Does choice of photographic gear matter to creative expression?

[r.harris1]

Those of you who have been following the drama over in the innocent sounding “I want to move from a D750” thread have seen the discussion get fairly heated, with it unraveling even to the level of a political discussion forum, typically the lowest form of intellectual debate there is, in my opinion. “I know you are, but what am I?”, that sort of thing.

The rough topic is “ Does one’s choice of photographic gear matter to creative expression?”. That quickly became a discussion on cost vs value and cost vs outcome. It also became a discussion on marketing and mythology. Some interesting philosophical topics. I wanted to attempt to move that discussion out of the poor thread that started it to its own area. This may or may not work.

My own stance (yours will be different):

• There’s no “scientifically objective better” camera, approach or choice of photographic gear. There’s a choice between broader or more narrow feature sets and capabilities. Cost doesn’t always directly correlate to those features and capabilities. Does it matter?
• The choice of camera won’t matter to the viewer of the image, in general. They’ll most of the time not know whether it’s an iPhone, Sony A1 or Nikon Z9.
• The choice of tool does matter to the creator / photographer. It’s said that a good photographer can make a great image with any camera, but it’s equally true that they often find the choice of tool they use very important. They don’t use “any camera”, they use the cameras that they feel work the way they want to in order to achieve their vision. That’s where the discussion can devolve into marketing and mythology. Leica is a great example, but all companies use marketing and mythology very well, of course. As humans, we’re subject to it and interact with it.
• Humans are creative but we’re rarely rational.
• There are tools to help anyone express their creative vision at any price point. This is a good thing.
• Lenses have “character”. Some are clinical, some have known flaws that define that character. Some are designed to be shot wide open, others are defined to be sharp across a range of apertures. Some are designed to sharp edge-to-edge, others for center sharpness. Some correct for color focusing (aberrations and such), some deliberately don’t.
• Choice of body is personal and up to the individual to decide based on ergonomics and features. There’s no one “best body” to use for creative expression. It’s up to the individual’s needs and budget. Some pack tons of features with amazing AF, video and other things. Others have very few features and are entirely manual. Some have are larger, some smaller. Some let your receive phone calls .

It would be awesome to keep any discussion here civil and it’s purposely a broad topic so can “wander”. I will do my best to keep my own interactions as “adult” as I can - I’m not always good at that .

So does your choice of photographic gear matter to your creative expression?

To kick things off, here’s a short article by someone you may not know - he’s a reviewer that runs a paid website but has made this article free to link to. His name is Sean Reid.

https://www.reidreviews.com/examples/yes.html

 

[Boidem]

No.

END OF THREAD

 

[r.harris1]

No.

END OF THREAD

You're far from the only voice and point of view so that's not your call to make. You only choose whether you participate. There are many other points of view and plenty of voices. This topic - in various guises - comes up often enough that it honestly makes sense to have a thread like this around. Maybe it fizzles, but that's not up to you.

 

[mollyc]

Of course it does. It's why we have lenses ranging from fisheye to super telephoto. Not everyone sees the world with a 35mm or 50mm (or fill in the blank mm). What gear you reach for affects the end result, in addition to whatever world view and biases the individual photographer brings to the table.

Differences in gear selection is something to be celebrated, not bashed, at least in my opinion.

 

[r.harris1]

I personally have a lot of "paint brushes" in my photographic toolbox. Some cheap, some expensive, all capable and all of which force me to think a little differently when I approach an image. It may not matter to the viewer of the image - they won't typically know what the camera was or the lens - but it matters to me, the creator.

 

[chengengaun]

I remember having peeked into that thread a couple months ago, it is still going on? 😅

I am inclined to answer "yes", with some random thoughts:

• I think it is true that we shape our tools, then our tools shape us. Technical specifications represent both possibilities and constraints, and different specs give rise to different possibilities and constraints. I behave very differently when using cameras of different sizes and configuration, and zoom vs. prime lenses, etc.
• While there is joy and excitement in using very advanced tools, using simple or crude ones can sometimes be very satisfying. They forced me to work very differently and discover things that I have not noticed before. Solzhenitsyn said, "You only have power over people as long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything, he's no longer in your power—he's free again." Too dramatic for creative tools like cameras, but the spirit is certainly right - Having very severe technical constraints can sometimes be very freeing - what do I have to lose by experimenting and use the tools I have to their maximum capabilities? In addition, there are so few features for me to play with, I might as well focus on the actual process of making pictures.
• The simplest "photographic tool" I use is a piece of paper with some shape cut into it, or sometimes just represent a rectangle with my fingers. Good way to imagine composition in a pinch!
• Sometimes expanding the envelope of creative expression is having easy or constant access to the tools. I cannot forget how Jay Maisel always have his camera with him at all times, even during panel discussions on stage. I tried carrying a Nikon DSLR every day and I admit that it was a bit too hard for me. Thankfully iPhone, Sony RX100 and recently Leica Q2 came to the rescue. I did not take that many photos but when I did, I was very grateful for having my camera around.
• Having said that, I probably will never give up my Nikon D500 and the lenses. Using these different tools make me appreciate the unique capabilities of each camera/platform even more. Now I need to learn how to use the best tool for the job, and not making myself be the pacing factor in the creative process.

 

[Clix Pix]

Thanks, r.harris, for starting this thread! You're quite correct that the other thread had long since become very off the rails from the original questions posed by the OP. She probably doesn't even recognize her own thread now!

You are also right that there were a number of interesting points made in the other thread which could make for expanded discussion in this thread. Lots of good jumping-off places.... A fresh opportunity to carry a discussion on one or more particular points further and into more depth.

Tools are made to be used and appreciated, and a good workman always has his or her own favorite tools, whether it be a chef in the kitchen, a woodworker specializing in woodcraft or a photographer exploring and sharing the world through images.... In photography, too, if someone specializes in a particular genre or earns his or her living by doing specific types of shooting, the camera bodies and lenses may make even more of a difference as well.

Sometimes the selection of said tools takes a while, due both to possible financial barriers or to simply needing to discover which instrument, device or tool does work best for someone. Occasionally timing and opportunity come into play as well. Definitely the type of anticipated usage of a particular tool is significant as well, which is why in most endeavors, there is really not just one tool which does it all.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

It seems to be what we do. I also participate in a tech forum, and it’s the same thing, perhaps worse, to be honest. I think we like to confirm our choices—after all, we’d like to think we’re making good choices with our money, right? We also like to pick the winner, or root for the underdog. Who is going to use a product they don’t like or doesn’t work for them? I think it’s all tangled up in there. Marketing has long been aimed at the feeling, not the logical choice. And when companies do it well enough, their customers start becoming their best sales team. They practically give us their sales talking points!

All that said, I’ve seen folks put tape over their camera logos, too. Really, branding on cameras, cars, whatever, is another form of free advertising from the company. You know what you have, and the branding is so everyone else can see what you have.

I’d love to say I’m above all of it, but I’m not. It’s too hard to separate the man from the tool, and sticking to a format has helped me figure out how to get more out of what I use. I do shoot with what I do because I like it, but I’ve certainly jumped around with brands and models within the format trying to find the best option.

 

[Clix Pix]

I am someone who never puts the strap which comes with a new camera body on it; I much prefer not broadcasting to the world that I am carrying and using an expensive camera! I realize that Sony would be happy if I DID use the provided strap, but sorry, folks! I don't intend to be a walking billboard! However, I do not put gaffers tape or whatever over the names on the camera bodies themselves, or try to cover the name or logo with black magic marker or paint. One probably would need to be standing quite close to even read it, anyway, unlike the strap, which has the name in large letters that can be seen easily at a distance.

In some situations, people in the know will recognize a brand by certain distinctive characteristics, such as Canon's long white zoom lenses and Sony's grayish-white long zooms. The reasoning behind using the light color has something to do with heat buildup on the lens when shooting out in the sun on a hot day, but also, yes, it does provide instant brand recognition, too.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I chose Nikon when I started photography as I was able to get some really nice second hand gear through work.
Since then I’ve tried Canon and Sony and they just don’t feel right to me.
Of course if I bought one and got rid of my Nikon gear I’d get used to it eventually. But I’m an occasional shooter and not about to trade my gear and lose a couple of £1,000 in the process.
My gear is more than capable of taking much better images than I am able to produce.
The limitations on my gear is me!

As for shooting with an iPhone I don’t enjoy it. I like a viewfinder, the feel of the camera grip and buttons in your hand.

I know the far too often quoted ’the best camera is the one you have with you’. But it’s a lie.
The best camera is the one you like using. Doesn’t matter the brand, the make, the model. It’s just personal choice.

It’s not like any camera manufacturer these days is making bad cameras is it?

 

[Apple fanboy]

I am someone who never puts the strap which comes with a new camera body on it; I much prefer not broadcasting to the world that I am carrying and using an expensive camera! I realize that Sony would be happy if I DID use the provided strap, but sorry, folks! I don't intend to be a walking billboard! However, I do not put gaffers tape or whatever over the names on the camera bodies themselves, or try to cover the name or logo with black magic marker or paint. One probably would need to be standing quite close to even read it, anyway, unlike the strap, which has the name in large letters that can be seen easily at a distance.

In some situations, people in the know will recognize a brand by certain distinctive characteristics, such as Canon's long white zoom lenses and Sony's grayish-white long zooms. The reasoning behind using the light color has something to do with heat buildup on the lens when shooting out in the sun on a hot day, but also, yes, it does provide instant brand recognition, too.

Same. But even if you know nothing about photography, a 2 ft lens is a giveaway you’ve spent a bit of cash!

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

I am someone who never puts the strap which comes with a new camera body on it; I much prefer not broadcasting to the world that I am carrying and using an expensive camera! I realize that Sony would be happy if I DID use the provided strap, but sorry, folks! I don't intend to be a walking billboard! However, I do not put gaffers tape or whatever over the names on the camera bodies themselves, or try to cover the name or logo with black magic marker or paint. One probably would need to be standing quite close to even read it, anyway, unlike the strap, which has the name in large letters that can be seen easily at a distance.

In some situations, people in the know will recognize a brand by certain distinctive characteristics, such as Canon's long white zoom lenses and Sony's grayish-white long zooms. The reasoning behind using the light color has something to do with heat buildup on the lens when shooting out in the sun on a hot day, but also, yes, it does provide instant brand recognition, too.

Yeah, I don't use the strap that comes with the body either. They usually aren't subtle!

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

I know the far too often quoted ’the best camera is the one you have with you’. But it’s a lie.
The best camera is the one you like using. Doesn’t matter the brand, the make, the model. It’s just personal choice.

It’s not like any camera manufacturer these days is making bad cameras is it?

I agree, especially as computational photography has started to really take over smartphones. At one time, I shot only with a smartphone, and I really liked the look of some of the older phones, like the Lumia 1020/1520, and the LG-G4, but the iPhones I've used past the XR have just seemed overcooked to me. I know manual apps exist, but then that starts overcomplicating what used to be a pretty good PnS camera. The way my 12 processes things, I'm actually more apt to go grab my camera to take the photo. My XR got way more casual use as a camera. Go figure.

 

[Clix Pix]

Personal choice is indeed a key factor in camera and lens selection, and we certainly have several brands and types of camera bodies and lenses from which to choose these days. Lo these many, many moons ago my first SLR was a Minolta. Eventually I was ready to move up to something a little more sophisticated. By then I had learned enough to realize that how the camera body felt in my hands and where the placement of dials and buttons was an important factor. I went to the camera shop and handled different bodies, primarily Canons and Nikons. The Nikon N90 felt right to me, felt immediately at home in my hands and I knew that I'd found what I wanted. Through the years I used Nikon, going from film to getting my first taste of digital with the Nikon Coolpix, then eventually moving on to the Nikon D70. Those were the days when the technology was changing at a rapid pace and each new digital camera release offered exciting new features and functionality; an amazing time for all of us, professional photographers and serious amateurs alike.

As time went on I bought my first mirrorless camera, a Sony NEX-7 and even back then it was clear that mirrorless was going to be the "next big thing" in photography, the wave of the future. As has already been mentioned in this thread, the different tools for different reasons factor came into play a couple of times and again I chose Sonys, as in each case the camera was pretty much what I needed for specific purposes. So for a while I had Sonys and Nikons cohabiting here, but noticed that more often than not I was reaching for that mirrorless ILC NEX-7 and the few lenses I had for it. I enjoyed using that camera, it felt small and comfortable in my hands.

More time passed and I took a bit of a break from shooting, as I'd started to feel a sense of burn-out and realized that if I weren't enjoying photography, probably that indicated that it was time to chill out from it for a while....

Eventually the inner photography flame reignited. By this time much of my gear was getting pretty old and I was ready for a fresh start with something new. Although it took a while, this was not an overnight instantaneous or impulsive decision. Fairly early-on I realized that the smart move was to go mirrorless, no more DSLRs. Timing and opportunity, which I mentioned in my earlier post above, eventually also played a role, as did availability of what I wanted to fulfill my specific photographic needs. Since Nikon no longer offered what I wanted and needed, that was when I made the decision to switch to Sony. They had the tools readily available. It was only later that I realized that in a way I had "come home," so to speak, had come full-circle from that first Minolta to my current Sony cameras (Minolta having been purchased by Sony some years ago). Funny how life works sometimes!

 

[Clix Pix]

Same. But even if you know nothing about photography, a 2 ft lens is a giveaway you’ve spent a bit of cash!

LOL!! Very true, very true! A massive lens resting on a tripod and gimbal is quite a dead giveaway! Or even just walking around with a longish lens but reasonably handholdable one like the 100-400mm zoom..... after a couple of years I'm so used to carrying and using that lens now, I tend to forget that until once in a while I realize that neighbors walking past me are gawking at the lens while I'm concentrating on getting shots of Alfred or the other birds on the water....

 

[Jumpthesnark]

I started photography with film, with a second-hand medium format camera, then a second-hand 35mm camera. They allowed me to learn the basics of exposure, composition and processing (my high school had a darkroom). Neither of them were cameras that I would choose to use today. With my first job, I saved money to buy a used Nikon and some lenses. Those felt right.

That notion of "does the camera feel right" has guided me since. I've bought so many cameras (or employers bought them for me) over the years, and the ones that I turned to time and time again were the ones that felt right. The ones with controls that were right where my fingers fell. The ones that allowed me to fully engage with the people and events that were around me, and not have to keep looking down at my camera to make adjustments, something that takes me out of the moment. So over the years I stuck with Nikon and Leica 35mm cameras, then eventually switching to Canon when I went digital.

A funny thing, some Canon controls right out of the box go in the opposite direction that Nikon does. For example, which direction do you turn a knob to change shutter speeds or exposure compensation. Fortunately they allow the user to turn those around, so I can make my Canon "feel" like a Nikon. My fingers kept knowing where to fall without me looking at the camera too much.

When I wanted to get a mirrorless digital camera, I bought a Sony because I wanted something that would allow me to use my Leica lenses on it with an adapter. What a mistake that was. I tried with the Sony, how I tried. The image quality was fine, but it never felt right. The controls felt fiddly and in the wrong places, the menus were counterintuitive and impenetrable. It felt like a camera that was built by and for engineers and consumer electronics users, but not for photographers. So now the Sony gathers dust.

I assume that I will be going mirrorless eventually. They are progressing beyond the image quality, speed and features that my DSLRs have. Since I have an investment in Canon lenses, I will likely get a Canon body. My hopes are that it will "feel" right to me, because I've found that determines how much I can creatively stay in the moment. A camera that demands my attention only takes my attention away from the subject.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

It only matters if the gear one is using is not providing the output the creative desires. That’s also a way of saying, “Maybe not now, but wait until you try [thing]. It’s a whole lot easier with [thing you don’t have].”

 

[bunnspecial]

It does and it doesn't...

I think a competent photographer can get results with most anything, but there's a matter of the right tools for the right job. iPhones and phones in general are quite capable tools and have the advantage of always being handy. Even with P-C lenses and Photoshop, it's hard to complete recreate the flexibility of a monorail camera. You're not going birding with a 110 Instamatic. For that matter, I have arguably the best 110 camera made, a Pentax Auto 110 SLR, and it's still pretty limited and handicapped for a couple of reasons(a lot the limitations of the film itself).

When we get into "serious" cameras, though, I have to agree that first of all the ability of the photographer to comfortably "communicate" with the camera is important. Part of that is using something that feels comfortable for you, and part of it is just knowing how to use the tools you have. Back in my exclusively film days, I mostly used Canon FD SLRs. An A-1 was my first(actually my first SLR period, and my first step into taking this up as a hobby) but found that above all I really clicked with the FTb, F-1n, and New F-1. The New F-1 remains probably my favorite, but I also love the quiet refinement of the F-1n.

I now am a big time Nikon user, and the way I ended up there is a bit convoluted. Funny enough, my first two Nikons were an F3, the direct competitor to the New F-1, and a Nikkormat FTn. I'd consider the latter a direct competitor to the FTb. Those are both still cameras I don't care for, especially compared to their Canon counterparts. As much as people love the F3, to me it is a mess with a tiny meter read-out that conveys very little information and is basically impossible to see in the dark even with the pitiful illuminator on. I don't like lens mount shutter speed dials, which makes me dislike nearly all the Nikkormats. I don't actually mind the semi-auto maximum aperture indexing on the FTn, but dislike that the lens can only mount if set to f/5.6(on the F FTN and all the F2 non-AI finders, you can mount at any aperture and then turn to minimum to grab the metering pin). I also prefer Canon's match needle meter and the amount of information it conveys relative to center-the needle meters(I do like Nikon's 3-LED meters for their visibilty in all light).

All that rambling aside, there's an element of a certain camera type putting me in a certain mindset. Without going into too many details(some of you know) I've had a really busy last couple of days and been taking a lot of photos. At various times I've used my phone, my D850, and my Hasselblad. The iPhone wins sometimes for being what's on me and also being very usable one handed. The D850 is certainly the most capable for a lot of reasons and has been my tool of choice most of the time. The Hasselblad requires deliberate concentration(I'm kind of regretting putting a Bright Screen in mine as it's not as easy to focus) and tends to make me slow down and make every shot count.

 

[Clix Pix]

I started photography with film, with a second-hand medium format camera, then a second-hand 35mm camera. They allowed me to learn the basics of exposure, composition and processing (my high school had a darkroom). Neither of them were cameras that I would choose to use today. With my first job, I saved money to buy a used Nikon and some lenses. Those felt right.

That notion of "does the camera feel right" has guided me since. I've bought so many cameras (or employers bought them for me) over the years, and the ones that I turned to time and time again were the ones that felt right. The ones with controls that were right where my fingers fell. The ones that allowed me to fully engage with the people and events that were around me, and not have to keep looking down at my camera to make adjustments, something that takes me out of the moment. So over the years I stuck with Nikon and Leica 35mm cameras, then eventually switching to Canon when I went digital.

A funny thing, some Canon controls right out of the box go in the opposite direction that Nikon does. For example, which direction do you turn a knob to change shutter speeds or exposure compensation. Fortunately they allow the user to turn those around, so I can make my Canon "feel" like a Nikon. My fingers kept knowing where to fall without me looking at the camera too much.

When I wanted to get a mirrorless digital camera, I bought a Sony because I wanted something that would allow me to use my Leica lenses on it with an adapter. What a mistake that was. I tried with the Sony, how I tried. The image quality was fine, but it never felt right. The controls felt fiddly and in the wrong places, the menus were counterintuitive and impenetrable. It felt like a camera that was built by and for engineers and consumer electronics users, but not for photographers. So now the Sony gathers dust.

I assume that I will be going mirrorless eventually. They are progressing beyond the image quality, speed and features that my DSLRs have. Since I have an investment in Canon lenses, I will likely get a Canon body. My hopes are that it will "feel" right to me, because I've found that determines how much I can creatively stay in the moment. A camera that demands my attention only takes my attention away from the subject.

I know what you mean about that early Sony menu!!! Just about the time I'd FINALLY learned my way around it, they went and changed it. I must say, the new menu is significantly better, makes much more sense and it is easier to find whatever function is needed. Thankfully, once I get a camera pretty much set up to my particular use patterns I rarely have to menu-dive and I have it so that I can immediately go right to "Format" when all I need to do is to format the memory card in preparation for the next shooting session.

I didn't get into Sony's full-frame ILC bodies until the A7R IV so never used the earlier A-mount series at all and didn't use the earlier E-mount/FE-mount FF bodies, either, but from what I understand from those who did use them, there have been quite a few changes through the years right up to where the current bodies are now. One thing I did need to become accustomed to after years and years of Nikon, was the different direction in which to turn the lens when putting one on and removing one! Took me a long time, that did....

 

[bunnspecial]

BTW, I owned a Leica IIIc for a while. I liked the build quality. The 50mm collapsible Elmar had its own look I liked at times, but uncoated lenses have their own challenges(even simple 4/3 ones like the Elmar). I had a 35mm(summicron?) also that I liked, but the external finder is awkward. The in camera finder and separate rangefinder isn’t great either. Loading them is obnoxious.

What I found I actually liked better were the Canon LTM rangefinders. The IV series are very near clones of the IIIf but with a combined zoomable viewfinder and rangefinder. Of course it doesn’t go wider than 50mm, but it sure helps focusing also. I still have a 7, and it’s great with its hinged back, big combined rangefinder/viewfinder with selectable frame lines, and mine even has a working meter. It’s massive, though. It’s basically a Canonflex without the SLR guts. My Leica lenses worked great on it, though.

One of these days I’ll get an M mount Leica and a lens or three. I’d probably for an M3, though

 

[catfish743]

Same. But even if you know nothing about photography, a 2 ft lens is a giveaway you’ve spent a bit of cash!

idk... i've seen some ~interesting~ things on Amazon that were quite long and not very expensive (but your point stands)

It does and it doesn't...

I think a competent photographer can get results with most anything, but there's a matter of the right tools for the right job. iPhones and phones in general are quite capable tools and have the advantage of always being handy. Even with P-C lenses and Photoshop, it's hard to complete recreate the flexibility of a monorail camera. You're not going birding with a 110 Instamatic. For that matter, I have arguably the best 110 camera made, a Pentax Auto 110 SLR, and it's still pretty limited and handicapped for a couple of reasons(a lot the limitations of the film itself).

When we get into "serious" cameras, though, I have to agree that first of all the ability of the photographer to comfortably "communicate" with the camera is important. Part of that is using something that feels comfortable for you, and part of it is just knowing how to use the tools you have. Back in my exclusively film days, I mostly used Canon FD SLRs. An A-1 was my first(actually my first SLR period, and my first step into taking this up as a hobby) but found that above all I really clicked with the FTb, F-1n, and New F-1. The New F-1 remains probably my favorite, but I also love the quiet refinement of the F-1n.

I now am a big time Nikon user, and the way I ended up there is a bit convoluted. Funny enough, my first two Nikons were an F3, the direct competitor to the New F-1, and a Nikkormat FTn. I'd consider the latter a direct competitor to the FTb. Those are both still cameras I don't care for, especially compared to their Canon counterparts. As much as people love the F3, to me it is a mess with a tiny meter read-out that conveys very little information and is basically impossible to see in the dark even with the pitiful illuminator on. I don't like lens mount shutter speed dials, which makes me dislike nearly all the Nikkormats. I don't actually mind the semi-auto maximum aperture indexing on the FTn, but dislike that the lens can only mount if set to f/5.6(on the F FTN and all the F2 non-AI finders, you can mount at any aperture and then turn to minimum to grab the metering pin). I also prefer Canon's match needle meter and the amount of information it conveys relative to center-the needle meters(I do like Nikon's 3-LED meters for their visibilty in all light).

All that rambling aside, there's an element of a certain camera type putting me in a certain mindset. Without going into too many details(some of you know) I've had a really busy last couple of days and been taking a lot of photos. At various times I've used my phone, my D850, and my Hasselblad. The iPhone wins sometimes for being what's on me and also being very usable one handed. The D850 is certainly the most capable for a lot of reasons and has been my tool of choice most of the time. The Hasselblad requires deliberate concentration(I'm kind of regretting putting a Bright Screen in mine as it's not as easy to focus) and tends to make me slow down and make every shot count.

I think the only honest answer to this question includes some version of the "it does and it doesn't" above.

Taking the specific question "Does choice of photographic gear matter to creative expression?", to paraphrase a former president, the defintion of (and what's before and after) the word "matter" matters. Matter is the thing that's linking the former to the later, and how something "matters" is quite subjective.

I'll be the first to admit that when I started out in HS, I was conditioned in a capitalistic system where price and cost reflected worth and value. And just because of my own socioeconomic upbringing, I was in a state of having decent stuff, but always wanting the next best thing. So much so that it became more about owning the equipment than doing anything with it. I think this is the first hurdle a lot of people go through. I remember taking my little Kodak digital 2MP camera on my senior trip thinking I was the sh*t, but then secretly wanting to be able to take a better shot when I'd go into some church or dark building, or when something would be moving by quickly at a far distance. This is all to say, I could tell that at a certain point the gear I had could only get me so far in the situations I wanted to be in and capture.

Creative expression will always be bound by the laws of the physical, observable (and sometimes non-observable) universe. The certain effects can only be achieved with certain setups; and certain setups can lead to a person preferring certain effects. For instance, a lot of what matters to me still is my absolute, non-negotiable, utter hatred of flash (I only partly exaggerate). I could never understand it, master it, control it, and due to my anxiety I always felt using it meant sticking out, disturbing, disrupting and detracting from whatever was going on. This is in part because growing up in the 90s and early aughts, disposable fast consumer flash photography often mean certain looks in certain shots if your lighting didn't compensate appropriately. I was also an introverted kid, and a lot of the important moments I wanted to capture were also indoors, aka lower light. So I was doubly hindered, because either it was grainy or dark or blurry, some combination of the two, or all three.

When I got to college and graduated to a dslr (r.i.p rebel xs), coming from an intermediate point and shoot before the camera mentioned above, it was like a whole new world opened up to me. Exchangeable lenses was like learning to talk in multiple different languages (but I still had that tendency to always want the more expensive thing cause I perceived it could "do" more). with my f 1.8 I could finally capture family holidays how I wanted (if I had my focus just right and there wasn't much movement or camera shake). I knew that more expensive gear could unlock even more for me, and/or make it easier to do the things I was already doing. So I often spent time pining for things (and when I did actually have the money to make a purchase, fretting endlessly over ~which~ thing to choose for fear of choosing wrong).

It was only when my equipment and relative ability became useful to others, and I got into photojournalism, that I really started to refine both how I related to equipment and how I related to the act of photography. I've always been a wall flower, so the more I can blend in and capture things no one else sees, the better. But photojournalism also involved being "present", aka showing up with the gear, sometimes in difficult or uncomfortable situations. my 50mm 1.4 was great to carry around, but it was useless at the night soccer games or basketball gym. This meant finding the right tools for the job to create the things that I wanted to make, and fast zooms cost money. It was also at this point that there really starting to become two camps when it came to photo manipulation and what an "image" is. Both due to my unfamiliarity with photoshop, and ethical standards, I heavily leaned into the exposure/contrast/crop-only camp, while I watched a lot of my highly artistic friends learn to remove people from photos or create things I could only dream of. I know back in the film days there were editing ability like what photoshop became, but they were locked behind paywalls for the vast majority of people, and by paywalls I also mean time. It takes time to learn how anything works and people simple couldn't devote enough to it to learn to achieve what they wanted to do.

I often feel like the topic at hand is a slightly different framing of the whole editing debate, or a subset of it, and again I think everything has it's uses, as well as its own consequences (ethically, culturally, etc).

This is all to lead me up to the present (I'm simply going to skip over a period of growth that is hard to put into words) where the fundamentals I believe (but don't necessarily act on in my own photographic pursuits) are that in the long run, the only things that matter are using the camera that you have with you and trying your best. I rarely act on my own advice and I hardly ever carry around my mirrorless (though I do always have my phone). This is to say that I see that there's a certain correlation, but not necessarily causation, between choice of gear and creative expression. I can't make wistful long exposure midday seascapes without the right gear, just like i can't capture the moon with other gear.

When it comes to the sub-sub-argument of brand loyalty, etc. that too depends on your own approach to life. I first believed in Canon supremacy, but that was only because my first dslr was a rebel because a professor also used a canon. I remember a conversation I had with him where I was trying to flex some knowledge about the (subjective) color processing accuracy canon had over nikon at the time, and I remember the look on his face of total disinterest or agreement. And I remember thinking to myself very loudly "yes of course, absolutely, definitely, gear matters" and not even being receptive when all the things he was saying implied that it didn't. In the long run, this sub-sub-argument is pretty much pointless to me, and I lean into the "doesn't matter" camp.

This is why I think it's important to communicate and define what we're talking about when we're talking to one another, and also being willing to listen when someone else talks. Just hoping putting all this out there will help someone who was like me when I started this post and this journey, to realize that maybe your feelings won't stay static on it, and maybe that's not such a bad thing.

 

[r.harris1]

BTW, I owned a Leica IIIc for a while. I liked the build quality. The 50mm collapsible Elmar had its own look I liked at times, but uncoated lenses have their own challenges(even simple 4/3 ones like the Elmar). I had a 35mm(summicron?) also that I liked, but the external finder is awkward. The in camera finder and separate rangefinder isn’t great either. Loading them is obnoxious.

What I found I actually liked better were the Canon LTM rangefinders. The IV series are very near clones of the IIIf but with a combined zoomable viewfinder and rangefinder. Of course it doesn’t go wider than 50mm, but it sure helps focusing also. I still have a 7, and it’s great with its hinged back, big combined rangefinder/viewfinder with selectable frame lines, and mine even has a working meter. It’s massive, though. It’s basically a Canonflex without the SLR guts. My Leica lenses worked great on it, though.

One of these days I’ll get an M mount Leica and a lens or three. I’d probably for an M3, though

I was at an exhibit at the Denver Art Museum called Georgia O’Keeffe, Photographer. They had her IIIc on display. Looked like a bit of a challenge to use.

 

[r.harris1]

idk... i've seen some ~interesting~ things on Amazon that were quite long and not very expensive (but your point stands)



I think the only honest answer to this question includes some version of the "it does and it doesn't" above.

Taking the specific question "Does choice of photographic gear matter to creative expression?", to paraphrase a former president, the defintion of (and what's before and after) the word "matter" matters. Matter is the thing that's linking the former to the later, and how something "matters" is quite subjective.

I'll be the first to admit that when I started out in HS, I was conditioned in a capitalistic system where price and cost reflected worth and value. And just because of my own socioeconomic upbringing, I was in a state of having decent stuff, but always wanting the next best thing. So much so that it became more about owning the equipment than doing anything with it. I think this is the first hurdle a lot of people go through. I remember taking my little Kodak digital 2MP camera on my senior trip thinking I was the sh*t, but then secretly wanting to be able to take a better shot when I'd go into some church or dark building, or when something would be moving by quickly at a far distance. This is all to say, I could tell that at a certain point the gear I had could only get me so far in the situations I wanted to be in and capture.

Creative expression will always be bound by the laws of the physical, observable (and sometimes non-observable) universe. The certain effects can only be achieved with certain setups; and certain setups can lead to a person preferring certain effects. For instance, a lot of what matters to me still is my absolute, non-negotiable, utter hatred of flash (I only partly exaggerate). I could never understand it, master it, control it, and due to my anxiety I always felt using it meant sticking out, disturbing, disrupting and detracting from whatever was going on. This is in part because growing up in the 90s and early aughts, disposable fast consumer flash photography often mean certain looks in certain shots if your lighting didn't compensate appropriately. I was also an introverted kid, and a lot of the important moments I wanted to capture were also indoors, aka lower light. So I was doubly hindered, because either it was grainy or dark or blurry, some combination of the two, or all three.

When I got to college and graduated to a dslr (r.i.p rebel xs), coming from an intermediate point and shoot before the camera mentioned above, it was like a whole new world opened up to me. Exchangeable lenses was like learning to talk in multiple different languages (but I still had that tendency to always want the more expensive thing cause I perceived it could "do" more). with my f 1.8 I could finally capture family holidays how I wanted (if I had my focus just right and there wasn't much movement or camera shake). I knew that more expensive gear could unlock even more for me, and/or make it easier to do the things I was already doing. So I often spent time pining for things (and when I did actually have the money to make a purchase, fretting endlessly over ~which~ thing to choose for fear of choosing wrong).

It was only when my equipment and relative ability became useful to others, and I got into photojournalism, that I really started to refine both how I related to equipment and how I related to the act of photography. I've always been a wall flower, so the more I can blend in and capture things no one else sees, the better. But photojournalism also involved being "present", aka showing up with the gear, sometimes in difficult or uncomfortable situations. my 50mm 1.4 was great to carry around, but it was useless at the night soccer games or basketball gym. This meant finding the right tools for the job to create the things that I wanted to make, and fast zooms cost money. It was also at this point that there really starting to become two camps when it came to photo manipulation and what an "image" is. Both due to my unfamiliarity with photoshop, and ethical standards, I heavily leaned into the exposure/contrast/crop-only camp, while I watched a lot of my highly artistic friends learn to remove people from photos or create things I could only dream of. I know back in the film days there were editing ability like what photoshop became, but they were locked behind paywalls for the vast majority of people, and by paywalls I also mean time. It takes time to learn how anything works and people simple couldn't devote enough to it to learn to achieve what they wanted to do.

I often feel like the topic at hand is a slightly different framing of the whole editing debate, or a subset of it, and again I think everything has it's uses, as well as its own consequences (ethically, culturally, etc).

This is all to lead me up to the present (I'm simply going to skip over a period of growth that is hard to put into words) where the fundamentals I believe (but don't necessarily act on in my own photographic pursuits) are that in the long run, the only things that matter are using the camera that you have with you and trying your best. I rarely act on my own advice and I hardly ever carry around my mirrorless (though I do always have my phone). This is to say that I see that there's a certain correlation, but not necessarily causation, between choice of gear and creative expression. I can't make wistful long exposure midday seascapes without the right gear, just like i can't capture the moon with other gear.

When it comes to the sub-sub-argument of brand loyalty, etc. that too depends on your own approach to life. I first believed in Canon supremacy, but that was only because my first dslr was a rebel because a professor also used a canon. I remember a conversation I had with him where I was trying to flex some knowledge about the (subjective) color processing accuracy canon had over nikon at the time, and I remember the look on his face of total disinterest or agreement. And I remember thinking to myself very loudly "yes of course, absolutely, definitely, gear matters" and not even being receptive when all the things he was saying implied that it didn't. In the long run, this sub-sub-argument is pretty much pointless to me, and I lean into the "doesn't matter" camp.

This is why I think it's important to communicate and define what we're talking about when we're talking to one another, and also being willing to listen when someone else talks. Just hoping putting all this out there will help someone who was like me when I started this post and this journey, to realize that maybe your feelings won't stay static on it, and maybe that's not such a bad thing.

First, thank you for joining in this discussion and thank you for this well written articulate piece! It’s true that our feelings won’t stay at all static. I know mine haven’t over the years. I also appreciate the statement of the day: ”it's important to communicate and define what we're talking about when we're talking to one another, and also being willing to listen when someone else talks.”

 

[Analog Kid]

Those of you who have been following the drama over in the innocent sounding “I want to move from a D750” thread have seen the discussion get fairly heated, with it unraveling even to the level of a political discussion forum, typically the lowest form of intellectual debate there is, in my opinion. “I know you are, but what am I?”, that sort of thing.

The rough topic is “ Does one’s choice of photographic gear matter to creative expression?”. That quickly became a discussion on cost vs value and cost vs outcome. It also became a discussion on marketing and mythology. Some interesting philosophical topics. I wanted to attempt to move that discussion out of the poor thread that started it to its own area. This may or may not work.

My own stance (yours will be different):

• There’s no “scientifically objective better” camera, approach or choice of photographic gear. There’s a choice between broader or more narrow feature sets and capabilities. Cost doesn’t always directly correlate to those features and capabilities. Does it matter?
• The choice of camera won’t matter to the viewer of the image, in general. They’ll most of the time not know whether it’s an iPhone, Sony A1 or Nikon Z9.
• The choice of tool does matter to the creator / photographer. It’s said that a good photographer can make a great image with any camera, but it’s equally true that they often find the choice of tool they use very important. They don’t use “any camera”, they use the cameras that they feel work the way they want to in order to achieve their vision. That’s where the discussion can devolve into marketing and mythology. Leica is a great example, but all companies use marketing and mythology very well, of course. As humans, we’re subject to it and interact with it.
• Humans are creative but we’re rarely rational.
• There are tools to help anyone express their creative vision at any price point. This is a good thing.
• Lenses have “character”. Some are clinical, some have known flaws that define that character. Some are designed to be shot wide open, others are defined to be sharp across a range of apertures. Some are designed to sharp edge-to-edge, others for center sharpness. Some correct for color focusing (aberrations and such), some deliberately don’t.
• Choice of body is personal and up to the individual to decide based on ergonomics and features. There’s no one “best body” to use for creative expression. It’s up to the individual’s needs and budget. Some pack tons of features with amazing AF, video and other things. Others have very few features and are entirely manual. Some have are larger, some smaller. Some let your receive phone calls .

It would be awesome to keep any discussion here civil and it’s purposely a broad topic so can “wander”. I will do my best to keep my own interactions as “adult” as I can - I’m not always good at that .

So does your choice of photographic gear matter to your creative expression?

To kick things off, here’s a short article by someone you may not know - he’s a reviewer that runs a paid website but has made this article free to link to. His name is Sean Reid.

https://www.reidreviews.com/examples/yes.html

Easily the best summary of the topic I've seen.

Of course it does. I'm guessing the other thread is full of "that camera won't make you a better photographer" comments which I see all over photography forums. It might. More likely, it will make better photographs, which are the combined result of the photographer and the equipment. And sometimes the injection of new equipment motivates the shooting time necessary to develop greater skill.

I think "won't make you better" is just a snarky way of saying "your equipment isn't your biggest limitation at the moment, focus on building your skill". And sometimes compensating for limited equipment forces people to develop their skill and leads to a distinctive artistic personality. Still though, you can generally make more capable equipment look less capable through technique or in post, but there's no way to exceed the limitations of less capable equipment.

If someone is looking for buying advice, I'd give it to them-- otherwise let people spend their money on what makes them happy.

 

[Clix Pix]

For a while, and I assume it probably still exists, there appeared to be a distinct mentality among some people that if they were out shooting and weren't exactly getting what they wanted or were making mistakes, the immediate mantra seemed to be, "oh, no matter....I'll fix it in Photoshop!"

Photo editing is definitely a very key component of the entire photographic process and yet there are photographers who are technically excellent at shooting but aren't too interested in or even good at working on images in post-processing. There are others who take photographs and already in the back of their minds is a plan of how they will make significant changes to the images they're shooting when they get to the post-processing/ editing phase of this process, to make one or more images look more "artistic" and "creative" or to attempt to disguise or otherwise make up for perhaps inadequate lens quality or some other issue.

For a while we seemed to be enduring really OTT HDR in images as people explored the possibilities in that and kind of overshot the mark more than a few times. Thankfully that seems to have calmed down now and many images once again look more natural in terms of color and such than was the case for a while. Whew!

Also I think in general editing programs have improved quite a bit, too, to the extent that they are making things a bit easier and more intuitive for the person who doesn't want to do more than just jump in to the program and do a quick adjustment on one or two elements and resize the image for online viewing or for printing and just move on, as well as for the person who really enjoys exploring the creative possibilities in editing their images, too.

The nice thing about photography is that there is always something new to learn if one is motivated to do so and also there is a lot of latitude when it comes to individual personality styles and traits, plus individual gifts such as being especially good at the technical aspect of things or being particularly creative and/or someone who thinks outside the box, so to speak.... There's room for everybody in photography!