[pxt]

Skills only matters, but good equiptment can help like fast lens is better for low light scenarios. I have my idea - buy only the most usefull equipment to get less and get all in your bag with you. Qualit over quantity.

[kernos]

I have been a long time admirer of Yuri's work. Yes his models are mostly beautiful, but he's not covering them with a half inch of makeup and he's shooting a lot in a cafe with great natural light. Overall there is a certain integrity and reality to Yuri's work, it reveals inherent beauty and in some cases maybe inherent trauma. So yes, composition, subject, lighting and post processing come first and all of those take skill (try getting a great looking woman to sit for a photo if you want to argue about subject). Having said that, once you get over the big four skill issues, gear matters to a degree. I would love to see what he could do with an FA 77 or an F/FA 135mm with the same women.

500px makes photo sharing difficulty, but this shot of Kathen is my favorite with a Jupiter 135mm

[normhead]

From what I've learned from airbrushing, spending more on equipment can enhance your skills but the equipment you buy isn't a substitute for skills.

It's amazing what a skilled craftsman can do with piece of crap equipment.
And it's amazing how bad a guy with high end every thing can be.

[dubyam]

It's amazing what a skilled craftsman can do with piece of crap equipment.
And it's amazing how bad a guy with high end every thing can be.

Certainly there are folks with lesser equipment who make fabulous photos, and folks with the very best equipment who can barely take a passport photo. But then there are folks who learn the process and develop the skills (what I'm trying to do at this time) who end up making some pretty big improvements in their image quality by acquiring better equipment. A good example is the limitations of my early 1990s F 100-300 zoom. Yes, it gets good pictures. But if the lighting isn't absolutely ideal, I get plenty of fringing and halos, not all of which can be mitigated in post processing - or at least not in processing as I'm able to do it right now. So when I swapped up to an 18-135WR, for the limited shots in the same focal length range, I have much better images from the 18-135 than from the 100-300. Since I'm still taking the picture, and the camera body is the same, I'll use my deductive reasoning to ascribe the improvement to the advances in coatings, lens mechanics (especially autofocus), and glass production (or, more specifically, production at affordable cost points). Sometimes, equipment does make a difference. Now, to be sure, I'm not creating great works of art, and I'm sure the OP would refer to my images as weak, because they're not the kind of oversaturated, colorized-looking stuff he likes, but for me, taking an image with one lens, swapping, and taking the same image with another lens at identical focal length, aperture, and shutter speed, on the same body, tells me that sometimes, equipment matters, when I see that the second image is better than the first.

[csa]

If the skill is not there, buying better equipment will not put it there.

[normhead]

Certainly there are folks with lesser equipment who make fabulous photos, and folks with the very best equipment who can barely take a passport photo. But then there are folks who learn the process and develop the skills (what I'm trying to do at this time) who end up making some pretty big improvements in their image quality by acquiring better equipment. A good example is the limitations of my early 1990s F 100-300 zoom. Yes, it gets good pictures. But if the lighting isn't absolutely ideal, I get plenty of fringing and halos, not all of which can be mitigated in post processing - or at least not in processing as I'm able to do it right now. So when I swapped up to an 18-135WR, for the limited shots in the same focal length range, I have much better images from the 18-135 than from the 100-300. Since I'm still taking the picture, and the camera body is the same, I'll use my deductive reasoning to ascribe the improvement to the advances in coatings, lens mechanics (especially autofocus), and glass production (or, more specifically, production at affordable cost points). Sometimes, equipment does make a difference. Now, to be sure, I'm not creating great works of art, and I'm sure the OP would refer to my images as weak, because they're not the kind of oversaturated, colorized-looking stuff he likes, but for me, taking an image with one lens, swapping, and taking the same image with another lens at identical focal length, aperture, and shutter speed, on the same body, tells me that sometimes, equipment matters, when I see that the second image is better than the first.

It's difficult to think it's relevant when you start talking about people using equipment designed for a different medium. Film lenses don't purple fringe on film, but many do on digital. So you need to level the playing field there. Your 18-135 was actually designed for the medium you use it for. Your example though is perfect for when better equipment is needed. You are getting good images, but in the area of your interest, they could be better.

If you do macro, and like doing little insect's eyes etc., you can be better with extension tubes. If you're like me and most of your macros are small flowers etc. then the extension tubes would be a waste. Owning better gear would make no difference because I wouldn't use it. But my point would be, it's your experience that tells you what high end equipment you need. God knows, you won't be able to afford all of it. High end equipment become necessary when you start to specialize. You can never say high end equipment is completely irrelevant, but it's only relevant for the experienced. Experience without high end can accomplish a lot. Inexperience can accomplish very little no matter how much high end stuff they own. A lot of experience, specialization and appropriate high end equipment is king.

Some may buy high end equipment and then try and gain experience. That's expensive and doesn't necessarily work. Especially if you're of the opinion that you can figure it all out on your own. I always advise against it.

My example would be buy the macro lens, explore it until you understand it's limits, then decide you need the extension tubes. You may be fine without the specialized gear. But either way, your decision to purchase or not purchase high end equipment is informed by your experience.

Personally it took me 5 years shooting with my Sigma 70-300 to decide I was taking a lot of images at 300mm and decided I'd do better with something longer and sharper. But there are still Sigma 70-300 images in my "best of" folder on flickr. The time shooting with lesser equipment isn't lost. Buying better lenses was an expression of my interest and willingness to use better gear, than a photographic necessity.

I've added the DA*200, bought as a back up for when my DA*60-24050 is out of commission and my Tamorn 300 2.8, both of which offer increased capability. Experience taught me that was something I was interested in doing. But bottom line, I ended up buying the DA 55-300 PLM to replace my Sigma 70-300, because of the capability the Sigma had the others don't. I wanted a $3000 lens, but I still wanted a 70-300 type $400 lens. Because they both have situations where they excel.

[kernos]

Have to say normhead that extension tubes are cheap and putting one on a normal lens can provide a lot of benefit for not a lot of money.

Helios 77M

[Kerrowdown]

Must not be a small corner!

Is that to give you the room for all that fancy leg work?

[dubyam]

It's difficult to think it's relevant when you start talking about people using equipment designed for a different medium. Film lenses don't purple fringe on film, but many do on digital. So you need to level the playing field there. Your 18-135 was actually designed for the medium you use it for. Your example though is perfect for when better equipment is needed. You are getting good images, but in the area of your interest, they could be better.

If you do macro, and like doing little insect's eyes etc., you can be better with extension tubes. If you're like me and most of your macros are small flowers etc. then the extension tubes would be a waste. Owning better gear would make no difference because I wouldn't use it. But my point would be, it's your experience that tells you what high end equipment you need. God knows, you won't be able to afford all of it. High end equipment become necessary when you start to specialize. You can never say high end equipment is completely irrelevant, but it's only relevant for the experienced. Experience without high end can accomplish a lot. Inexperience can accomplish very little no matter how much high end stuff they own. A lot of experience, specialization and appropriate high end equipment is king.

Some may buy high end equipment and then try and gain experience. That's expensive and doesn't necessarily work. Especially if you're of the opinion that you can figure it all out on your own. I always advise against it.

My example would be buy the macro lens, explore it until you understand it's limits, then decide you need the extension tubes. You may be fine without the specialized gear. But either way, your decision to purchase or not purchase high end equipment is informed by your experience.

Personally it took me 5 years shooting with my Sigma 70-300 to decide I was taking a lot of images at 300mm and decided I'd do better with something longer and sharper. But there are still Sigma 70-300 images in my "best of" folder on flickr. The time shooting with lesser equipment isn't lost. Buying better lenses was an expression of my interest and willingness to use better gear, than a photographic necessity.

I've added the DA*200, bought as a back up for when my DA*60-24050 is out of commission and my Tamorn 300 2.8, both of which offer increased capability. Experience taught me that was something I was interested in doing. But bottom line, I ended up buying the DA 55-300 PLM to replace my Sigma 70-300, because of the capability the Sigma had the others don't. I wanted a $3000 lens, but I still wanted a 70-300 type $400 lens. Because they both have situations where they excel.

Norm, I agree, to an extent. But I also will tell you that I quite accidentally discovered the difference, as I really didn't consider the two lenses to overlap. So for me, it was equipment as much as skill, in some respects. But I think on this we definitely agree - it's about having the right tool for the job, whether that tool is a $1 lens cover, a $200 kit lens, a $700 camera body, a $900 flash setup, or a $2000 lens. The right tool for the job is critical. Skill can get by with lesser tools, but many times it's tough to learn that skill with lesser tools, also.

[normhead]

Norm, I agree, to an extent. But I also will tell you that I quite accidentally discovered the difference, as I really didn't consider the two lenses to overlap. So for me, it was equipment as much as skill, in some respects. But I think on this we definitely agree - it's about having the right tool for the job, whether that tool is a $1 lens cover, a $200 kit lens, a $700 camera body, a $900 flash setup, or a $2000 lens. The right tool for the job is critical. Skill can get by with lesser tools, but many times it's tough to learn that skill with lesser tools, also.

It depends on what skill. There's no guarantee anyone learns any skill. There needs to be some basic ability there. If you never learn to use a 300mm lens, there's not much point in getting a 400. I you aren't getting good portraits with a 3.5 or ƒ4 lenses, going to 2.8 or sub 2 isn't going to help you with the most important part of the image. Not all of us are good at everything. Not all of us have an affinity for everything. Not a lot of us even have an interest in everything.

[bertwert]

I guess it's not unusual for the youngsters to think experience counts for nothing and they know more than all the old timers.

Of course I know more than all you old folks!

But it's not the most intelligent opinion.

Yes it is.

---

For those that don't know me, this is all said in jest

[automorphism]

Meh, better equipment can lead to better shots. That's not always the case. Bad composition (or perhaps I should say, ill-though composition) won't improve only because of a better lens. But let's say for example you're already skilled at nature photography. You've got great composition and good lens technique. Then upgrading your lens to something sharper or a camera body that does better in lower light will actually make a difference in the technical quality of your shots, and that in my opinion is a better photograph.

Honestly, it's a little tiresome hearing "it's the photographer, not the gear" because we all know that phrase applies to some people, but it's kind of irrelevant. Interesting shots can be taken with pretty much any kind of camera, but more advanced gear enables certain kinds of shots otherwise not possible without it. For people with a desire and ability to learn, gear actually can improve one's shots. Moreover, without that gear you can't very well improve taking the kind of shots that require it.

[kooks]

I would love to see what he could do with an FA 77 or an F/FA 135mm with the same women.

He will be doing the same thing, but with more bokeh, perhaps that is the only thing that will change.

[Cerebum]

I had a cheap flute, it was a sod to play but because I had some ability I got a tune out of it. When I upgraded, the skill I had produced better results but also, because I wasn't handicapped by my equipment, my technique and ability improved because the new flute could do things that the old flute was incapable of. Someone else I knew had a beautiful flute but no musicality, so whatever he played was flat and unmoving. Of course it all depends on what you are looking for! Do you look for something which is technically perfect or emotionally moving. Each generation of genuine photographers gets fantastic results from the camera of the time so it is no surprise he can get great pictures from his K10D but better equipment will always give an artist different options. The results may not be measurably better because the character of old and new are often different. Equally the photographer may have an affinity with a particular camera /lens combination. The suggestion that it is all down to talent or equipment is tosh! However, I would agree with the OP in that the prime requirement is capability but that is because I look for the humanity of the picture, others prioritise execution which requires capability of a different kind. Advances in equipment help us progress by giving us new things to play with but if the individual has no ability in the first place, no amount of shiny new equipment will help.

Maybe we should lobby for a new law. When someone takes up photography and immediately buys expensive kit, they must pass an aptitude test. If they fail they must donate it to Adam who can run another raffle, thereby ensuring it goes to a worthy home

[Rondec]

A lot of photos posted are just uninteresting photos. They aren't bad or out of focus or anything like that, they just are what I would call snap shots. A lot of my photos are like that too. They mean something to me because they are places I've visited or my kids, but I certainly don't share them because they are works of art. Give me a D850 or A9 kit and my photos probably would be similar, although I'd have twice as many due to the increased frame rate with those cameras.

That said, I like the gear that I have and am glad for it and find it a lot easier to use than my first digital SLR (a K100). It is nice to have camera bodies and lenses that you like to take out and shoot.