Gear freak or artist?

[Cathus]

does it actually matter?

if you want to use your 1920s chisel to fashion a carving & I want to use my power tools, who cares, it's the end result that matters.

I do find it irritating when people criticise others when they want new gear with the implication that they are somehow better because they don't use the latest whizz-bang technology & really understand the mechanics of photography without reliance on the technology, as if everyone should be forced into some kind of photography apprenticeship at the feet of the old masters before they are allowed to take pleasing photos.

So what? people can still produce utter rubbish on film with an old camera. Using technology has nothing to do with producing decent photos, and if people get pleasure from buying new toys & using them, that's great. I don't see that as any reason to criticise them.

[AndyStevens]

I don't think anyone was criticising anyone or implying anything Cathus, just voicing opinions as requested by the OP as to whether we bought into the art or technology of photography. Personally, I think technology does overtake pure photography but, if someone wants to spend a fortune on the latest camera gear, fine, let them have their fun.

I once spent best part of an afternoon in the Dorset countryside with a newbie tog. He'd taken early retirement and bought himself a new Canon 5D (just after MkI was released) and he had a bagful of L series lenses. Not a clue how to use the things but he'd taken this approach in an effort to make sure he learnt as much as possible to get as much enjoyment as possible from his new hobby and retirement. We had a great afternoon - never seen him before or since, and can't even remember his name, but we both learnt a lot.

The point I was making was some people think they can buy photographic success when it's really kind of inherent - almost in your genes. Yes, you can learn and some people do very well by buying the latest gear but others prefer to use their existing equipment and make images pleasing to them (and hopefully others) knowing the limitations of their camera. The sudden increase in 10-stop ND filters is testament to the 'if I buy something new I can look like a pro' - the waiting list for a Lee Big Stopper is months long.

I am fascinated by technology - I just don't feel the need to buy into every new release. Wouldn't mind borrowing your power tools for a weekend though

Cheers
Andy

[Cathus]

Andy,

I wasn't talking about any specific posts just generally, whenever this subject crops up there is often an air of snobbishness -for want of a better word - from some people regarding other people's fun.

I guess it doesn't just apply to photography but any thing with technology. I suppose there are people happy to do what they need to do on very old computers wondering why people want something with more/faster features, while others have fun upgrading every few months for no discernible reason other than they enjoy it.

[TerryGrealey]

I too would love more equipment , like a wide angle lens or a 70-300mm zoom , but Im having so much fun with my present set up and can't really justify the outlay to my other half . One can only dream , I suppose .

[AndyStevens]

That's cool then Cathus, thought for a horrible moment I had offended someone. Written words can sometimes do that if not read in the context they were written.

And dont talk to me about computers - an IT consultant by trade

Cheers
Andy

PS some nice gridiron shots on your blog

[Cathus]

Andy, no problem & thanks for checking out the blog! It's a bit out of date, been so busy over the summer, loads to add to it.

[Bluey71]

Responding to the op only, I can say for me it's the end result that matters for me.

Optical quality of lenses are my primary concern, especially after having recently bought mt D5000 with it's kit lens.

[GeoffWessex]

Bluey71 - are you saying the kit lens with the Nikon isn't very good? It does seem to be the same with most 'kit' lenses - you pay the money for the camera and the kit lens is added to make you think you've got a bargain. I hardly ever use my kit lens now.

In the Photo Club I'm the President of, I strongly discourage 'equipment talk' - the camera brand, or how many MegaPixels, or how fast the lens is, is totally insignificant when it comes to making a good photograph. If a competition judge comes along and suggests a picture would have been better if somebody had "used a Canon", or "a top quality L series lens" or other such nonsense, they won't be coming back.

It may be relevant when comparing the works of two photographers who shoot exactly the same subjects - nature, sport, journalism etc - but photo club members are usually 'all-rounders', trying to do their best with their kit. We have informal groups of members who get together for nature (mainly) or landscapes or creative work - they can discuss the equipment among themselves... in the case of the nature shooters, it's fair for them to compare the merits of, for example, a Canon 300mm f/2 L series against the much cheaper Tamron 300mm f/5.6.

[Oldbearchris]

The most practical way to look at things is from an engineering perspective. What are your requirements?
If you want a very narrow depth of field, then a kit lens will probably not deliver. So get a cheap 50mm prime.
I strongly suspect that most of us dpn't read the spec sheets very carefully when buying a new camera or piece of equipment.
For the last year and a bit, 95% of my shots have been with a 35mm prime

[AndyStevens]

I didn't really take notice of the kit lens spec as didn't anticipate using it for long. Camera body specs of far more interest and downloaded/digested before purchasing.