Camera Gear: Style vs Substance

Todd Owyoung·
Photography TutorialsQ&A Series
·2 mins read·5393 views

The 21 megapixel sensor of the 5D Mark II

The 21 megapixel sensor of the 5D Mark II. Beautiful, isn't it?

 

Q&ADoes size really matter? A reader asks about photography equipment in relation to professionalism as a concert photographer.

Todd,

I have a D90 and my only concert-capable lens is a 50mm 1.8. My question is, at all the shows you cover on assignment, do you ever see professionals using “crop-sensor” cameras instead of full-frame DSLRs?

I finally started getting some photo passes and I want my equipment to give the proper impression. Any thoughts or experience on this? How much does the camera/lens really matter as far as “professionalism” goes?

Thanks,
Taylor

Hi Taylor,

In my experience as a concert photographer, “professional” shooters are simply the ones who get the job done and deliver the best results. As to the means to that end, that should be a non-issue for all parties concerned.

No one is whipping out the tape measure and looking under your shutter to gauge the size of your skill.

The Role of the Camera

I'm not going to say that the gear doesn't matter; shooting in a photo pit is as demanding a situation as any photog is likely to face, short of a warzone. Low light, strobes, thrashing rockers, and a limited timeframe will put any shooter – and their gear – to the test.

Having cameras that deliver high performance image quality, AF, and speed in low light conditions will always be valuable for concert photographers. Simply, these factors are why I use the cameras and lenses that I do.

That said, having the latest and greatest gear only helps facilitate technical proficiency; it's not a substitute for talent, skill, or vision.

Style vs Substance

At best, the most sophisticated equipment will allow an inexperienced photographer to make technically competent images of perfectly unremarkable subjects. Using the right tool for a job simply makes the task easier. No more, no less.

The most significant reason to upgrade gear is simply when your current equipment starts holding you back and fails to deliver the performance you need to execute the images you want to make.

Regarding “professionalism,” only your conduct with other photogs, your dealings with bands and their representatives, and – most importantly – your images really matter. It's on the basis of your work that photographers will respect you and that clients will hire you.

Now, if you start dancing in the phot pit? That's another story; I'll find you and personally take away your photo pass.

Have your say, concert photographers!

How much does gear matter? Do you judge photographers based on the cameras they use?

Previous ArticleNightwish
Next ArticleBecoming a Concert Photographer
Todd Owyoung

Todd Owyoung is an internationally published music photographer based in New York City. He specializes in music lifestyle, concert, and celebrity portraits. He is proud to be a Nikon Ambassador for Nikon USA.

Related Posts

38 Responses

  1. Pingback: Todd Owyoung

  2. Interesting topic Todd, I think your spot on with the reasons of your current/previous gear holding you back. I have a D700 for that reason but found it odd how people instantly assumed I was a big shot and loaded. I got an optech strap and now everyone has to ask what nikon I use (no big model number on the strap). I only really ask how the shots came out or I’ll ask about the 5d mkII someones holding. Haha.

    Reply

    1. Hey Matthew,

      Thanks very much for adding your thoughts here.

      One funny thing is that to a lot of fans, any DSLR is a huge camera, whether it’s a Nikon D3 or a D50. As far as other photographers go, some ask about my cameras, but I find that it’s mostly out of curiosity and from a gear head point of view, rather than as “sizing me up.”

      I never use the stock straps – no need to advertise what camera I’m using. :)

      Reply

  3. Whether or not we like to, we scope out other photographer’s gear and judge them by it, but some of the best images I’ve seen have come out of photographers with the lower end DSLR’s. The camera doesn’t make the photographer, the photographer makes the camera.

    I do agree with Todd though. It’s time to upgrade when your camera starts holding you back.

    As far as your question goes…I’ve seen a lot of photographers at shows I’ve been at, with 2 bodies. They’ve got their 14-24 or 16-35 wide angle on their full frame body and their 70-200 telephoto on their crop body to give them that extra focal length.

    Reply

    1. Hey Amy,

      Thanks for contributing to the discussion.

      I do think that many photographers do scan the pit for what other shooters are using. But more to the point, it’s such a poor indicator of skill that it hardly seems to matter these days. As you point out, we’ve all seen amazing work by photographers using the most modest of gear.

      The camera doesn’t make the photographer, the photographer makes the camera.

      Amen.

      Reply

  4. Gear definitely doesn’t matter! Some of my favourite photos were taken with a 350D. My main reason for upgrading my body and lenses to a 5D and L series was because I needed something a bit more robust, not because I was unhappy with the images coming out of the camera. I’m not going to lie and say the 350D image quality is on par with the 5D, but crop cameras certainly do their job perfectly well in the right hands.

    Reply

    1. Hey Jacinta! Nice to hear from you here, thanks for adding your comment. I certainly agree – crop cameras, whether they’re “pro” or not, can certainly deliver in spades.

      I shot with the D2x for two years. Not only was it a 1.5x crop camera, but it had absolutely atrocious high ISO performance. But where there’s a will, there’s a way.

      Reply

  5. I do agree with you, Todd. At the end of the day, only the final images matters. I, too, only use a 50mm 1.8 with my 450D. It is kinda intimidating when other photographers come in with their long lenses and i do wish have better gear… but when people do see your work and is satisfied with it, you do realize that yeah gear can still deliver, then no need to fret. I am very limited with it’s focal length, though. Do you think the sigma 24-70 2.8 is a good buy? I don’t have the budget to buy canon lenses yet.

    Reply

    1. Hey Roxanne, thanks for adding your thoughts and experience here.

      Regarding the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8, you’re the second person to ask me about that lens today. I’ve never shot with it, but by all accounts it’s a solid lens. The only concern I’d have is whether the focal length is a good fit for your shooting. On the 450D, the 24-70mm is more of a slightly-wide to tele lens, which is great if your style favors a bit more reach.

      I personally prefer a midrange zoom with more wide-angle range (a 17-55mm f/2.8 would be perfect for the 450D), but everyone’s usage differs. Hope this helps.

      Reply

  6. in fact I use now 5d Mark II to film concert rather than photography them … the lastest : http://www.le-hiboo.com/14093 or http://www.le-hiboo.com/13892

    I still like photo, and I think Canon 5d is the perfect tool to realize both.

    So, for live, I use :

    Canon 5d Mark II
    24-70mm 2.8 L
    70-200mm 2.8 L IS
    50mm 1.4

    I dream about the 16-35mm range …

    But I have taken during several years live shots with only a Canon 350d and 18-55 base kit … the tool doesn’t do the photo, it renders it easier, but not necessary better.

    Reply

    1. Hey Rod,

      Nice to hear from you, it’s been too long. Thanks very much for posting those videos with the 5Dmk2 – I think those are the best examples I’ve seen yet for that camera’s video capabilities in a concert setting. Are you shooting those with just one 5Dmk2, or multiple cameras? The editing work on those videos is great, too.

      What you need is a 14-24mm. ;)

      Reply

    1. Hey Ariel,

      I’m mostly just joking about dancing in the pit. It’s just that for me, for those three songs when I’m in the photo pit, I’m there to do work, and any time not spent hustling is moment I could be working a killer shot! :)

      Reply

  8. I’m fortunate enough to have nice gear now, and it does make a positive difference on my work, but I still surprise myself at how some of my older images shot with cheap, used gear seem to linger in my portfolio simply because they’re better images.

    I find that the best way to improve ones images is to shoot like a madman and set high standards for your work. That’s a far better guarantee than an upgrade.

    Reply

    1. Hey Jason,

      Thanks for your thoughts here. Now that you mention it, I’m sure I experienced something similar going from the D2x to the D3 – arguably going from the worst pro camera for low light work to the outright best. The new gear ushered in images with a higher technical quality with regard to less noise, but beyond that, the changes in my shooting came from working to push myself.

      Reply

  9. Todd,

    Still following your stuff but I’m too busy shooting shows to post much to Flickr these days (T_T) Just found you on Twitter the other day.

    Everyone’s pretty much said what I wanted to say; my experience in going from the D50 to the D300 was as much placebo effect as it was levelling up my equipment. There’s no doubt that I took some awesome photos with my D50… and there’s no doubt that I’ve taken many with the D300 as well. Even though it’s easier with the D300 (because obviously I have much better performance in the dark and colors come out closer to what I want than they do on the D50), that doesn’t mean that the D50 was a bad camera, my needs just exceeded what it could offer.

    I’ll admit to feeling a little intimidated when I see another cameraman at a show and they’ve got some of those giant Canon lenses strapped on, but all I have to do is remember that no matter what camera they have, they’ll never get the shots that I’ll get.

    That said nearly a year and a half of shooting with the D300 and I find myself again needing a bit more… mainly because shooting in cramped conditions is really limiting the D300’s DX sensor, as big as it is to begin with. I’m thinking D700 in the near future, or is the D3 really worth the extra cash for my needs…

    Oh, and re: dancing, I tend to shoot bands I adore so I can’t help dancing a bit and singing along. When the fans in the front row see that I’m into it they usually give me some great reaction shots, and when the musicians see me they’ll play for the camera more often than not. Win/win!

    Reply

    1. Hey Dan,

      Thanks for adding your experiences here, nice to hear from you. Twitter is great, it’s been fantastic to get comments and questions from people there, too.

      Regarding the D700 or D3, I think that you’d appreciate that camera with an ultra-wide like the 14-24mm f/2.8.

      Alternatively, you might consider a DX fisheye like the Nikon 10.5mm, which will also open up space for you. There’s also the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. Either of these two DX options are going to be more cost effective in the short term – it just depends what your overall plans is.

      Reply

  10. I’m a strong believer that getting the image that has the ‘kapow’ factor. Of course, we live in an age that advances in technology can make a difference, but that said, when we look at images taken by film Ye Yonkers Years Yonder, they have still stood the test of time. As you said, Todd: “That said, having the latest and greatest gear only helps facilitate technical proficiency; it’s not a substitute for talent, skill, or vision.”

    As for people eyeing other people’s gear, I think it’s more than that. I guess it’s scoping a person’s personality; what we can actually learn from those have been doing it for years and maybe just generating conversation.

    Reply

  11. In answer to your question.How important is the camera? well the camera is just the tool ,without the photographers skill and imagination its nothing but metal and plastic.

    Reply

  12. My biggest pet peeve is when people say, “Wow, your camera is awesome. I bet it takes really great pictures.” And then they see the pictures and repeat again that it’s the camera that took the awesome pictures. Sometimes I just want to turn to them and say, “Yeah, I bet your favorite artist has really awesome paintbrushes. Those brushes make the best paintings.”

    I got some of those same comments at my birthday party this year. I had set up the studio to take portraits, and everyone kept telling me how awesome my camera was. I told them next time I was going to use the 50+ year old film camera in the closet, just so they’d see.

    I will admit, though, that the D3 with any of the zooms is an intimidating beast. It does impress the ladies, from time to time.

    Reply

  13. Todd, great post…

    I found this statement the perfect summary of why/when equipement matters: “The most significant reason to upgrade gear is simply when your current equipment starts holding you back and fails to deliver the performance you need to execute the images you want to make.”

    I often find myself lamenting upgrading my equipment…of course I understand it’s the image that counts…but like anything else, it’s when you push the boundaries of your tools and want more out of them, ie ISO performance, that this issue becomes more pressing. Otherwise, I know, I would never want to spend thousands on newer higher end equipment, who would…I would much rather simply spend more time shooting, and perfecting, pushing, being more creative at my craft…

    One thing I think is relevant…with out reading anyone elses comments yet…it’s not an either or bit…one can want to stretch creatively, etc…and aspire to more advanced tools to aid in that pursuit…they are not mutually exclusive…nor inherently directly related…

    For instance, in photography, non concert perhaps, say pursuing artistic vision may involve using a plastic $25 holga and some medium format film…to create one’s artistic vision…the equipement as it were is all just a different “brush”…the cost of it, versus what it can aid in, is not directly relevant…nor irrelevant…necessarily…

    Reply

  14. Todd and All,

    I pretty much agree with everything you said. Although sometimes it is all about your personality and how well you get on with all these people more than how good a photographer you are when it comes to getting the job. Sad but true.

    Also, most of the time the people who end up in the pit with you never saw and will never ever see the outcome of that very gig. That’s why I always check out what other photographer did at a same gig, it allows me to see (and remember) who does what. It’s always interesting.

    Keep up the good work.
    romain

    Reply

  15. “Using the right tool for a job simply makes the task easier. No more, no less.”

    Up until this year, I used probably THE worst camera for shooting shows: D100. WAY worse on noise than the D2x (which I was thankfully able to borrow from time to time) and slow buffer/ processing with RAW… and that’s a buffer of 3 shots per burst.

    The D100’s limitations forced me to push and be creative in the pit to make potential bad images seem more interesting and usable in the end. Shooting at 1600 iso with the D100 helped me develop steady hands, post-processing skills, and of course patience under pressure. I’ve always been happy with the final results and people also responded positively in the end.

    Now with the D700, I notice that I still have the same shooting habits and style with the big change being in higher quality images and a better return rate. I have the right tool (LONG time coming) and it definitely made my time in the pit easier. Of course with 16 shots per burst instead of 3, I spend more time weeding through images from the D700 in post than I did with the D100.

    btw, sometimes I dance in the pit as I move from spot to spot. The music makes me do it! haha

    Reply
  16. Pingback: Simon Pollock
  17. Pingback: Balint Hrotko

  18. Just seeing how the camera is almost a conversation initiator. I try to have a chat with as many photogs possible. I think learning from and teaching others tips is key.

    Reply

  19. i agree that a well-composed but noisy shot will always win out over a staid, but tack-sharp image. however, i have been extremely happy w/ the noise level @ high ISO of the 5D mk 2 even moreso than the original 5D; it allows me to use my zooms a lot more, since even shooting @ 6400 ISO isn’t a big deal at all. as i tend to shoot more @ clubs that have no photo pit, having a zoom definitely gives more flexibility than shooting primes (but i still usually bring a couple of them w/ me just in case).

    Reply

  20. I agree, a good camera doesn’t make for a great photographer but it helps a lot.

    I’ve been shooting with my 400D for more than 2 years now and I’ve never shot over 800Iso, I think 1600Iso just looks horrible. However I’m always satisfied with at least 40% of my photos.

    The real problem with the poor low light capabilities of the 400D is that I love to tweak my photos a lot in post process. I personally think that digital photographers create their images 2 times: while shooting and in post processing. So the images from the 400D are already very noisy and any treatment will reduce them to a pixel mush. So I consider that my camera is limiting my creativness in a certain way. I do already do extensive treatment of my concert photos but this makes them not viewable over 800px, so I can’t print them…

    And that’s not the only problem I have, the AF system can be totaly lost in case of low light or low contrast situation. The buffer is easily full and can prevent me from taking pictures and thus I can miss some great pictures. 10Mpx is not enough when you want to crop your images…

    So the 400D is a great camera and I took some really satisfying pictures with it but I consider that it limits my creativity and it can really by irritating working with it. That’s why hopefully it will be soon replaced….

    I haven’t read your blog a lot lately but it’s always a pleasure to see your photos on flickr!

    (Sorry for the bad English, I’m French…)

    Reply

  21. the very first show i got a photopass to, i made friends with the younger people shooting it as well.
    and i quickly realized that the older photogs (50+ from newspaper and whatnot) were judging us on our gear, age ect ect.
    keep in mind they dont know us but they just “knew” that we sucked cause we were young. oh well

    Reply

    1. I love photographing alongside veteran shooters. I may have a baby face, but I’ve got hustle and I’m hungry for my images.

      Reply

  22. Love the gear comments.

    I had equipment being repaired last year and shot some events with my old Canon Digital Rebel (the original one) and someone made a comment about how it MUST take better pictures than their point and shoot.
    I told them that their P&S had a higher resolution, likely a better processor and that the equipment is only a tool for capturing the moment.

    It was a sports event and going from 6+ frames per second to 3 per second with no buffer was a great exercise in concentrating on the photography and not using technology as a crutch.

    Reply

  23. @Taylor: I’ve also got the D90 and it works very well for me. I had a D50 before and it was horrible. Too much noise, to slow. But with the D90+ the 50 mm you can get really good results.

    Reply

  24. i got a D40x, a 55-200VR & a sigma 10-20. I use these equipment for concert photography. These are entry-level equipment, but as I learned how to use them effectively in low-light photography, I can always get good results.
    Know your equipment well and maximize its capability.

    Reply

  25. I now shoot for a local venue as their house event photographer. Live rock and jazz events. Last night a guest came up to me and was baffled that I used no flash. “How do you get a photo without it?” So, I explained that I was used fast aperture lenses and gave her a little lesson on light, shutter speed, etc;. I was using the 70-200VR on my D700 at the time.

    I have kept my D300 as a second body but, considering selling it. IMO, there is no comparison with the D700 for night shooting. Until someone “donates” a D3S to me, I might as well sell the D300 and get another lens. I already have the 85 1/4, 50 1.4, 24-70, 14-24 and 70-200 but what other lens would help me out for these (sometimes) poorly lit venues?

    Been looking at the Nikon AF DC Nikkor 135mm f/2.0D and know it’s a spectacular portrait lens. From reviews I have read, some say the bokeh is better that the vaunted 85 1.4. But, would this lens work as a good show lens? Anyone used one for this? I know they can be hard to find. But, if I sell my D300 I want to get another fast lens. I like the 135mm length too. Where I am working, it has cabaret seating and sometimes I have to rely on zooms to get the shot. Occasionally I will work my way up front but, it’s totally unlike a pit situation. So, what’s the word on the 135 f/2.0 as a show lens?

    Reply

  26. Hi Todd,

    I think that a photographer and his equipment live in a symbiosis: The one without the other is just nothing. This leads to these thoughts: When the photographer doesn’t like the camera (awkward handling, bad ISO, whatever), he’ll do his work not as good as with a camera he likes better. And when the photographer doesn’t know how to hold a camera, then he’ll certainly won’t shoot any good pictures, no matter how expensive his gear was.

    Greetings from Germany
    Alfred

    Reply

  27. Personally I think gear is irrelevant when taking pictures. Being a photographer is not about who has the most expensive gear in the market its about the skill. Anyone can run around a stage for 3-5 songs and snap pictures with a 5d mkII but its those who understand lighting and composition that will separate you from the group. I use a 7D and a 50D at the shows I have been shooting lately and I have come out with some great shots. The main reason you will need upgraded/ more expensive gear is to assist with shutter speeds, film speed, etc. Even still there are great event photos taken with slow shutter speeds, film speeds etc. Again its about the artist not the equipment. I heard a great quote that went something like: An amatuer wories about the equipment, a professional worries about the composition, an artist worries about the light.
    http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=191791244197243&set=a.184431294933238.40523.118921211484247&theater

    Reply

  28. I started to make concert photo’s a year ago with a Nikon D5100, a 15-108 lense and a 1.8 35mm. The 1.8 35mm is really nice for small gigs were most of the time there is not much light. The 18-105 works great when there is some good lights but I am still thinking of purchasing a 70-200 2.8 but I am very happy what I have so far and I can make the shots I want.

    Reply

  29. In my 4,5 year career as a live photographer, I’ve always used a DSLR because I’ve had money issues whilst being a student, but never an issue with the photos themselves.
    Now that I’ve graduated as a photographer, Im finally thinking about upgrading my gear from Nikon D7000 to a fullframe because I’ve noticed some limitations when shooting for magazines. If you only shoot for webzines, then the gear doesnt really matter, but when you need professional quality, is when the big guns come out.

    Ps. I’ve been a fan of your work for ages and you have definetly inspired me to become a better photographer! Keep up the great work.

    Love from Finland,
    Nelly / http://www.flickr.com/photos/nellytatti/

    Reply

Join in the Discussion

© Copyright Todd Owyoung