I'm not a professional in this field at all, but from my point of view, you don't need super advanced equipment to get very good photos (of course, there are some minimum requirements). The quality often depends on skills, a cool camera will not help a beginner.

Gear matters when gear matters. Just like in engineering, art is all about trade offs. You might intentionally limit your gear to achieve a specific aesthetic, or you might be freelance and work for a client that demands the highest fidelity possible. It's all about bounds. Tools impose bounds, and the whole point of creativity is to find clever or novel ways to work within those bounds or to make those bounds seem surpassed.

No, the best gear won't imbue you with artistic talent or vision, but neither will the worst gear. These absolutist questions are so silly. Everything is relative.

This. I do a fair bit of profession photography, though not enough to go full time at it and I'm almost never gear limited. You can do an awful lot with very basic kit. Do I sometimes want to get a particular look or effect that requires a specialized lens or additional lighting? Sure. But in those cases, gear needs are driven by artistic needs and not the other way round.

My stepmom took a picture of a relative that was simply enchanting.

I mentioned to my dad how nice it was and commented "she must have a really good camera" to which my dad replied, after laughing, "people have said that before and it doesn't seem to matter what camera she's using"

My wife's a pretty good family photographer (i.e. doesn't do it professionally) and she used to get the same.

I bet nobody goes up to authors and says "Great book - what pen did you use?"

You might be surprised how interested people are in the tools of any trade

https://www.tagari.com/is-stephen-king-still-typing-away-on-...

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27407502

https://www.cassidycash.com/quill-pen/

Does it help them write like Stephen King though?

Its not the same, the act of taking a picture is seen as simply pressing a button - which is true.

The process of designing an image isn't. So if you were an art director in a studio in charge of the look of the model, hair, makeup, etc, nobody will question your credentials, but if you were the photographer hired to simply take the photo, then you're merely an operator of an instrument, not someone with a creative vision.

Most writing these days is also done by pressing buttons.

Yeah, but the series of combinations of the 26 buttons allows for creative expression in a way that photography doesn't.

I'm not sure if I'm agreeing or disagreeing with you, but if you gave me and my wife identical cameras (with identical settings) and let us both loose at a park or kids birthday party, she would get better pictures than me. They'd be framed better, she'd capture better moments, they'd be from better angles etc.

A lot of people are interested in the process behind good writing, up to and including what word processor or analog technology the author used.

That won't help them to write the Great Gatsby though.

If the ink was nice they would.

if you're wondering whether gear matters you probably have enough kit. Get out there and shoot instead!

This was a point I hit with guitars and gear too.

I can't imagine what else I'd need right now, might as well learn to play.

both are just tools at the end of the day!

For certain meanings of “matters“, it does.

I'm at the early stages of learning photography. I've always taken lots of photos, but without much skill or care. I have an entry level DSLR and understand that the quality of my photos is almost entirely determined by my skill as a photographer. However, I don't really enjoy using the DSLR due to the size and weight. Any recommendations on what might be a better setup for me? I like travel and nature photography, but would sacrifice zoom for a more enjoyable experience.

EDIT: I should add that the answer isn't a smartphone. I understand that phone cameras are now great, but I don't enjoy using them either. There's something aesthetically and ergonomically pleasing about a traditional camera.

The Fuji X100V is practically a meme in some circles now https://fujifilm-x.com/en-us/products/cameras/x100v/

Compact, lightweight, the built-in 23mm lens is good for most travel and nature shots you'd be taking as an amateur (from a fellow amateur, no insult intended)

If you're looking for something "aesthetic" and "ergonomic" Fuji is #1

Seconded for anything Fujifilm in the mid-to-high end.

The way they put dedicated dial with marking for all the principal part of the exposure trifecta (shutter speed, aperture, ISO) just clicks right with how my brain works.

My holiday kit is a X-T3 paired with a 23mm, 14mm and 50-230. Everything fits in a sling bag (the Peak design one); I can carry it in fanny pack mode if I need to have a backpack.

I

I watched some video reviews and am definitely tempted. Cost is high though given my amateur status. I can afford it, I just don't feel worthy!

Personally I love my Ricoh GR III. There are two versions, one is 28mm and another is 40mm (GR IIIX). They are fixed lens which sounds bad, but in reality it prevents you from constantly thinking about buying new lenses and switching lenses.

There is essentially no other camera that can fit in your pocket. So if you want interchangeable lens, it kinda doesn't matter what you get at all because they will all require a camera bag.

EDIT: btw, when buying camera gear I highly suggest buying used, places like keh, mpb and b&h used department are great and I've never had a problem.

EDIT 2: Wanted to say that personally I have an interchangeable lens camera _and_ a Richoh, and think of the Richoh as costing about the same as a (nice) lens. The more you do photography the more you will realize there isn't just one thing you can buy and be happy with forever, you'll be constantly buying and selling used gear, so don't fret it :shrug:

Yeah, I've noticed when reading about options that it's probably helpful to not try and find one size fits all devices. They the to cost more and yet still be compromised.

I believe that, in terms of compactness and image quality, it is hard to beat Sony's mirrorless, but personally I can't stand their ergonomics.

Well then you can just use a Nikon

I got a micro 4/3 (panasonic gx85) that I quite like some years ago, but I'm not sure I would recommend it today.

I bought a peak clip clone, you can get a Spyder or one of the clones. Keep the strap on you for the peak and you'll be taking way more photos than you'll know what to do with.

I rarely bother now because of crime, I just pocket a pancake and mirrorless.

Kind of in the same boat - but I've found that just like this article mentions, there's nothing small enough that I have found that is always with me when needed other than my iPhone... so I've used that to justify getting the version with the best camera at times when I upgrade.

Get/Make a camera case for your smartphone ... I'm only half joking.

That's actually not a terrible idea! 3D print something to improve the ergonomics and provide real controls

Micro four thirds (u43) cameras are generally much smaller than DSLRs, and even quite a bit smaller than full-frame MILCs (mostly because the lenses are smaller). Their optical performance isn't as good a full-frame DSLR, but they are close enough to be a good substitute. I have a u43 Olympus E-M5 III, and also a FF Panasonic S5, and although the Panasonic is "better", the Olympus is so much easier to stuff into a bag that it's still my camera of choice most of the time.

I should note that not all u43 cameras are small - Olympus / OM have a top-end "1" model that is large and clunky. But the "5" and "10" models are nice and compact. I think the Panasonics and the Olympus / OM PENs are pretty small too.

There is then a useful range of lenses that lets you trade off performance, zoom range, and size; there are great, tiny primes; decent, tiny zooms; and great, chunkier zooms.

In particular, the Pansonic Lumix G 12-32mm lens is 24 mm long. I can put that on my E-M5 and carry it in a jacket pocket. People have managed to take photos with it:

https://www.flickr.com/groups/vario1232f3556/pool/

What this article doesn't mention is that over time, cameras have made _huge_ leaps and bounds, while the author was transitioning through the phases he describes. It's likely that had he been already at the final stage of competence at the beginning, gear would have mattered a lot more. Cameras back then were just not able to provide good pictures in settings with non-ideal light conditions, for example.

Sometime in the early 10s I took a half-decent hobbyist DSLR camera on vacation, and my wife and I took photos of the same motive - me with the DSLR, my wife with her then-current iPhone. You could barely use half of the photos my wife made. I guess if we repeated that experiment nowadays it would be the other way round.

> I guess if we repeated that experiment nowadays it would be the other way round.

I doubt that. I'm not a pro photographer by any means, but my 2016 olympus pen-f (m4/3 format, so the sensor area is a quarter of "full frame") wipes the floor with my iphone 14 pro it's not even funny. Had a friend the other day comment on some random pics I took in a bar with the pen-f, as seen on the phone's display: "how come your pictures look so good?". The subtle gradients, the details in dark areas, the barmaid's skin texture, all this looks like plastic on the iphone.

Sure, neither is technically a "now-current" device, but I don't think there have been any earth-shattering improvements between the 14 and the 15. I hear some Android phones might have superior cameras, but again, I doubt it's a night and day difference with the iphone. The Olympus is 8 years old, and even when it was brand new it wasn't exactly state of the art. A recent model m4/3 would be a noticeable improvement, and a full-frame sensor would be in a whole different league.

But one point where the iPhone (and similar androids) have the "real" cameras beat: it fits in a men's jeans pocket.

That and the fact that modern cameras add all kind of enhancements which may look good to amateurs but bother me a lot.

I do enjoy being able to take phone snapshots anytime I don't have my large camera with me but when I lug the camera I think in different ways.

> I guess if we repeated that experiment nowadays it would be the other way round.

As somebody with a long unused DSLR packed away… I’d say it depends on the lens. Maybe. One thing that iPhones still can’t do as good as a DSLR is very low light (eg starfield), however the current crop of phones are getting pretty good at even this.

Those DSLR’s are huge and quite frankly their workflows aren’t as smooth as on phones. If a DSLR could automagically upload all images to my repository (ie icloud) then I’d probably use them more.

But as they say, the best camera is the one you have on you and the camera I have on me is almost always found in my phone.

also don't forget precise F-control and shutter speed, which are worlds of exploration for artistic outcomes, as well, better looking photos that the non-knowledgeable eye won't notice but the overall feeling is just better than a freaking constrained 700 mega-pixel iPhone camera... now, if one travels to rural Kazakhstan and register a touching moment, i think we can get along even with a Nokia pre-2010 camera

The lidar on iPhones makes low light way better than cameras. If you don't do astronomy it will usually be better.

The Samsung NX had wifi and upload to fb.

> The lidar on iPhones makes low light way better than cameras

How so? My iphone 14 pro looks like a cartoon if I shoot people or animals in low light. Never had any "actual camera" look that bad, and my newest is an 8 year-old micro 4/3 model.

Mine look great, my camera looks even better if I set it up. I'm not going to go technical for most photos though because it isn't fun.

Static pictures of a building in low light, phones can do decent. Anything moving and all the AI-assisted long exposures in the world can't help you.

It's important to consider similar generations - yes, the iPhone 14 or Pixel 8 does better in static low light than my 2004-era crop sensor DSLR, but not better than a 2017-era full frame DSLR and dramatically worse than a current-gen mirrorless setup.

I have a fairly large Canon DSLR FF system I rarely use. There are a few cases (wildlife photography, sports, concerts, certain nature) mostly with very long or very wide lenses but, for most other shooting where I'm not going to spend an hour setting up a shot? Not worth it--especially when traveling or hiking.

I do have a Fujifilm mirrorless but with the standard long wide to short tele zoom, I still bring it on certain types of trips but honestly it's almost a backup at this point. There's not a lot it beats my iPhone 15 Pro at--certainly for web viewing which is all I really do. This is especially true if you're not going to shoot photos with a lot of care taken to depth of field, shutter speed, etc. To just shoot, the phone probably does a better job a lot of the time.

From what I've seen of my friends' gears, iPhones beat conventional cameras easily if you don't do any processing. But if you're going to process your DSLR RAWs, smartphones will just lose in comparison.

You can also shoot raw with many smartphones. And there are camera apps that give you more control. I'm not sure it's categorical that DSLRs clearly win over iPhones if you process (including cropping etc.) both.

As someone else noted, DSLRs really win on lenses. Also things like high burst rate, high shutter speeds, etc. (And the viewfinder can be handy for better framing and just seeing what you're shooting).

My friends weren't taking RAWs from their iPhones, so that part didn't really make any difference. (I actually don't think I've encountered anyone who does that!) I don't have an iPhone, but when I've tried RAWs on some other smartphones, they weren't nearly as good as from DSLRs. In fact I sometimes found it hard to even get the quality of their own JPEGs from the RAWs.

(Lenses can of course add another factor, but everything I mentioned is with stock lenses.)

In the early days of digital photography, the type of equipment you had mattered a great deal. Most phone cameras are now so incredibly advanced that the hardware is rarely the limiting factor in creating incredible pictures

It matters at a certain level that most don’t reach.

I used to play pool a long time ago and there was one player that was far and away the best in the billiard hall. He would always say, “It’s the Indian not the Arrow” when people would come in with their fancy personal pool cues. To make his point he would grab the most warped pool cue off the wall and generally beat anyone he went up against.

The saying isn’t PC these days but the lesson did stick with me.

Isn't it the opposite? It matters none to the outliers because they're so far above the competition, but it matters at least significantly to the average person.

The Indians also spent expertise fletching decent arrows, for that reason.

"The hobby" and "the gear associated with the hobby" are effectively two separate sorts of fandom. Not just for photography but for music and other activities. Outdoor sports. Cookery. Crafting. You can encounter detailed, militant fandoms for types of lens from people who don't own it and don't take photos.

There is a "hobby" of consumerism like audiophiles who talk about FLAC and have tons of "good" expensive headphones they don't use. Same with photography. The best tied together hobby and consumerist collection is in trading card games.

Having studied technical optics (in the analog camera age) it's just so hard for me to imagine that those tiny, tiny apertures we have on our phones can replace a well designed lens. However, I'm not a skilled enough photographer to beat what my mid-range phone can do and I'm happy not to have to lug my DSLR around very often.

Part of my day job is optical metrology so I realize that traditional optical design will never fully be replaced by the smarts in our phones and the super advanced miniature lenses.

> it's just so hard for me to imagine that those tiny, tiny apertures we have on our phones can replace a well designed lens.

I don’t think they can, but they usually don’t need to. If you manage to extract a modern phone lens and stick it in front of the film of a 35mm camera or a ten-year-old digital camera, you will get utterly terrible pictures :)

Nice old lenses had nice flat focal planes. For a camera phone, who cares? The depth of field is so big that you probably can’t tell whether the focal plane is flat.

Nice old lenses tried hard to avoid distortion. Your camera probably corrects distortion in software.

Nice old lenses collected lots of light and integrated that light using the world’s most boring algorithm: just adding it all up. Your phone has a much more sensitive sensor and cleverly takes multiple frames for you so it can infer a decent picture even in poor lighting using fancy algorithms.

Really nice old lenses might have been close to diffraction limited resolution, and maybe users managed to get extremely sharp photographs with them, but they usually didn’t. Your phone camera has a much much worse diffraction limit, but it has fancy sharpening algorithms that work sort of okay, and people mostly view the photos in small formats anyway.

Nice old lenses, with the aperture wide open, had shallow depths of field. Your phone camera doesn’t, and it will try to fake it for you in “portrait mode”. It looks pretty bad, but a surprisingly large number of users don’t care :) (I personally find the way hair looks to be quite annoying, and I’m surprised that I haven’t seen a nice AI-enhanced version that can fake hair over a distant background better.)

Nice summary, thanks!

The author is describing his personal journey, but the real question is not fully answered. And the answer is yes, it matters.

For sports, action, wildlife (i.e. not in zoos), deep-space astro-photography (not milky-way), micro-photography (not macro), etc - you need good gear to make high quality photos. By quality I'm referring to technical elements of quality - ample detail, minimum optical aberrations/distortions, good color accuracy, good accuracy of focus, etc. You can intentionally make a picture which is blurry, has intentionally bad color casts, etc - but then we're getting into art here, which is subjective.

Having said that, a boring subject will result in a boring photo, and this is true regardless of gear.

For what the author is doing, the main consideration is that the type of gear you use affects your process, which is going to affect the end results. There's not a better or worse, but it's inevitable that you're going to get different results if you use a digital camera with an old manual focus lens vs an iPhone vs a medium format film camera, because the act of taking a photo is different for each one. I think it's easier to overlook this in photography more than other artistic hobbies because camera companies are very interested in convincing you to buy more expensive gear. And because expensive gadgets are fun.

It definitely matters for some photos.

For example, I would want a very powerful telephoto lens when photographing this lion: https://i.redd.it/706yzd4nhs211.jpg

I definitely would not want to be taking that picture with my iPhone, even though it is possible if I got close enough and held the phone still enough.

This is a subject that comes up frequently in photography. I think this is because many novice photographers think they need a fancy camera to take good pictures.

Gear, particularly the lenses you use, matters depending on your preferred genre of photography. Beyond that, the difference between and low and high end cameras tends to be build quality and the ease of use.

It's important to remember that these are just tools. I've learned that everyone shoots differently, so it's important to find the right tools that work best for you.

Date the camera, marry the lens.

With the slew of mounting adapters these days, you can keep using even 60-year-old lenses on most camera bodies.

Like the Helios 44-2 (ca. 1958), still being used today on big features like "The Batman" in a few scenes. They mixed footage from that $500 vintage lens with $50,000 ARRI anamorphic primes.

My Fujifilm X-Pro3 currently has a 1960s-era reflector lens mounted on it. I normally use a 56mm f/1.4 or 23mm f/1.2, but I still have a large collection of vintage Nikon lenses that see lots of use, though I've not owned a Nikon camera in a decade.

The answer I always give is "gear can matter - what is your gear stopping you from doing"? Generally people don't have a very compelling answer. If you are limited by your gear, you're going to have lots of shots that fall a little short in ways that gear might address. Well framed shots and the edge of possible shutter speeds that just need one or two more stops of ISO, shots where the colors can't be fully captured by the chip you used, etc. Mostly though, if you are using any camera made since 2010, your gear is probably not getting in your way much.

My concrete answer is "take pictures which are in focus". I used to have a compact digital camera, with autofocus, and no way to focus manually. Fine for typical snapshots. But show it a complex, interesting scene with some depth, and it would just focus on the wrong thing. It was frustrating to be able to see something, but not photograph it! Then i bought a fancier camera, which had optional manual focus, and now i could take a whole set of pictures i couldn't have taken before.

The answer to this question changes with time. A decade and a half ago you absolutely needed gear worth a few thousand dollars at minimum to take a good photo. Today you can put something taken from your smartphone camera on a billboard or magazine.

As tech improves every field has such jumps in baseline quality. The most complex software in the world can be written on a $500 laptop. You can record a chart topping song on a $100 microphone in your bedroom. In most sports the average enthusiast today is using better gear than the top professionals in the world had a generation ago. The cost of the gear you need to be "good enough for all practical purposes" is constantly getting lower.

If you have a pair of eyes, obviously gear will actually matter.

I don't know what the state of DSLR market is today, but in 2007, I took an amateur photography class in community college and had to rent a cheap camera to take photos for the assignment. It was pretty clear that despite using best available settings to take pictures, my photos looked nowhere near as noise-free/crispy as other adult hobbyists with $10,000 camera setups.

If you ever used a point-and-shoot camera and a high-end DSLR, you'll know that at the same level of skill nothing can compensate for good optics. It's simple physics.

Gear matters more in low-light conditions, or with fast-moving objects. It matters less for landscape photography with good lighting conditions.

But it always matters.