Part of the fun and frustration of participating in the photographic
community online is dealing with gear nerds. Of course, you don’t have
to deal with them at all. Most photographers don’t care less about
equipment beyond what’s needed to get the image they want. Arguably,
this should be the goal of all photographers.
However, gear is fun, and so is discussing it. That’s why I hang out
in the gear sections of the forums I frequent, because let’s face it,
looking at random pics by strangers is about as fun as getting stabbed
in the face with a rusty knife.
Gear unites, however. You don’t have to be a good photographer to
discuss gear — on the contrary! To discuss photo gear, you only need
an internet connection and copious free time, two things that in
combination guarantees your photos will stink. You are in no way
obliged to own or even to have handled the gear under
discussion. Appeals to authority (dpreview.com, Bjørn Rørslett, K*n R*ckw*ll) are not only common, they’re the basis for all discourse.
A surprising amount of people switch systems (between Nikon and Canon,
the other marques are only worthy of scorn in this exalted company)
and only then realise that the lens they ABSOLUTELY must have doesn’t
exist in their new system, something a quick Google could have told
them For switchers from Canon to Nikon, the refrain often goes
I need fast, wide primes
Granted, as a Nikon shooter I’m kinda envious of Canon’s fast 35mm and 24mm
lenses. But you know what? I don’t need them, and I can’t afford
them. They are throwbacks to an earlier era. If you’re a working Nikon
pro, you’re using the “trifecta” (another combo prevalent among people
who hang out in forums instead of actually taking pics), the
14-24/2.8, the 24-70/2.8, and the 70-200/2.8.* Primes? Not flexible
enough these days.
So, f/2.8 is the new f/1.4, thanks to improved light sensitivity in
recent films and digital sensors. That extra speed isn’t really
needed. **
OK, so these zooms are big and heavy, but Nikon makes a series of
f/2.8 primes (14, 20, 24, 28) and one 35/2. But these are slammed
because they lack AF-S focusing, aspherical elements, or other “must
haves” that only matter to forum wankers. The fact is, these lenses
are perfectly fine stopped down to f/8 when shooting landscapes and
the aforementioned extra sensor speed obviates the need for faster
apertures in low light.
So, armed with these facts, one can stop the endless cycle of gear
wanking, right? Wrong! Arguing about expensive gear online a social
experience. If photo gear didn’t exist, these people would be arguing
about cars, or fly fishing rods, or operating systems. The best thing
is to ignore the wankers and shoot some pictures instead. You’ll find
your gear is more than adequate for your photos.
Here’s a recent shot I made using a Nikon D200 and used 24/2.8. Is it any good? Maybe not. Would it be better if I had better gear? Definitely not.
* all of these lenses are big, heavy and expensive. A surprisingly
common theme on forums is that people who own these lenses don’t use
them as they’re too bulky. And yes, I know that the 70-200 vignettes
on FX cameras and will lead to Nikon’s downfall unless it’s replaced
yesterday, godammnit!
** And before someone says “smaller depth-of-field” let me counter
with, a) wide lenses have large DoF anyway, and b) using DoF is a
crutch used by those who cannot compose.
