Agreed, it is a glib statement.
True, but my contention is that for the inexperienced, or for those trying to find direction, purpose and commitment - call it what you will - their time, money and thinking would be best spent on anything other than equipment.
All too often I see folk becoming fixated on *gear* - gosh, I hate that term - at an early stage in their development and this stays with them for the rest of their lives. It becomes the raison d'etre for their interest. If this time, money, thinking and angst were channelled into their development as creative individuals and directly into their images they'd be all the better image makers for it.
Really, the differences between all of these remarkable cameras and the differences they can make to the final output are minimal at best and can be considered as the icing on the cake rather than any kind of panacea, or, God forbid, driving force.
The trouble with the term "
It's the photographer" is that it encompasses all sorts of photographers at all levels of application, motivation, skill and the subjective area of talent. Plus, unlike fine art painting which uses prehistoric tools that haven't changed much since cave paintings, photographic tools are science/industry based and changing constantly.
Probably the biggest driving force behind all of this is "purpose"... what is your personal reason for making photographs?
Broadly speaking, there are those who appreciate finely made things, and gain joy from just making them function without feeling they have to be the next great photographer, or even caring whether they have what it takes to do that. In a way, for them squeezing every last bit of potential ability from the "gear" IS a "driving force" and what they actually creatively produce with it, while not totally inconsequential, is secondary. Or there are those who find the doing more rewarding than the result, and trek out into the wilderness at 4AM to record some of that experience and relationship to nature. The result is proof they did it, and what the result looks like is measured against their own feelings about their surroundings at the time.
The highly subjective area of talent is a real snake pit to try and discuss, so a lot of folks gravitate to talking about the tech aspects, even to the degree of nano detail. Or people gravitate to the like minded, and laud the efforts of others as measured against their own participation in the same type of shooting. The result need not be original, just well done ... even flowers, puppies and the lane where they live are often the subject matter. They strive for beauty and mastery of the equipment, not some afore thought purposeful statement.
The other aspect of "purpose" is having a
creative intent ... like an artist's intent that's common in fine art. Steve McCurry not only has native talent and acquired skill, he has
purpose when shooting for NatGo ... ranging all the way to those like Cindy Sherman who uses photography with a social purpose in-mind going in ... like challenging cultural stereotypes, or addressing social concerns. For some talented individuals, photography becomes an extension of their personality and personal spin on society ... like the ironic, even absurd candids of everyday life from Elliot Erwitt ... or the personally infected dark side of humanity from Ralph Eugene Meatyard or Diane Arbus.
In other areas like advertising photography, fashion, industrial work, or even portrait and wedding photography, the purpose is provided, and the challenge is to approach the stated purpose with a fresh view or take on the imagery ... which defines the level of creative talent of each individual photographer. Only once in a blue moon do these works transcend their stated purpose to become iconic imagery that extends beyond their original purpose ... like Andy Warhol's artistic exploitation of advertising and celebrity imagery that took him from ad layout guy, to an internationally recognized artist.
So, IMO, it is NOT cut and dry ... and things like how the Phase One IQ backs work and are powered become MAJOR factors in selecting equipment for certain applications, where for others it is far less meaningful and something like the S2 fits their purpose far more meaningfully.
Also, the choices of types of equipment that aid in forming one's vision can be instrumental. I still contend that a rangefinder is more focused on content because of it's form than are other choices, and for people like Shelby Lewis, who decided to slow down and get more deliberate, a big ol' RZPro-II became his choice of photographic weapon at this stage of his trek.
I think most people can identify what they are about photographically ... it's usually associated with other work they like or want to emulate and/or exceed ... be it the physical mastery, experiential camaraderie, just get a job done well, or to set the world on fire with their creativity.
-Marc
I wouldn't have considered the S2 up until now when it appears at least that Leica have the lens coverage I've been looking for and it's no longer a beta product either. Lens supply obviously is the kicker. I've been through that not particularly enjoyable situation many times with my M gear too.
