As someone who does photography and videography, "Gear doesn't matter" is less about that the gear doesn't matter at all, but more that beginners tend to focus more on getting good gear rather than sharpening their skills, before they have the skill to use better/more advanced gear.
A bit like buying really good monitors for audio production before you really trained your hearing so you won't hear any difference between standard and really high quality monitors.
The "return on investment" for sharpening the basic skills in the beginning when learning a new subject is much more important than getting the latest and greatest gear, as that won't give you as much knowledge and experience since you won't really know why it is the greatest gear, and how to fully leverage it.
That's why people say "Gear doesn't matter", because in the beginning, it mostly doesn't. Just like "Premature optimizations is the root of all evil" doesn't mean absolutely all upfront optimizations are indeed evil. If you're sufficiently experienced, you'd recognize when it's premature vs not, when it's worth upfront investment vs not. But for a beginner, it's easier to remember a simple dogma, and let them figure out that it does matter a little bit, once you get better at your subject.
I think this is tied in with Adam Savage's observation that practice alone gets you 80% of the way to mastery. Talent is what gets you the the other 20%.
Gear strikes me as being similar. High-end gear won't really improve the work of someone who is much below the 80% mastery mark, but it can make all the difference in the world to someone above it.
I also really like his approach to buying gear: if it's the first of a particular kind of equipment, buy the cheapest version you can get. Use that, and you'll learn if it's actually helpful to you and, if it is, what qualities are really important. Only then go out and buy the best version you can afford.
> if it's the first of a particular kind of equipment, buy the cheapest version you can get. Use that, and you'll learn if it's actually helpful to you and, if it is, what qualities are really important. Only then go out and buy the best version you can afford.
I call this the Harbor Freight tool philosophy! If you need a tool that you do not have, buy it from Harbor Freight (the store sells very cheep but still functional tools). If (and only if) you wear out the Harbor Freight tool, then you know that your use-case deserves a higher level of investment and you go and buy the best version of the tool you can afford. This is a very simple and practical measure (for DIY folks) to decide what equipment to invest in.
Would be nice to have a name to the "philosophy" indeed, but as someone who never heard of Harbor Freight before, maybe something internationally known would be better? :)
I'd generally agree however... I'm a drone photographer first, but wanted to supplement it with some ground video. Bought a gimbal for my phone. Wanted something smaller, so bought an Osmo Pocket. Bought a GoPro. Bought a GH5; bought a Ronin S. Wanted something POV, so bought an Insta360 Go 2. Found shifting bitty content to my phone annoying, so bought a new phone with stronger video capabilities. All the gimmicky options have paid for themselves on their first jobs, but in hindsight, I wonder if I shouldn't have just skipped most of them and put the budget towards something better than the GH5. Or better lenses for the GH5.
On twitter I got sorta-popular mostly sharing photos of my life, documentary style, and a few are with a Leica Q2 ($5000). Most are with a Pixel 5 (or recently Pixel 7).
People very often ask me what camera I used to take a photo. When they do, it's usually the Pixel! Maybe 80% of the time it's a phone camera shot.
Of course highly specific gear matters for sports shooting (as he mentions) or wildlife shooting (telephoto), but otherwise limitations don't matter too much. Blurry or lower dpi photos are OK. Quick editing on your phone is OK. Finding the right photo in the world is still what matters most.
One of the reasons I love the Leica Q2, with its fixed 28mm lens (no zooming, no changing lenses), is that it forces you to find these photos. You're not thinking about gear, about what to bring or how to start. Instead you spend your energy just seeing and moving (zoom with your feet only) and I think this makes you a better photographer than one with a bigger gear loadout. It's also why I think I can seamlessly switch between my 'real' camera and my phone when thinking about what to point at, since I'm married to just a single focal length.
Since I always have my phone, I get more shots on my phone, and maybe to the audience those are the most impressive shots, so they ask, and they find out I'm using a phone camera. The gear definitely doesn't matter that much.
I've shot content for a professional tourism contract on my phone. Helps that phone cameras these days are very good!
I think what stands out to most people is when something looks non-standard. Usually that's because it's shot on a camera while everyone else is using a phone. But increasingly, it's shot on a phone by a photographer who's just using it in a slightly different way or who's edited it.
If the goal of the picture is to view it on a phone screen or print it on a brochure in small size, I am 100% there with you. If you want to make a print of the picture, then it makes a difference. The photo from iPhone lacks the details that my semi-pro camera captured. Same animal, similar distances.. but the photo from my semi-pro camera had the details when you zoom in versus the photo from iPhone was more a blob.
Audio gear is like this too. I certainly don't have an either natural or trained radio voice. I did use decent (tens of dollars) mics when I was doing podcasts and it was probably better than using an AirPod or certainly just the laptop speaker. But anything above that wouldn't really have made any difference no matter how much money I spent--especially outside of a real studio environment.
Also, to be honest, a lot of pros probably use gear that's expected and very few people would notice any difference if they didn't have the latest cool new camera they bought.
Better approximation would be saying "gear is a multiplier on skill".
Sometimes good gear just makes it take faster. Sometimes it allows you to do stuff otherwise not possible. But lack of core skills can't be compensated by fancy equipment for all but the most extreme difference
I dunno, in my case it just made it faster. Shitty knife can be made sharp, just not for long.
For me it's mostly "the better thing makes it quicker". Sure there is some minimum that makes stuff below impossible, but outside of that it's mostly convenience
The price point for a decent blade is pretty low though. Something mass produced by one of the decent brands gets most of the performance that a home cook is going to notice.
I personally think that keeping knives sharp is a sub-skill of cooking but a very unintuitive one at first, until you use someone else's sharp knife and all of a sudden things just click.
You can take phenomenal photos with just about any camera. Also: many photos basically require higher quality or specialized equipment. These statements are not contradictory. And they are actionable: as a beginner, it’s useful to develop general skills around exposure and composition with a cheap camera by taking photos that camera is capable of (eg plenty of light). I think of gear as enabling a certain kind of photo and my rule of thumb is that I don’t buy gear unless there’s a specific thing I want to do and I know why I can’t do it without that gear.
I remember a studio art class I took and the teacher had us doing just about everything using Sharpie on sketch paper. I guess he wanted us to get used to putting in what's visible and not trying to play with layers, shading, erasing, etc. To train the visual system first, and worry about the fancier stuff later. It made a lot of sense and it's sort of like sending new cinematographers off with a silent super-8 camera and telling them to work on story, lighting, and framing rather than worry about color, sound, dialog, etc.
Many new photographers get into it because they were inspired by a certain type of photography. If the gear you have does not match what you want to do, you are going to be disappointed.
As an extreme example, if you want to take high resolution pictures of distant planets, you are going to need a telescope.
You are going to have more flexibility with gear choice if you are flexible with the photos you want to take.
If I stuck to kit lens and no photoshop, I may have given up on photography pretty soon.
In ordinary photography, target selection eats better gear for breakfast.
Needless to say, specialist stuff requires specialist gear (e.g. underwater photography, fast sports shots, long-distance animal documentary filming).
For a lot of application scenarios, today´s mobile phone cameras are amazing for what they can do, how small and affordable they are. More often than not, one's best shots are spontaneous, and the only camera around will be the one in one's smartphone.
In contrast, in many sports (not chess, perhaps!), e.g. a better table-tennis bat matters enormously. As they say, a match won is attributed to one's technique, a match lost is blamed on the bat (never heard a photographer blame anything on their camera or wideangle lense!).
In software engineering and writing, a good laptop matters enormously. Among the properties { keyboard, screen, battery, RAM, CPU, SSD }, keyboard and battery life are the most crucial elements to me, followed by RAM and SSD size followed by screen and CPU. In the past, ¨faster CPU¨ would have been higher up on the list, but even today's slowest machines are already very fast!
Whatever you do, new/better gear make it more fun! So if you want your kids to enjoy the new school year, buy them new colors or a new school bag.
> Of course if you see something worth taking a picture of then you need to use what you have available, whether that’s an expensive DSLR or your smart phone.
Except that some things are only worth taking a picture of if you have the right gear. (Yeah, the subsequent paragraphs kinda agree with this, but I do think it’s worth spelling out that for some sorts of photos, “the camera you have with you” may well be sufficiently unsuitable as to be useless.)
Saying that gear doesn't matter is like old fogey programmers saying that programming languages don't matter. A good programmer can wrangle code in anything reasonably practical. And I say that as one of those old fogey programmers.
I mean c'mon, look at Golang. It is not a good language[0][1]. And yet, folks built k8s with it, and many other things.
It's like that with photographic gear too. Just like the best camera is the one you have, the best language is the one that all your domain experts can use. And if they're good at knowledge and design, but shitty at programming, golang it will be.
But it's also worth noting that k8s was not written in C++. Tools matter.
The time I realized I needed a better camera is when my pocket zoom camera took about a second to hunt for focus at a wedding in a fairly dark church. I got my first DSLR after that, and eventually wore out the shutter. ;-)
Phase detect autofocus is amazing stuff. I never had autofocus problems after that.
Depends what you do with the gear; or whether you even have the skills to use the gear properly. There are a lot of people with money that end up buying some really expensive gear that haven't got a lot of skill. And there are a lot of impoverished but skilled photographers that take photos with some old thing they got their hands on cheaply and second hand because that's all they can afford.
The latter take better photos, generally. But as soon as they get money, they buy the gear they need and make even better photos. Professional photographers tend to really obsess about their gear.
I got myself a canon dslr about 12 years ago. Nothing special. Just the entry level model (550D). I used it until about 2020 and I replaced it with a Fuji XT-30. Also an entry level camera. Does it take better photos? Yes and no. It's certainly more capable in low light situations. And the photos have a bit less noise and more dynamic range, which is nice. But neither of those things were much of an issue with the Canon in daylight situations. And I'm still the same person with the same amateur skills. So, there hasn't been a massive improvement in the quality of the photos I take. I do shoot a bit more at night now. Because I can with this thing.
But what I do appreciate most with Fuji is the controls. I mostly shoot manual now because this is very easy with this camera and was very fiddly with the Canon. I have one dial for aperture on the lens, one dedicated dial for shutter speed and I control the iso with one of the programmable dials. As it turns out, forcing yourself to shoot manual all the time puts you on a learning curve where you start analyzing what you shoot and how to set the shot up correctly. Shooting in half automated mode with the Canon was easier but you get lazy about it as well. I mostly shot in AV mode with that and thus ended up with a lot of shots that were either not well exposed, noisy (high iso), or with the wrong aperture for the situation.
Fuji makes some fantastically expensive cameras that cost thousands of dollars that you typically pair with lenses that are even more expensive. Clearly way out of my budget. Would I like owning one. Oh yes. But would it probably wouldn't make a huge difference.
Do you need an IDE to write, for example, Java or C#? No. But it sure is nice! And you can do some pretty cool code analysis and refactoring with some good tools.
Do you need a jointer, a planer, a bandsaw, a CNC router, a … as a hobby woodworker? No. But it sure is nice to have the right tool for the job.
I’ve seen some pretty clever hacks by people to work around not owning a specific tool. They work great for a one-off. But you really need to learn your workflow and identify real bottlenecks and address them.
This post is a great reminder not just photography, but to a lot of things in life. :)
Interesting to note the number of YouTube channels and such that are making millions of dollars shooting their videos with iPhones, GoPros, and consumer drones. The price gap between that equipment and true professional grade gear is astronomical, but in this case it does not matter.
Does ski matter to beginners? Say, for a Ski beginner who can cruise light blue runs with ugly movement when carving? Should I just pick a pair in a certain price range, or pay close attention to all kinds of parameters.
Skis matter, I'd say the best thing you can do is ask for advice at a good shop while being realistic about your skill level, how much you can ski, and how much you might improve. Try not to be too proud and say you are just going to ski powder, be realistic about the conditions you are likely to ski in. There are some decent sites to ask as well. You likely can find a used pair of good skis instead of buying new if you prefer.
Also don't forget about boots. They can be hard to fit and find a good pair but the effort is worth it. You might not care immediately and skis are more exciting to buy, but your boots are how you use the skis and bad boots can make it hard to get better.
It seems like after a decent period of experimentation many skis currently are just good, especially in the intermediate range. I don't know much about beginner skis but depending on what you learn on the next step up from rental skis will feel like a significant improvement.
After that, there is a lot of feel and style that determines the skis you might use. I have probably 10-15 pairs because I hold on to my worn out, broken skis instead of throwing them away. I figured out what characteristics I like for where I ski and a couple common conditions. Some people like long, straight skis, some are happy with shorter noodles, part of that is style and part of that is where the skis are used. Some people care a lot about weight.
The biggest thing that matters besides comfy boots is what type of skis (length and width).
I personally use all-mountain skis which are, well, good in most conditions because I typically ski in the Midwest with trips out west. If you frequently hit powder and/or live near a mountain a pair of powder skis may suit you well either alone or as a compliment - don’t over think it too much.
I highly highly highly highly recommend taking lessons next time you get to a real mountain. They are well worth the money. I usually do a tune up lesson to start the season the first time I get out west.
I’m not sure what your budget is and your ski frequency is but if you ski a lot I’d spend the most money you feel comfortable spending and buy a great pair of boots. Rent skis for a while if you need to. Then get a pair of skis. Don’t skimp on boots. Don’t buy cheap boots. Get them fitted at a ski store by a professional. Boots make/break your ski life.
Tl;dr
Buy an expensive pair of boots, it matters. Pay for lessons. They matter. Arcteryx jackets? Not so much.
Speaking of lessons, I envy the kids who can join teams in those ski resorts, and the team coaches are usually regional or national medalists, who know how to drill fundamentals into kids. Adults are not so lucky. I tried many coaches or lessons offered by either ski resorts or by some ski schools. The coaches somehow could not convey exactly how one can go from pizza to parallel ski then to carving and finally to short turns. Yeah, they would give instructions like big toe small toe, lean forward, keeping upper body angular and etc. What they failed to do, though, is pointing out exactly what a series of drills that one can do to make progress.
Highly recommend "Breakthrough on the New Skis" by Lito Tejada-Flores for an explanation that makes sense of what to do on skis. It's not an easy concept to communicate and comprehend, and much more important than any equipment at an intermediate level. More or less any set of all mountain 80-95mm width skis with correctly fitting boots will work until you're skiing off-piste.
You can’t verbally describe body motion is not with. The reason you do the drill is to get the motion down. It could take 200 times or 2000 times before you get there it’s very variable. The same way I can’t really tell you how to balance in one leg, but I can offer tips to break down the motion into more practiceable chunks
Absolutely. Choose a shorter narrower and well shaped ski it’s the right equipment for beginner speed and conditions. But price point not so much you won’t be able to squeeze the 10-20% performance improvement
Gear won't take good photos. But it sure makes it easier if you know what you are doing. And it also opens new possibilities.
It is all good, IF you know how to use it. Probably the best advice I got when I started was to settle on a simple piece of gear, fairly constrained, and learn how to use it creatively. I settled on a Fuji X100s which is prime, non interchangeable lens. I learned everything about it for the next year and I am probably better photographer for it. When you learn everything about your fairly simple camera you can start learning how to use it creatively. The camera itself becomes your tool and you learn to predict what is going to happen and what is/not going to work in a particular situation. Those skills, for some reason, transfer when you change to other cameras.
Give my full frame with my expensive lenses to my wife and the pictures are worse than she would do on a phone. It is just too complicated for her to be thinking about the photo, not that she pays a lot of attention to the composition anyway.
So what is the application?
Whatever you do, try to understand different aspects of your craft and maybe figure out which of those aspects you are underutilising and how you could force yourself to learn them better.
For example, as a developer, decades ago, I was thrown on a project that required me to write a lot of code in a very constrained environment (embedded C, low memory, etc.) without being able to compile and run it. I was able to run my code once a week.
I probably learned more about programming working for 3 years on this project than I learned over the rest of my career before and after. I learned that compile/run/fix loop is a crutch that most people never wean themselves of because it is just so damn convenient. I learned that you can teach yourself to write code for days and then get it to work correctly on the first try (most of the time). I learned it gives you superpowers.
I can now barely stand watching people who can't predict what their code does, it feels so amateurish. I know I did the same and I know it was a chance that I learned it, but still.
It also makes your code much, much more bug free and reliable. Because QA/QC/code reviews, etc. only find certain types of problems that manifest themselves fairly easily. To reduce other types of bugs you have to create less bugs in your initial version because nobody will ever find them and fix them for you. Those bugs are still there and will manifest themselves in those rare occasions or when you refactor the software a bit. It also means when you are done coding the application is pretty much production ready -- there is no QA/QC phase where bugs are getting fixed.
Why is this a crutch and not an optimal way to do things? At a higher level, this is TDD (maybe with test cases in your mind). Why is that a wrong thing?
You are ascribing knowledge to a particular process and that does not sound right.
It is a crutch because people rely on it to tell them what is wrong with their code instead of trying on their own. They can't tell until they run the code because they don't exert themselves normally, when programming. Just like driving exclusively with Google Maps atrophies the part of brain responsible for navigation. Why, if you have a compiler or your app to tell you in a moment?
Unfortunately, ability to predict what a piece of code will do, exactly, is pretty important for a programmer. Training this part of brain will make you a better programmer, overall.
Anyway, I do pair programming and people are amazed you can work for a whole day and run large new module at the end of it and everything works fine, as predicted. It is a good feeling.
It does not exactly save time, usually. But sometimes when I know what I want exactly I can do feats of producing larger pieces of code in extremely short time.
Once my manager asked me if it would be possible to implement a substantial, complex feature. He had a meeting in half an hour and he would like to know. I somehow immediately figured out everything I need and have implemented it in half an hour and did a short demo literally 2 minutes before his meeting. I have not ran the code before.
I am also the guy to go at my company when stuff fails and a piece code needs to be implemented on an extremely short notice. Like when a team broke a bunch of data and somebody needs to quickly develop a tool to undo the damage but without risking further complications.
It probably has something to do with ability to understand what you are doing and all consequences of the code. Also structuring the code and solution to the problem in a way that limits possibility for unexpected behaviour.
A bit like buying really good monitors for audio production before you really trained your hearing so you won't hear any difference between standard and really high quality monitors.
The "return on investment" for sharpening the basic skills in the beginning when learning a new subject is much more important than getting the latest and greatest gear, as that won't give you as much knowledge and experience since you won't really know why it is the greatest gear, and how to fully leverage it.
That's why people say "Gear doesn't matter", because in the beginning, it mostly doesn't. Just like "Premature optimizations is the root of all evil" doesn't mean absolutely all upfront optimizations are indeed evil. If you're sufficiently experienced, you'd recognize when it's premature vs not, when it's worth upfront investment vs not. But for a beginner, it's easier to remember a simple dogma, and let them figure out that it does matter a little bit, once you get better at your subject.