I was wondering – do I have favourite cameras and lenses? Is there a particular reason why I’m using the equipment I’m using? Why am I using 35mm and not four thirds or medium format?

Certainly, equipment I used to take my favourite images would be expected to score more highly, but surprisingly it doesn’t. It’s quite weird now that I think about it, but I don’t get sentimentally attached to gear. So, the question of sentimental attachment is very easily answered; I like using stuff that produces the results I like, and does it effortlessly, but I will replace cameras and lenses without much thought if something better comes along.

As for the format, I guess I ended up using the format that required the least justifications to keep using, because it just had all the lenses I wanted, I could produce the kind of pictures that I wanted to produce, it was not too expensive to get all the gear I wanted, and the stuff was not too heavy. Basically, when 35mm digital cameras became affordable, that solved my problem. Sure, I did think about going with 4/3, but it always turned out that the lenses that would work for me would be too heavy and expensive in order to compensate for the small sensor, dark tonality doesn’t work as well as it does at 35mm and that’s one of my favourites, it’s more difficult to control the depth of field, and so on. Too many things to fuss over, and no need since 35mm solves all those problems. I thought about the medium format as well, but here the system gets too heavy very quickly, and the lens choices are far too limited. Also, it tends to be very expensive, and the benefits are very small; mostly resolution and dynamic range, which are plentiful already at the 35mm, so I didn’t see it as an upgrade, but rather a system for somebody else. I wanted something that can be used to photograph a bug or a flower one moment, and transition to a portrait or a landscape shot instantly, something that could do the stuff that I want to do, rather than me having to adjust to the limitations of the gear. Also, I dislike super expensive stuff, at least unless there’s no other way to get the results I want. I would always take a smaller, lighter lens/camera that is 5% less capable than the multiple times heavier, bigger and more expensive monstrosity. That doesn’t mean I’m willing to make great sacrifices in image quality; it’s just that image quality can be easily obtained using non-extreme means. This meant that Hasselblad and Phase One were out of the question, but I also gave up on the 4/3 as well, since it tended to require extreme lenses in order to compensate for the sensor size, and my calculations showed that the system as a whole was in fact anything but small and light, when I consider the exact equipment choices I would have to make. 35mm felt “right”, I could do everything I wanted, so I stopped fussing about gear for quite a long time, but Canon 35mm was still bigger than a 35mm system had to be, which I knew from my experience with Minolta film gear. When Sony started making small and light 35mm cameras with image stabilisation, that solved multiple issues for me. Sure, they do make some huge monstrosity lenses, but fortunately I don’t have to buy them, because there are lighter, smaller and less expensive alternatives that sacrifice some of the ultimate image quality for portability and affordability. I’m into photography because I like producing photographic art, not because I want to enrol into a competition of who can spend more money on gear. Thanks, but I prefer having money. 🙂 Something really needs to entice me with the offer of photographic abilities that I don’t currently possess, for instance I can no longer make this:

I took it with a huge, very expensive telephoto of stellar image quality that I had for review, and I currently don’t have anything resembling a properly long telephoto; the longest one I have is a 90mm macro. I have been taking almost exclusively normal and wide-angle shots for years. I can’t even take this anymore:

It was taken with a borrowed Nikon APS camera with a 70-300mm telephoto, which means I would need a 100-400mm on 35mm in order to replicate this capability. The problem with such a telephoto is that it is very expensive, and very heavy to carry around during my regular walks, but I keep seeing shots that would be perfect for such a lens, if I had it. In any case, the big telephoto is always on the bottom of every list of necessary hardware acquisitions, simply because it combines heavy, expensive and rarely used, which is my least favourite combination. It does, however, also combine the ability to take an interesting detail out of otherwise uninteresting scenery, with the ability to cut depth of field at a distance, which are among my favourite combinations. We’ll see. 🙂

I do, however, have the ability to do the same thing in the world of tiny things:

Yeah, I’m trying to convince myself I don’t need it too hard, which means I’ll probably just buy it. 🙂

Recently Biljana and I went out in the evening to get some practice with our new equipment, and for the most part all the pictures we’ve taken were shit, until it was so late in the evening that the light started fading fast, to the point where we barely saw where we’re going anymore. At that point, the smoke in the air, sunset and the blue hour combined, and since Biljana’s Canon could pull off ISO 12800, and my Sony could pull off ISO 6400, not to mention IS, we could hand-hold stuff that would usually require a tripod, but I’m sure I couldn’t take those pictures with a tripod, because they were too interactive and happened in the moment; basically, she used her 105mm Sigma macro lens as a short telephoto to pick out details from afar, while I used the 16-35mm wideangle to get the wider context. Essentially, she took pictures and I took pictures of her taking the pictures, including what she was shooting, but in context.

This is her picture of the town fort/church, where people used to take refuge when attack was signalled from the watch tower with the view of the point at sea from which threats loomed.

This is my picture with the wide angle, of her in the foreground and the fort in the background.

This is Biljana’s second shot, toward the town centre, with the boat in the foreground and the bridge in the top left, balancing the diagonal. The color palette she chose very much resembles the Fuji Astia/Sensia low saturation slide film, similarly contrasty but with much more shadow detail, because slide film is just dead there. It also somewhat resembles Kodak Portra low-contrast negative film, but exposed on the low side. The low contrast accentuates the serenity of the scene, the calm before the night.

This is my version – Biljana in the foreground, checking the photo she had just taken on the screen, with the scene in the background. I chose a different color palette – where she went for the subtlety of low-contrast and low-saturation, I did the opposite, cutting into the dark tones and making them bleed ink.

I don’t know whether there are any conclusions to be taken from this exercise, but I thought it’s interesting how differently we captured the same scene; she went for the telephoto while I went for the wideangle, and despite the fact that those two cameras can render color and detail almost identically, we went for completely different palettes and looks in the end.

I frequently hear this statement and I feel it’s both right and wrong at the same time, but I couldn’t formulate a simple answer; until now.

I recently commented that I heard Ray Chen play multiple violins, from cheap garbage to Stradivari and Guarnieri. He himself as well as other violinists could notice all kinds of differences, but to me, he always sounded like Ray Chen. I think that’s the meaning of the “gear doesn’t matter” statement. Of course it matters, because a violinist needs a violin in order to make music. A writer needs something to write with. A photographer needs a camera. However, If I use a camera to take pictures, and the camera in question meets the minimal technical requirements, the result will look like me. This means that no kind of gear can make my photos overcome my limitations, or turn my style into something else. If it doesn’t meet the technical requirements, it can degrade the results to the point where that’s not it any more, however, and that’s another limit of the “gear doesn’t matter” statement. It doesn’t matter as long as it’s above a certain minimum – basically, something needs to meet the minimal definition of a violin in order for a violinist to be able to work with it. The next threshold is that something should be a “good enough” instrument, and that’s a more sophisticated requirement, and more prone to nitpicking, but I know it when I see it – basically, it’s something that an artist can take and produce the kind of results where I can no longer notice a difference between the instruments.

You can’t tell which computer I used to write this article, and the reason is obvious: as long as it can connect to the Internet, open the WordPress admin interface and support the recent enough web browser in order to operate it, they will all produce the same results. With cameras, it’s not as straightforward, but as long as the cameras are similar enough, I can take anything that’s readily available and work with it; for instance, I took this with my friend’s Nikon, because it had a telephoto lens on it and it was on the table at the moment:

It has nothing on it that would make it identifiable as a Nikon photo, but it looks like my typical stuff, regardless of the fact that I don’t have another exactly like it. It’s motive in context, both joined and separated, and the focus of attention:

This is film, Minolta camera and a MD 35-70mm f/3.5 lens. The equipment is very different, the motive is very different, but the style is the same.

This is taken with Sony A7II 35mm digital camera and a Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L lens, on tripod; the equipment is very different, the motive and the context more different still, but the style is the same: something, in context, both joined and separated, with attention pointing to it, making you feel what it’s like to be there in that moment. The subject is isolated not with the depth of field, but with 3d composition.

So, not only does the gear “not matter”, but so is the case with the motive, as well. The style and the intent of the author transcends both, and can translate between photographic techniques, as well. What if there’s no ability to use depth of field to isolate the motive? You can use geometry, or fog:

Yet  again, different camera – Sony R1. The motive, the camera, the way motive is isolated from the context and you are put in its place and in the moment, is improvised, but the style is still recognizeable.

What if everything is sharp? No problem:

Again, different equipment: Canon 5d, EF 15mm f/2.8 fisheye, long exposure of the storm cloud from a tripod. The lighthing itself both creates the subject and puts it in focus. The equipment is again different from before, the motive is different, the technique itself is different, yet the style remains.

Yes, in all cases the equipment is different and often improvised, the way the circumstances of the photo are different and improvised, and “don’t matter”, but on the other hand, everything absolutely matters. It matters that the lens is sharp and has great bokeh and ability to control the depth of field; it matters that the tripod is sturdy, it matters that the sensor or film has great colors, and it matters that the equipment is easy to use. To say that it doesn’t matter means that your style and artistic “fingerprint” persist both across equipment choices, motives and even photographic methods – from extreme wide angle to macro and telephoto, hand-held or on the tripod, shooting bugs, people or landscape. Equipment is here to allow you to express yourself, and the end result is limited by both you and the equipment used; if the equipment is any good, then mostly by you.

There are many nice things I found upon my return to the world of photographic gear, too. At some points I was genuinely admiring the newly produced gear, such as the FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM lens, and many of the GM lenses in general, which draw light in such amazingly beautiful ways that I saw this only with absolutely the most high end optics in the past, and if circumstances allow, I will probably end up getting some of those for myself, because they leave me thinking what I could do with something this amazing. I was also seriously impressed with Sony A1II and A7RV cameras, and will probably get the latter for myself, if the finances align. It has a viewfinder that solves the lower resolution and lower refresh rate issues of my A7II, its computer is much faster, the autofocus is brilliant, and the resolution and dynamic range are much improved.

So, the thing is, I don’t actually think that the gear doesn’t matter, nor am I unable to perceive the advantages of better gear. I also think my gear is quite good, including the lenses that would be summarily dismissed by others as dog shit unworthy of being coupled with a decent camera, and some cameras that would be summarily dismissed as amateurish toys.

5d with a “shit” lens

You see, I believe in a thing I call “minimal technical requirements”. Every task has those, and there is usually quite a difference between what they are, and what people think they are. Since I did quite a bit of testing, I discovered that certain things matter far less than one would expect, while others matter far more. For instance, camera sensor’s ability to render colour is of supreme importance. If it doesn’t, I will instantly dismiss it as unsuitable for my uses, and I actually did that multiple times, with all kinds of cameras that don’t get written about, because they don’t deserve to be mentioned. Those are usually found in phones and compact cameras with small sensors, and what they render is inherently so bad and electronically processed in attempt to “improve it”, that I find the result instantly repulsive.

On the other hand, sensors in some small cameras, such as Olympus E-PL1 and Sony R1, had the minimal technical requirements for producing large prints of great colour and detail; if you use them within certain parameters, that is. If I used those cameras to take pictures, it wasn’t because I thought they were poor tools unsuited for the task, and I wanted to make a statement about using shit tools to produce good results. No, it was because I thought they were genuinely good tools.

Sony R1. Obviously not sharp in the corners. 🙂

Are there better ones; sure. However, that’s the thing about the minimal technical requirements. At some point, if the equipment is good enough, nobody will be able to tell what camera or lens made that B2 print at the exhibition. They will see the motive, colours and detail, the picture will be speaking for itself without technical flaws detracting from its beauty, and that’s all that matters. Better equipment won’t improve anything if the lesser equipment was able to meet the minimal technical requirements – and be assured that my technical requirements are quite strict. They are, however, reasonable, and grounded in real use scenarios. I only once made a print larger than the B2 format. B2 is, for the most part, ideal for viewing from normal distances, in either an exhibition or at home. Anything bigger forces you to increase the viewing distance, and that’s not actually helping the experience. The second viewing scenario is the 4K monitor, and that’s the most realistic one today.

not sharp wide open at 35mm

But there’s a catch: image quality isn’t everything. Minimal technical requirements of image quality are only a part of it. If a camera is so difficult to use that you feel it’s struggling against you, it’s simply not a good tool. One can use such a tool regardless, but I eventually end up replacing them with superior ones as soon as possible. It’s just that my opinion of what tool is comfortable and good enough, and some forum’s opinion, might differ greatly. For instance, some people will treat image quality as the greatest priority, and will buy the lens that makes the best possible images. I, on the other hand, like image quality very much, but if a lens is so heavy that all my pictures will be taken with the iPhone because I left the heavy thing at home because I’m not taking that for a ten kilometre uphill walk, then what exactly is the point in having that thing? Using it for special occasions that never happen? That’s why I don’t have a special occasions watch, because I see it as wasteful and pointless. I have a good everyday watch I use for everything, from washing the car and mowing the lawn to dressing up for some occasion. Fuck special occasions. I don’t want a camera or a lens that’s a jewellery piece impractical for daily use, which is why I never buy those “universal” 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses that are huge unwieldy bricks, and also insanely expensive for what they are. I also think that “universal” high performance things are a waste of money, and specialized, more practical lenses are the way to go. For instance, I don’t need wide aperture on a lens that will be used for landscape photography from f/8 to f/22. I can save money there by getting good, light and inexpensive glass for such uses, which also makes my kit light enough to actually use. However, if I’m impressed by some camera or a lens and I think it will actually improve my photography, I will eventually end up buying it. My considerations are practical rather than ideological; for instance, when digital cameras were either too expensive or horse shit, I shot film and produced digital files by scanning. When digital cameras became good and affordable enough, I switched to digital. I have no brand loyalty whatsoever – I use whatever suits my needs. I used Minolta, Fuji, Olympus, Canon and Sony. Currently, it is my opinion that both Canon and Sony are excellent, and I would have no qualms with either. When something is convincingly better than what I’m using, I’ll switch to that in a heartbeat, but I won’t switch if the differences are minuscule or unproven. Basically, my gear choices are defined by how much money I have and what kind of work I intend to do. I also don’t feel a need to appear “professional”, because I’m not. Professionals produce work for others. I see photography as my personal art form, together with writing, and I wouldn’t actually describe myself as an amateur either. If I had to describe what I do, I’d say it’s mental/emotional state photography using mostly nature in high fidelity colour medium. If I say something is good enough, it doesn’t mean it’s good enough for an undemanding casual user who doesn’t know any better. It means it’s actually good enough that I would be unable to get discernibly better results with any kind of gear.