Gadgets or Image - which is more important to us?

Fraser Euan White

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,062
Name
Fraser White
Edit My Images
Yes
Several times recently the subject has been raised in other threads and almost without fail contributors state 'the final image is what counts'.

However with other threads running I for one am horrified at how often people seem to change their cameras.

This question is more for the enthusiast than the pro as i full understand why a feature on a new release of camera may make their job and 'keeper rate' much better but I get horrified when, say an owner of a Sony A7r? states on a Nikon/Canon mirrorless release 'not for me because it hasn't got.........' What makes you even consider changing cameras so quickly and what is 'so wrong' with the Sony camera that you think changing it will make a difference to the final image.

Then, the other scenario; 'No real difference in image quality between FF and micro...........' and then state that the Micro.......does everything better, a few days later they state how nice a FF version of this camera would be awesome?.......Why if you believed your initial argument that FF offers no advantage?

It would appear that the evidence actually suggests we like our gadgets more than the final image but don't like to admit it, we find 'excuses' to change or are we really falling for the marketing of new cameras?

I have a D4 - 6 year old technology 16 megapixel that still performs brilliantly and does everything much better than I can; I really can't see any need to upgrade to improve my photography.

Thoughts?.............
 
Last edited:
for the size prints usually printed any 5 year old camera will suffice.

It's all very well certain peeps saying "I need full frame digital to run my business"

You don't you know. Do you think there were no pro photographers before FX digital was introduced?
 
As a professional I have not felt the need to upgrade any of my camera bodies for a number of years, they all do exactly what I need and expect of them and they never let me down in that respect, as you say the weakest link is 'me'.

There was, they were shooting full frame film :p
Indeed, and medium format plus large format sheet film....
 
I bought a used 450D in 2009
A new 5D2 kit in 2010
A used Sony A7 in 2015

I have a FE28-70, 35/2.8, 85/1.8 & a Voigtlander 40/1.4 to go with the Sony.

My phone is 18 months old. My previous phone was nearly 4 years old.

I'm not in the latest gadget team ;) :D
 
I share a similar sentiment to the author. I suppose I understand technical requirements in a camera such as a certain megapixel count for printing and whatnot but is it not the ability of the photographer that is the ultimate limiting thing as opposed to any equipment.

I recently went to Wales and after I came back, I reviewed the photos on my laptop and needless to say, many looked well ....dull. Its worth noting I had yet to PP any of them but I can't imagine if I had something like a Nikon D5 with a 70-200 F2.8 (I actually own and went with a Nikon D5500 and a 18-300mm F3.5) my photos would have turned out any better.
 
Several times recently the subject has been raised in other threads and almost without fail contributors state 'the final image is what counts'.

However with other threads running I for one am horrified at how often people seem to change their cameras.

This question is more for the enthusiast than the pro as i full understand why a feature on a new release of camera may make their job and 'keeper rate' much better but I get horrified when, say an owner of a Sony A7r? states on a Nikon/Canon mirrorless release 'not for me because it hasn't got.........' What makes you even consider changing cameras so quickly and what is 'so wrong' with the Sony camera that you think changing it will make a difference to the final image.

Then, the other scenario; 'No real difference in image quality between FF and micro...........' and then state that the Micro.......does everything better, a few days later they state how nice a FF version of this camera would be awesome?.......Why if you believed your initial argument that FF offers no advantage?

It would appear that the evidence actually suggests we like our gadgets more than the final image but don't like to admit it, we find 'excuses' to change or are we really falling for the marketing of new cameras?

I have a D4 - 6 year old technology 16 megapixel that still performs brilliantly and does everything much better than I can; I really can't see any need to upgrade to improve my photography.

Thoughts?.............
Gadgets or image? Neither and both :LOL: What I mean by this is that it’s the whole process and not just the final image. If I hate doing photography what’s the point, I may as well look at pretty pictures on Flickr or wherever if the final image is all that counts, there’s plenty of people out there that are far better than I am and end up with a better shot than myself. Obviously there are also mementos, whether it be a holiday, graduation, children etc in which case it’s the subject that counts.

As for the enjoyment factor then gadgets can help with this, and I think for a lot of folk this is the reason people change gear so much. I for one find it fun trying out new stuff, I get pleasure out of learning about different equipment and figuring out how to get the best from it (technically at least). That being said, I’ve kind of lost my way a bit and lost my mojo and thinking of going back to basics. I’m going to use my OM1 for a bit and if I like that I’ll look at an X100 as the ‘experience’ will be similar but won’t have the cost of film and processing.

As for the final image, of course we want this to be as good as possible and it’s rewarding on the rare occasion I get a good photo but, mementos aside, I think the process is probably more important to me.
 
It’s the image.

It might not seem like it because of the amount of kit that I have but when I got my new 5D3, 5D4 etc and even the Sony, I put a strap on the camera, set up the settings how I want it, take 1 single photo to check it works then I put it away my bag until the next shoot. It could be days or a few weeks before I even get to know what I bought.

It doesn’t matter what body I have, having the latest body don’t make me want to go out and use it. It’s strange, you’d think having a new gear is a fuel to take pictures, not for me, the fuel to take pictures is the picture in my head.
 
I've only ever owned 3 ditgal cameras. My first was 10 years ago, a Sony A300. I had it 5 years and then bought a nikon d5200 which was a better camera overall. I have litrrelly this week bought my 3rd camera which was a move to the full frame world. I bought an A7iii and its great. I'll probably have that for 5 years plus too unless it breaks or something.

The camera is not the most important thing but technology is always improving so why not upgrade if you can?
 
Gadgets or image? Neither and both :LOL: What I mean by this is that it’s the whole process and not just the final image. If I hate doing photography what’s the point, I may as well look at pretty pictures on Flickr or wherever if the final image is all that counts, there’s plenty of people out there that are far better than I am and end up with a better shot than myself. Obviously there are also mementos, whether it be a holiday, graduation, children etc in which case it’s the subject that counts.

As for the enjoyment factor then gadgets can help with this, and I think for a lot of folk this is the reason people change gear so much. I for one find it fun trying out new stuff, I get pleasure out of learning about different equipment and figuring out how to get the best from it (technically at least). That being said, I’ve kind of lost my way a bit and lost my mojo and thinking of going back to basics. I’m going to use my OM1 for a bit and if I like that I’ll look at an X100 as the ‘experience’ will be similar but won’t have the cost of film and processing.

As for the final image, of course we want this to be as good as possible and it’s rewarding on the rare occasion I get a good photo but, mementos aside, I think the process is probably more important to me.

I feel this is a really honest reply and is what a large number of 'enthusiasts' take from the hobby of photography - it certainly is why i enjoy photography.

I hope you love the return to film with the OM-1; film has massively re-ignited my enthusiasm and whilst film/processing is more expensive (I do all my own to make the hobby even more enjoyable) the initial cost of the equipment is much cheaper. The cost of film/processing also makes you think more about pressing the shutter button since the film isn't limitless or cheap like a digital image.
 
It’s quite a hassle to change, it’s not only camera bodies but lenses, filter adapters, and flashes. I’d rather spend the time making pictures.
 
Got to be the image. Without that why bother even owning a camera?
 
I've only ever owned 3 ditgal cameras.

The camera is not the most important thing but technology is always improving so why not upgrade if you can?

Hi Andy.................that's a new camera every three years which is very frequent to me ..................and no it certainly isn't a problem if you can afford it but does it answer the question of which is more important the gadget or the image? The D5200 is an extremely capable camera being able to deliver absolutely stunning images.

Most might say spending the money on a top lens or even training/travel would give the oportunity for better photographs rather than a camera body change but none of the aforementioned have the same 'gadget' fun.

(sorry to single you out BTW)
 
Got to be the image. Without that why bother even owning a camera?

.........been here before; some like the engineering/experience of taking the picture as well............and owning a gadget.

A £5 watch can tell the time very accurately - why spend more on a watch?
 
.........been here before; some like the engineering/experience of taking the picture as well............and owning a gadget.

A £5 watch can tell the time very accurately - why spend more on a watch?
But the watch still tells the time. Would you put one on your wrist (whatever it was worth) if it didn't tell the time? Similarly, I understand why someone might want a better gadget (been there, done that), but what would you do with a camera that didn't record images? That would make it a piece of jewellery. That's why the image has to be the most important, no matter how much you enjoy the process. Without the recording of an image it isn't a camera.
 
For me, the image is a goal, but the process is where the most enjoyment is. A good image is my reward, if you like, but I hope that all aspects of my hobby bring me pleasure leading up to that.
Eg: my main cameras are a Nikon D300, with a few lenses, and a recently acquired Olympus E-M1 (mark1). with kit lenses. I know I have a long way to go to exhaust even the capabilities of these cameras, but the learning and discovery process is my main pleasure at present, whilst aiming for some very satisfying images in the end. Likewise with my continuation with film, having put together a small Pentax outfit and a Canon one - trying these cameras, learning to get what I can from them, hoping for some satisfying results.

I don't mind if most of my efforts are poor, if I can understand why and get the odd good one to see that I'm improving. As I say, the journey is the thing for me. If and when I arrive at the ability to reliably produce stand-out images, I know it'll be time to get a new camera that brings some new techniques or features to the hobby for me. Or turn it into a business!
 
But the watch still tells the time. Would you put one on your wrist (whatever it was worth) if it didn't tell the time? Similarly, I understand why someone might want a better gadget (been there, done that), but what would you do with a camera that didn't record images? That would make it a piece of jewellery. That's why the image has to be the most important, no matter how much you enjoy the process. Without the recording of an image it isn't a camera.
This is where you and I will have to disagree. The image is part of the process, but not the most important part for me. It’s a good ‘reference’ to see if my technique has been good or not but if I didn’t enjoy the process of getting that image I wouldn’t bother. Obviously this is just my opinion, yours clearly differs (y)
 
This is where you and I will have to disagree. The image is part of the process, but not the most important part for me. It’s a good ‘reference’ to see if my technique has been good or not but if I didn’t enjoy the process of getting that image I wouldn’t bother. Obviously this is just my opinion, yours clearly differs (y)

I take the view that the image is the most important, the process I sometimes even hate but if it get me the shot then it’s worth it.

Do I like laying in the mud to get a low level shot? Nope! Do I like balancing my camera on a handrail over the side of a mountain? Not one bit.

But I have a shot in my head from that angle and I need to make sure I can see the framing correctly etc so I get down and ruin my suit in the process. None of that process is enjoyable. The image however is.

You got it do what you got to do!
 
Last edited:
I take the view that the image is the most important, the process I sometimes even hate but if it get me the shot then it’s worth it.

Do I like laying in the mud to get a low level shot? Nope!

But I have a shot in my head from that angle and I need to make sure I can see the framing correctly etc so I get down and ruin my suit in the process. None of that process is enjoyable. The image however is.

You got it do what you got to do!
But you’re doing it to earn a living, I’m doing it for fun so we’re going to have two different perspectives. You’re doing things you don’t want to do to get the shots so that you get paid, get good feedback and future bookings. I do things because I want to (y)
 
But you’re doing it to earn a living, I’m doing it for fun so we’re going to have two different perspectives. You’re doing things you don’t want to do to get the shots so that you get paid, get good feedback and future bookings. I do things because I want to (y)

TBH @snerkler I have looked at your website and I find your images................stunning :)

Your viewpoint on photography closely mimics mine (except your results are what i could only dream of!)
 
But you’re doing it to earn a living, I’m doing it for fun so we’re going to have two different perspectives. You’re doing things you don’t want to do to get the shots so that you get paid, get good feedback and future bookings. I do things because I want to (y)

I still take the same approach for my own stuff, might not go as far but the idea is the same. Like I love a lie in, in Japan the only way to get a photo of Arashiyama is to get up before the crowds and that mean getting the first train there. The process therefore involve getting up at 5am when I’m on “holiday”. I’m happy to do that for a photo. Not knee deep in mud but I love a good sleep :)
 
TBH @snerkler I have looked at your website and I find your images................stunning :)

Your viewpoint on photography closely mimics mine (except your results are what i could only dream of!)
That’s very kind, thank you. I haven’t seen any of your pics to be able to return the compliment, but I’m sure you’re underestimating your photos.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RIR
Photography is a hobby for me and is there to be enjoyed. If I’m not enjoying it I see no point in it. I haven’t changed cameras for ages but I want to try something new. Not for the images, but I do like new gadgets
!

For people who earn money from photography I’m sure their views differ.
 
I feel like this is the same argument as you would have about mobile phones. You don't need the best mobile phone as it does most things the new ones do. However, the new ones are definitely better and more capable so it's nice to have one. [emoji16]
 
I don't see using the same camera for years as holding any meaning whatsoever. If the gear is secondary, then who cares if you kept your crusty old banger of a D90 or if you went and bought a brand new A7III? so long as you make good use of it. I've changed cameras numerous times, there was always a reason for it, it doesn't require any justification, I did it to suit me. Quick example: changing from Fuji to M43, I wanted IBIS, Fuji didn't have it at the time, and when they did come out with it that camera was above budget for me anyway.

End image is always the most important to me, but I like to enjoy using the gear used to get there, I see no harm in switching it up now and then. It's not really any different than changing your car every few years. The old one was getting you from A to B, but maybe the newer one is that bit more comfy for the journey.

A new bit of gear can just spark you into getting out there to use it, like I say there will be some specific reason you wanted it, whether it's better ergonomics, some features your old model didn't have that you'd like to try or you just fancy trying that system for certain lenses .... doesn't matter, if they get you up and out shooting. So yes, end result is the most satisfying, but you have to want to go get it, I believe a fresh change of tools can help with this.
 
Several times recently the subject has been raised in other threads and almost without fail contributors state 'the final image is what counts'.

That's what people say.

<snip>

It would appear that the evidence actually suggests we like our gadgets more than the final image but don't like to admit it, we find 'excuses' to change or are we really falling for the marketing of new cameras?

And that's what people on photo forums mostly do.
 
Several times recently the subject has been raised in other threads and almost without fail contributors state 'the final image is what counts'.

However with other threads running I for one am horrified at how often people seem to change their cameras.

This question is more for the enthusiast than the pro as i full understand why a feature on a new release of camera may make their job and 'keeper rate' much better but I get horrified when, say an owner of a Sony A7r? states on a Nikon/Canon mirrorless release 'not for me because it hasn't got.........' What makes you even consider changing cameras so quickly and what is 'so wrong' with the Sony camera that you think changing it will make a difference to the final image.

Then, the other scenario; 'No real difference in image quality between FF and micro...........' and then state that the Micro.......does everything better, a few days later they state how nice a FF version of this camera would be awesome?.......Why if you believed your initial argument that FF offers no advantage?

It would appear that the evidence actually suggests we like our gadgets more than the final image but don't like to admit it, we find 'excuses' to change or are we really falling for the marketing of new cameras?

I have a D4 - 6 year old technology 16 megapixel that still performs brilliantly and does everything much better than I can; I really can't see any need to upgrade to improve my photography.

Thoughts?.............
It’s an aberration called Gas,I used to suffer from it but my latest camera cured that.now where is that Z7 review :D
 
I got into art recently after doing a course.

Guess what,I started trawling the shops and websites looking for the best pencils,pastels,papers etc etc ad nauseum.

I was lucky this time as I very quickly realised yes I need some decent gear for my art but decent is quite enough.

What I thankfully [for me ] came to learn is I need to practice and do the skills needed to produce [to me] and get better

at this new hobby because that is what will get me the results I’m trying to achieve .

I’m so glad I learnt this early on.

If i’d Applied this thinking to my photography I might be a better photographer and have a fatter wallet.

However for others why not if they enjoy and can afford to buy and peruse the latest gear I’m quite envious,

But I AM a lot more content now. :D
 
Last edited:
There was, they were shooting full frame film :p
Oh Raymond!
Pro photography didn’t start the day you discovered it.
Some of us were shooting digital before there was a full frame option.
Some of us even go back to the days of film, where low light meant 800ISO.

What ought to be obvious is that the market makes demands based on what is deliverable.

There’s dozens of jobs shot every day on crop cameras. Some people have a very narrow worldview.
 
Oh Raymond!
Pro photography didn’t start the day you discovered it.
Some of us were shooting digital before there was a full frame option.
Some of us even go back to the days of film, where low light meant 800ISO.

What ought to be obvious is that the market makes demands based on what is deliverable.

There’s dozens of jobs shot every day on crop cameras. Some people have a very narrow worldview.

Eh? What are you on about?

I said film?

As in 35mm....film.

I know there are others...just because I didn’t mention it doesn’t mean I don’t know it, do I need to write everything down every time I make a post in order to “cover my ass”?

Oh Phil! And see the :p the post is also a little joke.

Ps I shot a wedding on 30D.

This is the second time in a row you totally misread what I wrote, and also misread someone else yesterday...seriously, you either need glasses or slow down.
 
Last edited:
What I don't understand is people buying a particular brand, investing in lenses then selling the lot to buy a different brand.
I've been using Canon gear since 2008 and I've not found any reason to change.
I've never read reviews of other manufacturers as I am not the slightest bit interested.
Ok so perhaps joe bloggs body has better ISO handeling than fred bloggs model but as long as my kit does what I want it to do then I'm happy enough.
To a certain degree with some amateur photographers I think it's the gadget aspect that appeals to them.
I consider myself to be a geek, years ago I would upgrade the cpu and graphics card on a yearly basis in my desktop pc then around 2007 I bought a Xbox 360 and I gave up gaming on a computer.
Earlier this year I built myself a new desktop to replace my 10 year old one.
Getting back into photography this year, if I didn't have the money to buy a new body I would have happily bought either a 40D or 50D as I knew from past experience I would have been more than happy with the IQ.
 
There was, they were shooting full frame film

What is full frame? 5x4?

When the Nikon D100 came out, a prominent wedding photographer was interviewed in Amateur Photographer. He stated that the six megapixels of the D100's DX size sensor made it the perfect camera for weddings...


Steve.
 
What is full frame? 5x4?

When the Nikon D100 came out, a prominent wedding photographer was interviewed in Amateur Photographer. He stated that the six megapixels of the D100's DX size sensor made it the perfect camera for weddings...


Steve.
Nice Axe :D
 
Never needed much of a reason to upgrade or buy another camera body. Some have been new, some second hand, some imports. Will buy on a whim as I did with the one I’m waiting for at the moment.
 
Eh? What are you on about?

I said film?

As in 35mm....film.

I know there are others...just because I didn’t mention it doesn’t mean I don’t know it, do I need to write everything down every time I make a post in order to “cover my ass”?

Oh Phil! And see the :p the post is also a little joke.

Ps I shot a wedding on 30D.

This is the second time in a row you totally misread what I wrote, and also misread someone else yesterday...seriously, you either need glasses or slow down.
Half asleep;)
 
The image is the important thing, but that doesn’t mean I don’t get excited about the tools used.

I rarely feel the need to buy the latest gear, and my budget means I restrict the desire to have ‘the best’, compromises have to be made.

Yesterday was spent helping the Mrs with a photo assignment. She had a Pinterest board with portraits on and I supplied the appropriate light modifier for each ‘look’

I don’t often get to play with those ‘toys’ so it was great fun, and I didn’t even take a shot.
 
I don't really keep up with modern gadgets or with camera gear. I use to work in tech and I grew to dislike having it in my home so now apart from the TV's and hifi's the tech is out of sight unless it's being used and then it's put away again.

I started with a Kodak instamatic which was a very simple camera and for me it is mostly about having a picture even though that's changed from having a print in my hand to mostly having a picture on my PC.

The gear is definitely and interest and a part of it and there's enjoyment to be had even if using something very basic like a compact but I hope I never lose sight of why the gear exists.

I suppose my weakness is old manual lenses but in my defence each gives a slightly different end result.
 
Bit of both for me. Images are what got me into photography but I do love the gear too. Can say hand on heart that I have never needed or been able to actually justify a single camera or lens upgrade over the years even though I have done it many times and it's cost a fortune. Like many, I've conjured up excuses as to why I 'must' buy something but the reality is that it's purely a lust first, reasoning second and tenuous at best.

I have an interest in film cameras too and I'll be 100% honest here that of all the film shots I've taken in recent years, I've probably only like 5-10 of them. I don't specifically like the 'filmyness' of it all (although medium format velvia looks nice), I think I really only use it because I like the craft, the process and I love the mechanical nature of the cameras. If I like the image afterwards it often relates to knowing that I've had to work a bit harder for it rather than judging on its own merits.
 
Back
Top