Gear vs Skill

[Doktaduck]

I'm not sure the pretense of Gear vs Skill is fair or accurate.

I think that they have a symbiotic relationship when it comes to some of the truly stunning (I use stunning instead of great, as I agree with the earlier sentiment that a great photo has more to do with subject then technicalities) images that I've seen some photographers produce.

to expand; will gear influence the perceived quality of even the most unskilled photographer? I believe yes. better glass, and body giving more room to move in exposure, speed to focus etc will almost always give a cleaner sharper "prettier" image than a cheap body and "starter" glass.
Can a highly skilled photographer take a great photo with the most basic of beginner gear? I think Yes, but that image will be effected through restricted choices for exposure due to light handling capabilities, and compromises to the original vision to compensate for the equipment capabilities.
A great photographer with great gear is given the freedom to make artistic choices without the hindrance that cheap gear places on them.

So I think that the real question is not Gear vs Skill, but more Great Photo + Cheap gear vs less skilled + great gear.. And in this question I think that the Skill would win out more times then not, however would not always win.

i.e. Skill = consistency Gear = Flexibility

Skill + Gear = more consistent great shots ad a better chance to relise a vision.
Skill + Cheap gear = Great shots, but compromised on artistic vision (most of the time)
No Skill + Gear = the chance of a great shot
No Skill + no Gear = sad panda.

Hopefully with everyone's help on AP those of us that want to are slowly moving up the skill ladder

[Raoul79]

I agree with Rick for the most part, and further with Jim, simply because while it's true if you gave a $50k camera to a non-photographer, they;

A) wouldn't know how to use it
B) probably don't know how to take a good image

giving that $50k camera to a photographer of intermediate skill who understands what a good pic is and how to get it would open the door for them to make those good pics.

It surprises me, and I often laugh at how many people say things like "Gear means nothing, a good shooter will make good images with any gear" and I find that often those spruiking the notion are those who simply don't have the gear.

If we think about this for a minute, we know that statement is untrue. Shooting entry level gear will in many cases simply not allow you by virtue of it's limitations to get the images you could get in the same shooting scenario with pro gear. Low noise in low light, AF in low light, high frame rate, fast focus tracking, high sync speeds, shallow DOF, DR, colour/contrast etc are all things that can mean the difference between making a good pic and a terrible one, or none at all.

Whilst good gear won't instantly make a shit shooter a good one, it certainly helps a good one do more, and often things they couldn't do with entry level gear otherwise we would all be shooting box brownies and $50 P&S cameras with fixed lenses.

I totally agree with this comment. I had an entry level DSLR for about 5 years up until very recently. The reason for the upgrade was not because there was anything wrong with the camera as it still takes great photos but I just simply could not get the photos I wanted with it (milky way) due to limitations as mentioned (low light and noise). With the new camera - this shot was more or less effortless.

[old4570]

Well , you cant discount the performance edge of top of the line gear ( That would be silly ) , no pro would be seen with a box brownie ...

When you have $5000 camera and a $5000 lens , well what can I say .. You would have the edge ...

Sure skill counts , but so do the tools .

Aint no way you could compete with say my istD and the Sigma Lens it wears , against top of the line Canon or Nikon ..
Even a pro photographer with the cheap gear VS a Noob with top of the line gear , ( everything else being equal )

But the exp photographer would most likely source some primary lenses , say 28mm 50mm 90mm and 135mm , so even with a cheap body could take killer pictures ..

Its all relative !

Bottom line , gear makes a difference .. Good gear can make a noob look good , a pro look - well Pro !

Cheap gear will make the noob look , well Noob , and a pro look ?? ( depends on the gear )

What is that saying , a poor tradesman blames his tools , but bad tools are bad tools , how can you do good work with bad tools ...

So there you go , Good gear and skill go hand in hand ...

You do realize - this is easily put to the test - right .

Just need to organize a photo excursion - decide on gear , and two people to photograph the same things , their way . Bottom of the line gear VS top of the line ... Noob VS Pro
I mean , it would do-able ..

[Ezookiel]

^ I can supply the cheap gear for the experiment - my whole setup is less than some people spend on a lens - actually my whole setup and the car I carry it in - is less than some people spend on a lens

[MissionMan]

how about a mobile phone challenge. No filters, out of the box mobile phone camera pictures. Everyone should have one.

[Mark L]

how about a mobile phone challenge. ....

And then some may argue about the specs of the mobile phones!! I don't have one, so no skill (or gear) here.

[Ezookiel]

The camera on my wife's old brick is 3mp and no fancy "features"
My phone is 8mp and does in camera... sorry ... in phone ...HDR, with touch screen selective focus/exposure point, and has a much higher quality lens.
(don't blame me, my wife LIKES her old brick phone and won't upgrade).

Not a fair comparison between the photos from those two unfortunately.

[Roosta]

I think you've all forgotten one major ingredient - Pure arse, sometimes, this is what it takes, no skill involved and no matter what gear was involved.

Was watching some 4WD vids on Youtube the other day, and the new Sony adds are getting so airplay at the moment, this thread reminds me of what it depicts, DSLR - Tennis court and the lens cap still on, did I laugh, yeap.

Good Laugh if you haven't seen it.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9YiDd4v19Y

[Jad]

If you have the skill, great equipment is certainly an asset. But a meaningful photograph can be taken with most any quality camera in the hands of a skilled photographer.

[sunny6teen]

the marketing department at Canon assure me that it's gear...nothing else required.

[Ezookiel]

...Was watching some 4WD vids on Youtube the other day...

Roosta, if you're into 4WDing and into photography, you should come along on one of our 4WD Photography Trips.
The fifth one is this coming long weekend up to Barrington Tops.
They're a great bunch of people that all got together through a 4wd forum where I suggested those who like photography travel together on a trip because non-photographers get annoyed if you stop too often to take a picture. The first one went so well we did 3 more, and we have the fifth one this weekend.
We even got published in a 4wd mag twice and shared the payment (only $100 per person each time but every bit counts).

[andylo]

To Roosta's post, here is another one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wED-ujkp7s4

[PhotoPaul]

I'm going to speak from my musical experience instead (which is far more extensive than that of photography) as I can see massive parallels between the two in this discussion.

A beginning player should always start out on the best instrument they can afford at the time, and as skill increases, they will 'out play' their instrument. In other words, they will find the limitations of the instrument for various reasons, usually stylistic as the player develops their own personal style. This is where the better gear allows for growth and further enhancement of skills, plus expansion of their skill set. Without the better gear at that point, the musician will stagnate and become frustrated at the limitations imposed by their gear. Especially if they use others' gear and experience the difference. Then the cycle continues but at a higher level.

So I don't think that one overrules the other. I believe they have a symbiotic relationship where one pushes the other in a cycle of continuous improvement.

The parallels between music and photography should be pretty clear I hope

[ameerat42]

A well-put || Paul.