Does equipment matter?

The predicament I faced when I started photography was that everyone seemed to be saying "equipment doesn't matter". And I believed it and kept shooting with my tiny camera which in 1988 had cost me a princely sum of Rs 186 (about 4 dollars under current conversion rates), and results were, well, poor to say the least. Either things were not in focus or everything was in focus. How in god's name did Gautam Rajadhyaksha get all those beautiful actresses without disturbing plants in the background or antennae poles or walls? Of course he shot in a studio with lights and a camera with lenses on which you could select aperture and thus the desired "depth of field", and yet they said "equipment doesn't matter"...

So I realized that I need a camera with:

• A lens which could focus on the object I wanted in focus and render everything else out of focus
• Which also meant the lens should have aperture settings

A scholarship of Rs 1200 from my school (I don't even remember why I got it) helped me in getting a Zenith camera with a 50mm lens f 1.2 (try buying the latest f1.2 lenses from Canon/Nikon/Leica and the prices would be scarier than the Joker in "The Dark Knight")

This then was the first serious camera I owned (1991) and I got the selective focus I wanted, never had focusing problems (manual focus lenses are the best in the business) and I discovered I could get lenses of varying focal lengths to take panoramic landscapes or a candid shot of the girl I found the prettiest in a crowd. I could also set the aperture and let the camera tell me what shutter speed to set for a given ISO. Wow, but then didn't they say "equipment doesn't matter"...

In 1994 I sold the Zenith for Rs 800-can you believe it? Show me one SLR which would fetch you 66% of its cost price after 3 years of rugged use (I am obviously excluding the Leica Rangefinders)

I thought I was upgrading when I bout a Vivitar SLR with a Zoom lens for Rs 6500 (yes, Zoom was the "in thing" then). Sorry Vivitar but the camera was a dud, the lens was plastic and rendered terrible flare. The camera would almost NEVER suggest correct exposure and all the people who thought I could click some decent pictures and posed for me were now laughing behind my back. Now I was seriously doubting the guys who said "equipment doesn't matter"...

I hurriedly sold the Vivitar and bought a used Canon 1000 from the infamous "Burma Bazaar" in Chennai. I think I got about Rs 1000 for the Vivitar (within one year and almost brand new) and paid another Rs 1000 plus for the Canon. I was traveling frequently and the first roll I exposed was in Ernakulam in Kerala. I finished one roll in a single day and gave it for developing the same night and obviously spent a sleepless night.

The next day was disastrous. All photos were either half or one fourth blacked out. I hurried back to the hotel and on a hunch opened the camera to check the shutter. I was shattered at the sight of grease in the shutter which was jamming it every time I clicked. So much for "trustworthy" Burma Bazaar. I spent the whole night scraping the grease off the thin leaves of the shutter (leaf shutter system) with paper and bit by bit the black devil was coming off. The next roll I exposed with tremendous pessimism and throughout the shots was cursing myself for buying without "due diligence" but god was kind for a change and the camera was working fine!!!

It was the year 2000 and I was leaving for the US (my first trip) and I wanted to capture wide landscapes, animals in the zoo, the Niagara Falls and my poor 35-80 lens would just not cut it. So for the first time I disregarded the "equipment doesn't matter" guys and bout myself a 28-80 lens and a 80-200 and while in the US bought a Tamron 200-400 (which I use till date) which has given me the best wildlife shots I ever clicked

My 2nd trip to the US enabled me to buy a Canon Elan 7 which was my last film camera but which gave me astounding shots full of color and contrast and sharpness coupled with Fuji Velvia 50 ASA film

In 2002 I bought a Canon 300D and the Sigma 105 f2.8 1:1 macro, which is sharper at f8 than all my Canon lenses (including 2 L series lenses) and a Canon 20mm f2.8.

But what's the point I am trying to make?

Equipment does NOT matter for the snap shooter. If all you care is to shoot your friends and wife and kids with the background of places you visited don't even bother with a proper camera, the cell phones today have better resolution then ever and can give you awesome prints postcard size

Equipment does NOT matter to the guy who doesn't want to get curious (read creative). I have seen enough people owning an SLR without even knowing its capabilities and the plethora of possibilities it opens up

But equipment does matter when you keep learning, when you want to get that perfect shot, when you are not "ok" with an ordinary shot. Consider the following:

• You cannot shoot life size (1:1) or closer without a macro lens (or at least an adapter to reverse fit a normal lens)
• You need a tripod and a sturdy one at that to get light streaks of cars passing by a busy street or water flowing
• You need a 300mm + lens to shoot a close up of the King of the Jungle or a tiger or cheetah unless you are like the heroes on National Geographic/Discovery who are used to handling Black Mambas with bare hands
• Despite all tall claims with regard to auto focus, manual focus almost always renders sharper pictures and for that you need lenses which allow you manual override, focusing screens which aid in perfect focusing or angle finders which enable enlargement of the viewfinder and aid in perfect focusing
• You need filters or at least photoshop, to get deep colors and contrast in images

These are just a few examples, I can go on and on but at the same breath:

• Do not worry and waste time reading reviews of 20 different cameras and 50 different lenses. Buy according to what you can afford and you will be fine. Studio experiments between lenses are good only for studios or unless you are a professional making money out of selling photographs which are blown poster size
• Buy a basic SLR (DO NOT worry about megapixels, anything above 6 is more than you need)
• Spend more money on lenses but choose wisely. You for sure DO NOT need a 50mm f1.2 (around Rs 70000) or 85mm 1.2 lens (above Rs 1 lakh), the 50 mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8 will do fine (both cost approximately between Rs 15-20k)
• Here is what you need in lenses:

1. For Landscapes: Ultra wide 10-22 or 12-24, 18-90 will also do
2. For Portraits: Any lens with focal length of 50mm up to 135 mm or above
3. For Wildlife: 200-400
4. For Macros: Any Macro lens with 1:1 magnification ratio
5. A polarizing filter (or a couple) for lenses
6. A good kit bag (you do not want to accidentally spill anything from the above)

Start with a 50mm f1.8 lens (Rs 4000) and you will realize when you hit a wall. Buy the next lens only then

Remember lenses last a lifetime, cameras do not

I leave the decision of whether equipment matters or not to you. After all it is a "Matter of Perspective"

Landscape with 10-22 lens:

Wildlife with 200-400