A word or two on gear; does it matter?
Spend any amount of time on photography forums and you will undoubtedly come across people arguing over whether the gear you use matters. Does it, or does it come down to the skill of the photographer?
The is a heavily debated topic but hopefully I can lend some clarity to the situation. Have you ever watched any of the “pro with 35 dollar camera vs. amateur with 6000 dollar camera: Who will win?” videos? They matter to this argument. Nearly every time I’ve gotten sucked in to one of these videos, I have noticed that the outcome is usually the same. The pro wins.
There is a lot to be said about experience and there are so many facets to photography that make up a great photograph than the gear. Professional photographers have a much deeper bag of trips to reach into when making an image.
So does this mean that gear doesn’t matter. Of course not. Have you seen what a portrait taken with an 85mm f/1.4 from Canon compared to the same focal length Rokinon? The rendering of out of focus areas are different, the color reproduction is different, even the sharpness can be different. Or if this is too close for a comparison, what about tripods? What is the difference between a 200 dollar Manfrotto compared to a 1300 dollar Gitzo? A tripod is a tripod, right? Nope. The materials, connecting hardware and overall stability is different (I have a whole article on tripods coming soon).
Tripods are a great example of “buy once, cry once”. I went through three tripods like the Manfrotto on the left before finally investing in the Gitzo that you see on the right. The Gitzo has been a rock solid performer now for 8 years.
Personally, I like to use long telephotos as an example because I feel they best illustrate the point. How does a 200-600mm f/4.5 to f/5.6 compared to a 600mm f/4 if they are both used at 600mm? The difference is dramatic. From the speed of the 600 prime to the build and optical quality, there really is no comparison. You CAN see this difference in images but more importantly, the 600mm, aside from being heavy performs exceptionally well under a wider variety of lighting conditions and in some cases, will have better weather sealing for days in inclement weather.
One final example that needs to be mentioned is something that recently happened to me. See, I have been in the transition to mirrorless for the past year and during that time I sold my beloved Nikon D5 professional body. I have been shooting primarily with the Z7ii and Z6ii for my daily work. Three weeks ago, I went to a place on the Hood Canal in Washington state to photograph Bald Eagles. This particular event, which I will describe in a separate article only happens once a year and lasts just four weeks. My weapon of choice was the Z7ii and 600mm f/4 with a 1.4x teleconverter to really gain some reach. After over 2000 shots, I came home very disappointed. Out of those, only around 400 were acceptably sharp and less than 100 I would call critically sharp. Compared to my old D5, this was unacceptable. While I do have the new pro Z9 on order, I expect it to take up to a year to have in my possession so I bit the bullet last week and purchased a used D6. On my first outing, which was just to get used to the autofocus system, I can home with 294 shots. Want to know how many I would consider were critically sharp? 275. What a difference in hit rate.
It isn’t that the Z7ii is a bad camera. In fact, it’s exceptional for what it was designed to do. What it wasn’t designed for, however, is what I needed. The D6 checks all those boxes and I expect the Z9 to be even better. Do you need a D6 or Z9? No. But if you are a wildlife photographer shooting Nikon, these two cameras are the right tool for the job, not the Z7ii. So in this case, for me, the gear really does matter.
My point here is that both camps in this matter are right; and their both wrong. Gear does matter based on the job you are trying to get done but there is no substitute for experience and knowing how to properly use your gear.