feel like lemmings either.

And of course, Lemmings AREN'T lemmings. Those mass suicides were staged by Disney. The same Disney that's perverted copyright law, but that's another issue.

redeleon · 04-10-2010, 03:41 PM

you have a sickness my friend... its Gear Acquisition Syndrome (GAS)

jct us101 · 04-10-2010, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by redeleon

you have a sickness my friend... its Gear Acquisition Syndrome (GAS)

I have that all the time.

Well I guess I have two different kinds of that all the time.

*goes to eat some beans and rice*

wjt · 04-10-2010, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by johnmflores

Maybe you unwittingly fell into the jaws of Pentax marketing with all their talk of compatibility with older glass.

When i was deciding on my dlsr i was on the fence between pentax with the K-7 and nikon with the D300, the price wasn't really my issue and i was leaning towards nikon until i found these here forums. The people on the forum here overall helpful and friendly, there were good user reviews on everything i was looking at. If not for the PF, i would right now be shooting Nikon.

As for OP, I do like new (and old) shiny things

But I don't think buying new/different gear will make me do anything better, differently yes but not necessarily better.

My wife calls me a bower bird due to my ever growing collection of 'shinies' but hey, I say enjoy it while you can. I will buy more lenses, I will buy another camera, I will buy, I will buy, I will buy... until circumstances change and i cant afford to... then i shall sit upon my grand pile of shiny things and rejoice.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Abstract My Classic Gear	janury87	Post Your Photos!	7	11-18-2009 09:35 PM
What gear will I need?	nicholaspaul	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	33	05-12-2009 04:46 PM
New gear,	Birds eye view	Welcomes and Introductions	4	01-29-2009 03:36 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax gear for Canon gear	pingflood	Sold Items	13	01-23-2009 01:56 AM
So I got some lighting gear and don't know what to do with it	pingflood	Photographic Technique	11	08-21-2008 04:28 PM

04-09-2010, 03:02 PM	#16
Damn Brit Guest	Obsessing over the gear is the 'lemming approach' to taking better pictures. A good photographer posts a picture and says "Hey guys, look what I took with such and such lens'. Although people subconsciously realise that the photographer took the picture, not the lens, people ignore their inner voice and crave the lens (or whatever other piece of equipment). If you have the worst equipment in the world and stick with it, your photography will improve. If you have the best equipment in the world your photography is likely to achieve the opposite because people will have higher expectations of you.

04-09-2010, 04:18 PM	#18
tokyoso Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Tokyo Photos: Albums Posts: 723	Originally posted by Damn Brit Obsessing over the gear is the 'lemming approach' to taking better pictures. A good photographer posts a picture and says "Hey guys, look what I took with such and such lens'. Although people subconsciously realise that the photographer took the picture, not the lens, people ignore their inner voice and crave the lens (or whatever other piece of equipment). If you have the worst equipment in the world and stick with it, your photography will improve. If you have the best equipment in the world your photography is likely to achieve the opposite because people will have higher expectations of you. very well said. although lens brochures feature tons of great images taken with said lenses, people usually dismiss that as being pro bono work. no i couldn't have done that! now, if you get on the internet and google up some pics taken with pentax lenses posted on pentaxforums.com then it feels like amature shots and people will want to buy that lens because hey thats taken by a amature just like me and he couldn't have taken it or pp'd it any better than i do. now i NEED that lens.

04-09-2010, 04:34 PM	#19
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,823	The best way to cure the probem is to buy a film camera and normal lens and shoot nothing else. You may find you have never been happier.

04-09-2010, 05:27 PM	#20
jct us101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Rohnert Park, CA Posts: 3,793	You know, the people who say that if they buy the most expensive camera and lens they'll be able to get the best photos out there bother me. I pride myself on buying older cameras that are outdated and don't have things like 3 inch LCDs, and then I like to show them how much more awesome my bridge photo is than their little flower macro that they took with a $1000 lens.

04-09-2010, 10:00 PM	#21
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	I don't feel like a lemming. (Hey, I'm PENTAXIAN now! No Canikonympus sap here!) I'm resistant to marketing, as evidenced by my few AF lens and my pile of old cheap glass. (And I don't watch TV.) I'm a bottom-feeding thrift-shop kinda guy when it comes to optics. More for less, that's my motto. I won't attribute motives to others; everyone is free to make their own decisions and mistakes. I can only examine my own obsessions and note that I've pretty much stopped accumulating books, instruments, electronics, indigenous pottery, wall-art, cookware, and yes, even lenses. And that my rather large pile of lenses still occupies rather less volume and expense than my pile of AV gear, or stringed instruments, or even pottery. (A couple craft items are each worth more than all my photo gear.) How others deal with their obsessions is their problem, not mine, as long as they don't get too uppity in my presence. I especially don't want to hear from Scientologists.

04-09-2010, 10:38 PM	#22
mysticcowboy Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: port townsend, wa Photos: Albums Posts: 968	If you are always shopping for new gear in your mind, changing cameras won't make it stop. Pentax, Olympus, Nikon, it doesn't matter. It's craving. I have it too, big time. I bought my K20D last April and limited myself to two lenses for the year. Do I want more? Absolutely. Will more lenses make me a better photographer? Not likely. What I've found is that the more I just get out and shoot, the less I lust after more gear. Yes, if I got some long glass I'd spend more time looking for birds to shoot. I don't have a long lens so I'm forced to look for closer and larger subjects. I'm a better photographer for the discipline of really learning my camera and lenses. But, boy does that new 18 megapixel Canon look good... ;-) michael mckee My Port Townsend – A City in Photographs – 365

04-09-2010, 11:06 PM	#23
AOShep Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Eastern PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 293	A few years ago National Geographic had an issue highlighing digital images where the editor told all of the mags photographers they had to use an entry level DSLR cameras. They had to put away their pro level camera. Most of them objected but if they wanted in on this issue they had to shoot by the rules. The editor wanted to demonstrate that great pictures are created by good photographers, not top notch gear.

04-10-2010, 05:20 AM	#24
tokyoso Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Tokyo Photos: Albums Posts: 723	Originally posted by RioRico I don't feel like a lemming. (Hey, I'm PENTAXIAN now! No Canikonympus sap here!) Hmm.. might need to throw lumix into that mix soon. being a lemming sucks...

04-10-2010, 05:24 AM	#25
TOUGEFC Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,561	Originally posted by AOShep A few years ago National Geographic had an issue highlighing digital images where the editor told all of the mags photographers they had to use an entry level DSLR cameras. They had to put away their pro level camera. Most of them objected but if they wanted in on this issue they had to shoot by the rules. The editor wanted to demonstrate that great pictures are created by good photographers, not top notch gear. That sounds very interesting, would love to see that issue!

04-10-2010, 06:56 AM	#26
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Originally posted by RioRico I don't feel like a lemming. (Hey, I'm PENTAXIAN now! No Canikonympus sap here!) I'm resistant to marketing, as evidenced by my few AF lens and my pile of old cheap glass. (And I don't watch TV.) I'm a bottom-feeding thrift-shop kinda guy when it comes to optics. More for less, that's my motto. I won't attribute motives to others; everyone is free to make their own decisions and mistakes. I can only examine my own obsessions and note that I've pretty much stopped accumulating books, instruments, electronics, indigenous pottery, wall-art, cookware, and yes, even lenses. And that my rather large pile of lenses still occupies rather less volume and expense than my pile of AV gear, or stringed instruments, or even pottery. (A couple craft items are each worth more than all my photo gear.) How others deal with their obsessions is their problem, not mine, as long as they don't get too uppity in my presence. I especially don't want to hear from Scientologists. Maybe you unwittingly fell into the jaws of Pentax marketing with all their talk of compatibility with older glass. Because while Canon and Nikon's compatibility don't go as far back into the ancient past as Pentax, there is probably a lot of good to great glass from the 80s and 90s that will mount on current dSLR bodies. And because they are much bigger than Pentax, there's probably a bigger used market too. Canon, due to their short registration distance, has great adaptability with older glass - including Pentax and Nikon lenses - yet they don't really promote that fact all that much in their marketing. Seems like they are successful enough without it. Lemmings, after all, don't feel like lemmings either.

04-10-2010, 10:12 AM	#27
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by johnmflores Maybe you unwittingly fell into the jaws of Pentax marketing with all their talk of compatibility with older glass. I can honestly say, NOPE. I didn't read Pentax or any other brand-specific forums when researching my first dSLR purchase. I didn't read Pentax marketing hype. (Did Pentax even HAVE marketing hype in the US in early 2008?) If anything, I leaned towards Sony, followed by Olympus, as I'd used and loved their cams. I fondled some Nikons and was impressed, and some Canons and was unimpressed. Pentax wasn't even on my radar when I started the search. And I didn't even consider the legacy-lens market, not until much later. Availability of old glass was never a factor. Nope. I went to dpreview and other photo review sites, read tech reports, but especially USER RATINGS. I saw what was being bitched about. I saw that, for the money and megapickles, Pentax cams got bitched about less and rated higher. And (as I sometimes repeat here) I asked myself: What do I want to do that I can't do with what I have? Where my Sony DSC-V1 lacked was: ultrawide, ultralong, and low-noise low-light. Everyone has long and fast lenses. So I looked foremost at ultrawide / fisheye lenses, and the only ones I could afford were from Pentax and Olympus. And Olympus had issues; I didn't think I'd be happy with then-current Oly cams for any length of time. I'm trained in systems analysis. I applied that training, building spreadsheets and charts of features and gripes and price-performance etc. I crunched numbers. And that led me to Pentax. Despite marketing, despite biases, I came to Pentax. In pre-dSLR days I never used Pentax. I've owned (and still do) Olympus, Canon, Minolta, Sony, Kodak (one of the best!)(and some of the worst), Yashica, others, but never Pentax. Yet cold analysis led me to Pentax. Quote: Lemmings, after all, don't feel like lemmings either. And of course, Lemmings AREN'T lemmings. Those mass suicides were staged by Disney. The same Disney that's perverted copyright law, but that's another issue.

04-10-2010, 03:41 PM	#28
redeleon Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Manila Photos: Albums Posts: 226	you have a sickness my friend... its Gear Acquisition Syndrome (GAS)

04-10-2010, 04:02 PM	#29
jct us101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Rohnert Park, CA Posts: 3,793	Originally posted by redeleon you have a sickness my friend... its Gear Acquisition Syndrome (GAS) I have that all the time. Well I guess I have two different kinds of that all the time. goes to eat some beans and rice

04-10-2010, 04:15 PM	#30
wjt Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Perth Photos: Albums Posts: 371	Originally posted by johnmflores Maybe you unwittingly fell into the jaws of Pentax marketing with all their talk of compatibility with older glass. When i was deciding on my dlsr i was on the fence between pentax with the K-7 and nikon with the D300, the price wasn't really my issue and i was leaning towards nikon until i found these here forums. The people on the forum here overall helpful and friendly, there were good user reviews on everything i was looking at. If not for the PF, i would right now be shooting Nikon. As for OP, I do like new (and old) shiny things But I don't think buying new/different gear will make me do anything better, differently yes but not necessarily better. My wife calls me a bower bird due to my ever growing collection of 'shinies' but hey, I say enjoy it while you can. I will buy more lenses, I will buy another camera, I will buy, I will buy, I will buy... until circumstances change and i cant afford to... then i shall sit upon my grand pile of shiny things and rejoice.