Confusion of Necessary and Sufficient Conditions Seems Rampant

snowbear · Mar 30, 2015

But we beat it so well.

DarkShadow · Mar 30, 2015

Indeed.Glad I am not a pro,its way to much pressure and way to expensive because then I have to take a mortgage to get a Canon 1DX :345:

and I would end up hating photography.

jsecordphoto · Mar 30, 2015

I joined a few birding and wildlife groups on Facebook after recently getting more into photographing wildlife (mostly a landscape guy). I see the "it's not the gear, it's the photographer!" argument brought up so often in those groups. Usually it's in the threads, "you all take such great photos, what are you using for gear?", where people are seeing photos taken with 5 and 600mm f4s and everyone wants to comment like their bridge point and shoot is capable of producing the same images.

Now I'm not a total gear elitist, and I find those types of people annoying, but the "it's the photographer...." Argument only goes so far.

BrickHouse · Mar 30, 2015

Your gear is fine until it isn't.
I have a certain way I like to shoot and certain things I like to shoot. My d3200 with my 85mm f/1.8g was perfectly fine until I moved to Japan where there is no light and my house is built like a dungeon. Now, suddenly, I need the ability to shoot with higher ISO and suddenly the benefits of FF emerge if I want to continue shooting in the manner I like.

bratkinson · Mar 30, 2015

The 'hard truth' of photography is that the exposure triangle MUST be 'satisfied' to get the shots one wants to get. In some shots, 'satisfying' the exposure triangle can only be accomplished with higher-end gear. However, getting a satisfactory exposure is more about ones knowledge of the exposure triangle, DOF, shutter speed limitations, lighting, etc, and having the skill to make the appropriate choices in the time available.

I've always been fascinated by no-flash, nighttime photography. I quickly learned that the 'fast film' of the day...Kodachrome 64 and later Ektachrome 100 and later still, 200, was the limiting factor to my nighttime photography. Knowing the limitations (and having a light meter in my pocket), I managed to work within those constraints and restricted my night work to non-moving subjects where I could use shutter speeds measured in seconds, or even minutes, with the camera fully stabilized.

Fortunately, in the intervening 40 years or so, the ISO speeds achievable by todays cameras allows far more flexibility in low light work. I recently pushed my gear to its very limits shooting handheld at ISO 25600, 1/160th to stop subject motion blur, and at f4, because that was wide open with the lens I had mounted. Would those shots have been possible with entry level gear? No. So, score one for "it's the gear". But for those not trying to get a near impossible photograph in a dark room, my level of gear is not necessary. Similarly, I don't have a fast 400mm prime lens as I don't do bird photography. Nor does 'frames per second' matter to me as I don't shoot sports.

So, in the end, I have to agree with fjrabon about what's needed to consistently take great photographs:

"1) Ability. I'll stop short of saying natural talent, because I'm not convinced that it can't be completely learned, it may just take some people more lessons to get it.
2) the appropriate gear for the task at hand.
3) the right opportunity."

Although I would rather use the term: "knowledge and skill to use it" than "ability" in #1 above. Regardless of the word(s) chosen, it's a combination of experience and learning.

The_Traveler · Mar 30, 2015

@ bratkinson,

Why not post some of those high ISO pictures?

runnah · Mar 30, 2015

limr said:
rexbobcat said:

Gear doesn't really matter in the aspect of being able to take great images.

However, the breadth of the images that you can take is limited by your gear.

Click to expand...

So true and so succinct, I love it!

This is why I "need" so many cameras

I don't know why, but this thread instantly reminded me of a Dave Barry column called "How to make a board" that dates back to 1983. (And yes, I did originally read it in 1983. In the Reader's Digest, to be exact. And I thought it was funny enough to cut out and keep on my wall for about a year or so. I was a weird 12-year-old.)
Dave Barry s Columns

90% of my sense of humor came from Dave Barry's columns!!!

Vtec44 · Mar 30, 2015

IMHO, the amount of time we all spent debating non-sense on this forum could be used for taking awesome photographs. If you think you can be a pro sport photographer using un-fit gear based on some online self proclaimed expert, go for it. In the end, you and your clients want beautiful pictures regardless of what you use and how you use it. The proof is in your work and let it shows. Worry less about what other say/do and focus more on what you say/do. That's just my own personal opinion.

limr · Mar 30, 2015

runnah said:
90% of my sense of humor came from Dave Barry's columns!!!

I got to see him a couple of years ago. He grew up in this area and came back when a local movie theater was doing a film festival. Can't remember the theme of the festival, but one move they showed was "This is Spinal Tap," and Dave Barry asked to do a Q&A after the movie. He had nothing to do with the movie itself, but it was one of his favorites and the movie theater is in his home town, so he wanted to be involved. Everyone got an autographed copy of his last book. Between him and Spinal Tap, it was a very fun night.

Gary A. · Mar 30, 2015

Vtec44 said:
IMHO, the amount of time we all spent debating non-sense on this forum could be used for taking awesome photographs. If you think you can be a pro sport photographer using un-fit gear based on some online self proclaimed expert, go for it. In the end, you and your clients want beautiful pictures regardless of what you use and how you use it. The proof is in your work and let it shows. Worry less about what other say/do and focus more on what you say/do. That's just my own personal opinion.

Nikon F w/ Nikkor 28mm, Tri-X (bad scan)

Derrel · Mar 30, 2015

One of my favorite football shots of all time is a sideline wide-angle view, showing ALL 22 players in ONE single frame!!! Garry Winogrand shot it.

10aa33acf2bcf380f4b69dc82fc9eeba.jpg

bribrius · Mar 30, 2015

Derrel said:
One of my favorite football shots of all time is a sideline wide-angle view, showing ALL 22 players in ONE single frame!!! Garry Winogrand shot it.

10aa33acf2bcf380f4b69dc82fc9eeba.jpg

umm. that sucks. tilted, someones shoulder in it. Refs azz. looks like a snap shot. LMAO

Derrel · Mar 31, 2015

bribrius said:
Derrel said:

One of my favorite football shots of all time is a sideline wide-angle view, showing ALL 22 players in ONE single frame!!! Garry Winogrand shot it.

10aa33acf2bcf380f4b69dc82fc9eeba.jpg

Click to expand...

umm. that sucks. tilted, someones shoulder in it. Refs azz. looks like a snap shot. LMAO

But dude, it was shot by a famous Leica shooter...a man so famous that after his death, one of his Leicas later sold for over $200,000 at auction (not kidding...seriously, it did!)

fjrabon · Mar 31, 2015

Gary A. said:
Vtec44 said:

IMHO, the amount of time we all spent debating non-sense on this forum could be used for taking awesome photographs. If you think you can be a pro sport photographer using un-fit gear based on some online self proclaimed expert, go for it. In the end, you and your clients want beautiful pictures regardless of what you use and how you use it. The proof is in your work and let it shows. Worry less about what other say/do and focus more on what you say/do. That's just my own personal opinion.

Click to expand...

Nikon F w/ Nikkor 28mm, Tri-X (bad scan)

This is a good example of why most sports photographers shoot with at least two bodies at all times.

My 2-3 favorite images I ever shot in sports were with a wide angle, even wider than that, 17mm. But if you're a sports photographer you're not paid to get 1-2 great shots per game, which is what will happen if you go in with only a wide angle and a "your skill and anticipation is what matters" approach.