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.