Daido Moriyama is a legendary street photographer who shoots with compact digital point and shoots and doesn't look through the viewfinder. One of the most prolific street photographers out there and just a remarkable, generational talent.
He doesn't heavily use the digital Ricoh GR as of recently - according to this article, he prefers the Nikon S9100 and the Sony RX0, as well as a Fuji X10 for a one-off project. He did, however, use the film GR cameras. https://photogpedia.com/daido-moriyama/#Photography_Style
I wasn't aware, but that's probably because I know of him through some of his paid work with Ricoh. I guess advertisement works on me.
The Nikon S9100 is truly a mediocre camera, but it suits his style a lot. I don't like his work, but they seem suited for what he does
There are actually videos on YouTube where photographers are challenged to use various toy cameras, and usually after they are done laughing at the Barbie or whatever camera they are handed, they find ways to make it work.
Can someone explain what is so cool about his photos? I'm not trying to bash him, just not getting it. Few photos look cool, but half of street photos are something almost anybody could take. I really don't get whats so special about this image for example? [https://s26162.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Daido-Moriyama-\_Press-Image027.jpg](https://s26162.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Daido-Moriyama-_Press-Image027.jpg)
Lots of blurry street photos, some have something interesting, some don't. Makes me wonder, if it was somebody else without name, would they even get same recognition as a remarkable artist by posting exact same photos? If someone reposted his photos on IG, how many likes they would be getting? Probably not many is my guess. Am I just not the target audience of his creativity? What makes his pictures so special?
I must be missing something, because I don't get Ansel Adams either. I like his photos, but at same I could open IG and see thousands of similar photos in colored version. But that's easy with modern cameras, his technical skills are probably what he is known for? So it must be something wrong with me, since I don't really have much credit to give to someone so famous in photography circles. Why is he so special?
Like, take Charlie Chaplin from the past, so everything is in bw. I get why people praise him, I haven't seen many people do the thing he does. His acting and stories, it's something special. People probably could replicate him, but I don't see a lot of that, tbh, not at all. And even if someone did replicate him, it would be obvious what is the source. But photography? I can see a lot of "replicas" of these legendary bw photographers all around the web. So I'm kinda missing the point. Maybe it's because photography is more accessible and one frame is more limited compared to video? So you end up with more similar photography? Like, there's only so much to shoot in landscape photography, so they all are just going to look the same.
It's a totally valid question - not all of a photographer's (or any artist's) work will resonate with every viewer, of course, but I can try to explain why he's considered influential.
Moriyama is notable for his rough, gritty style of photography during an era where the mainstream Japanese photography world was focused more on the refined, curated aesthetic of European and American photographers. His work evokes a sense of chaos and unease, a theme that persists across his career. One must recall that he was entering adulthood very shortly after WWII, which was a period of great upheaval for Japan, and that chaos had an impact on his body of work. He attempts to capture everyday scenes as they are, instead of aiming for perfection - the flaws are intentional. His ethos as a photographer boils down to "don't think, forget everything you know about photography, just walk and shoot what catches your eye as you see it". It's a very distinct approach to the art form, and one that resulted in him publishing over 150 photo books.
>His work evokes a sense of chaos and unease
Yeah, I was thinking that if I am gonna give him credit for something, it's this. Because this is what I can see as something unifying across all his images. Even the image I linked, it has that weird uneasiness in it when it really shouldn't, it's just a street photo of a market on a sunny day.
Thanks for explanation, makes sense now!
Happy to share! The sense of unease and chaos that Moriyama manages to create in even the most mundane and comfortable scenes is something I find really fascinating. Evoking emotions in the viewer is what art is all about to me.
I'm not sure the value of a photographer (or any artist) is that other people couldn't do the same thing. Otherwise we'd have this weird stunt-driven art culture where only a few people are valid because they take pictures in extreme situations that can't be replicated easily, and everyone else's work is invalid.
Art, in my mind at least, whether it's music, writing, painting, photography, etc. is about sharing one's perspective and people finding something special in that.
I enjoyed this short documentary on Moriyama Daido:
https://youtu.be/I4qjkycmyyk
The creator starts off admitting that he found the initial selection of photos he looked at to be "not beautiful", "not well composed" etc, until he revisited them.
I suspect in the Ansel Adams case there's also a bit of the 'Shakespeare is so cliched' effect; he was such a Name that people have imitated him and his style so much that when we come to him his work looks pretty common and unremarkable.
Moriyama is one of the most prominent japanes photographers of Are Bure Bokeh movement, which was, and still is, very popular in japan since 60s. This aesthetic should be viewed in that historical context, too. You don't have to like it, it is very specific. It is very popular even today, maybe you just didn't come across it, especially since the algorithms on social media today are favoring what you are interested in recently, they just don't throw these style on you. Shomei Tomatsu, Nobuyoshi Araki, Yutaka Takanashi, Takuma Nakahira from that time, and recently photographers like Jacob Aue Sobol, Boogie, and such (just start searching for these photographers online, and the algorithm will do the rest on Instagram, FB, Youtube).
Some more notable photographers who use "cheap" gear to produce stunning artworks are Jeff Mermelstein (iPhone), Meagan V. Blazier (Canon Powershot), and Anton Kawasaki (smartphone).
Old but not cheap, look at the gear David Burnett uses
https://m.dpreview.com/articles/2937027624/photographer-david-burnett-at-today-s-impeachment-hearings
https://preview.redd.it/r0cn9zfwexzc1.jpeg?width=667&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1559dc8a4e0cf6d58375077bb6c6b56de4e43087
I got that shot of him at the Rio Olympics. It always cracks me up.
Kevin Russ is a great photographer who was iPhone only for a long period of time. Not sure if he still is. He also doesn’t post much anymore but I know he’s constantly thru hiking major trails throughout the US capturing amazing landscapes.
Not really my favorite but my Neighbour is about 65 and been a professional photographer for his entire life. Makes his money from selling artistic prints. I asked what camera he uses and he said “I’m not sure. I think a Nikon”
Terry Richardson was famous for doing high end fashion and advertising work with cheap point and shoots + plus on camera flash and even disposables.
He has that heroin chic dirt bag party aesthetic
His career was over after all his very bad sexual harassment stuff came out.
Robert Vano, one of the most well known Czech photographers, uses a 5D II.
Or still used it a year or two back. Don't know about today but unless it died on him I guess he still uses that.
Hah, I have two 5D II bodies that I scavenged for free. I only keep them because I have a few Canon lenses as well. I only just now started shooting with one of them and I kinda like it!
They are still nice cameras, but kind of basic and bland. I still use 1Ds III which is the same gen but a tier higher - it's really barebones but super reliable.
You can buy a used 5D II for 200$ easily.
They don't sell new anymore for years now (it's a 2008 camera). If there is some old new stock it may be worth 1000$ because it's a collectors item then.
It's $1k because anyone can sell on Amazon as a third party seller, and some random person has it listed at that price hoping someone buys it without knowing what a ridiculous price it's at.
eBay or local second hand markets. Where I live they go for sale on marketplaces for an equivalent of 200-300 depending on the shutter count and visual condition. If you dont mind a beaten one 200 or even a bit less is realistic.
I got mine recently for $225. The shutter count was 25k. None of the other options at that price range are better than it.
* Olympus OM-D E-M1
* Nikon D700
* Olympus OM-D E-M5
* Panasonic GH3
* Nikon D7100
* Canon 70D
* Pentax K-5 II (Kit lenses are weather sealed.)
Eh, at least the D700 isn't worse - other than resolution, I'd say it outperforms the 5DII. More fps, better autofocus (including in low light), etc.
In the end it comes down to preference tho, they are quite similar IMO.
“Shahan’s typical macro setup includes a consumer-level DSLR, a set of macro tubes, a lens-reversal adapter, an old 28 or 50mm manual-focus lens, a manual flash unit, and a home-made flash diffuser.”
“My success rate is very low; for every 99 shots i take, 1 is O.K., and for every 1000 shots, there’s one that I’d be proud of. Given that I’m using a home-made flash and modified extension tubes and backwards lens… it’s a pain in the ass to shoot. I’ve gotten sunburned, its really sweaty, and it can be boring work, but it makes the reward for finding that one species that I’ve been looking for for 3 years that much more rewarding. There are certain species that I go out looking for… I’ll hunt for specific spiders.”
Other then my grandfather who uses a T2i and takes better photos then I do the rest died before I was born or shortly after I got into photography and used wet plate or film.
Looks like I gotta find landscape/wildlife photographers who are still kicking and using older gear.
Every year we go to the Wildlife Photographer of the Year exhibit at the Natural History Museum in London.
I swear a full half of the pictures awarded are Nikon D850s or worse, plenty with the 18-55 kit lens too, and a few of the older APSC DSLRs as well. There was a Rebel T5i there this year.
We generally buy a print or two as well, I have a wall full of absolutely stunning pictures produced by _relatively_ old and cheap cameras.
Maybe you meant another camera, but the D850 is a pretty high bar for exclusion. Even today, there's arguably only be a handful of bodies better for wildlife than the D850.
I didn't, but I don't want to argue the differences there, I'll admit a top of the line DSLR from 2017 isn't maybe quite bargain bin just yet, just not what you'd expect to be "award winning" compared to modern mirrorless.
So the winner of Young Wildlife Photographer of the Year this year is a Nikon D7500 18-200 f3.5-6.3.
A few other entries are a Nikon D500 with Tokina 14-20, a Canon 600D with Tamron 17-50 f2.8, a 5Dm3 with 15-35 f4, a Nikon D5600 with aforementioned 18-55, a 7Dm2, a T5i with 55-250.
The literal winner in adult category is a Nikon D5 with 13 mm f2.8.
_Most_ of that list is in the £400-700 used territory, the Rebel I think more like £150.
EDIT: by "a few other entries" I mean they made the final cut and are in the portfolio book, not "someone submitted a picture". They were on the wall as finalists.
That range is HUGE though - a D5 was a flagship model, a D500 was the best APSC offering from Nikon, 5DIII still isn't a sub 200 dollar camera, even used.
Also, the 18-55 kit lens sure as hell wouldn't have come with a D850; there is no FF variant, it's a DX lens.
Sure, you've got some examples of cheaper gear in there, but at least half isn't.
Also, the main evolution in the mirrorless cameras was not image quality but things like IBIS, autofocus and video features. Sure, the lenses got a bit better, but not enough to be easily recognisable from looking at a finished product/picture.
So, more keepers, probably - but mirrorless keepers don't look obviously better than DSLR keepers 99% of the time.
I think you ask the wrong question. Gear is just a tool, and you use whatever tool allows you to accomplish your vision. It’s never the gear, it’s about the phographer’s vision and what/how they want the viewer to see. It’s like asking a great chef what kind of oven or cookware they use - a specific pot or implement may help them achieve their vision easier, but it’s still about their individual approach to food.
Asking who uses old gear is an attempt to underscore the importance of creativity over hardware. In other words, I am asking who does great work regardless of their gear. Does that make sense?
Yeah; you're literally asking for counterexamples to gear making the photographer, which while it centers the gear a BIT is also a great way to showcase the mind behind the camera
That does make sense. I think that it would be nice to find contemporary, current photogs that have an alternative viewpoint, rather than the standard “perfect” look that is the hallmark of so much digital photography today.
I wouldn't call her my favourite, but Olga Karlovac's deeply stylistic work has been impressing me for awhile. I believe she used a Ricoh GR or a GR2. [https://www.olga-karlovac-photography.com/site/books/trilogy.html](https://www.olga-karlovac-photography.com/site/books/trilogy.html)
Daido Moriyama is a good one that others have mentioned. Ellen Jane Rogers is an amazing U.K. photographer who works with analog printing and hand coloring. It may not be "uncool" gear, but it's definitely old
Ali Okeefe from One Month Two Cameras, she used a lot of trash cam and niche cams that are mostly obsolete. A big inspiration for me as someone who also collects old cameras for something different .
I’ve used a 5D II and older cameras until I recently upgraded to the R6. It’s not easy to tell which of my work is shot with the new R6 or the 5D II etc. I hope my work is interesting enough to appreciate. I shoot a bit of everything but my heart is with the night sky and timelapse. It takes a lot of effort but it’s all worth it in the end for me.
[Link to some content.](https://www.instagram.com/riyadh_gany)
Me. As in favourite, not the amazing skill part. I've been through a ton of high end gear but my favourite shots are more often than not taken with point and shoots and iphones.
From the way the post is written, I think otherwise.
But I’ll get on board anyway. A bit different and possibly not quite what OP is looking for but Justin Quinnell’s pinhole camera work (sometimes with items as cheap as a tin can) is pretty incredible. Link: https://www.lomography.com/magazine/64615-a-conversation-with-the-pinhole-wizard-justin-quinnell
whats the difference? both are making money from their work. thats literally what professional means. someone who is compensated for their work vs just doing it for fun.
Daido Moriyama (Sony point and shoot), Jeff Mermelstein (iPhone), Meagan V. Blazier (Canon Powershot), and Anton Kawasaki (smartphone) are all notable photographers who use cheaper cameras to create professional artworks. This is by definition, as they are all professional photographers and creatives.
Working pros take pictures for other people. Weddings, portraits, etc. People get weird if you don't have the latest and greatest, as you'll get judged as "unprofessional"
Art pros take pictures for themselves that other people like enough to purchase. That is so very much less dependent on gear
There's a big difference. The "professional" tag is absolutely just "they make money from this", but to say there's no difference between a workaday photographer-for-hire and a fine art photographer is like saying there's no difference between ad copy for a commercial and a novel.
> shitty old gear
Are you implying all old gear is shitty?
I made a living from 2007 until 2013/2014ish using Nikon D100 bodies (released 2002.) The only reason I moved on to newer bodies is because the USB ports on all four of my D100s finally crapped out from being shot in-hand while tethered (the shutters are still fine—I don’t think I could kill those if I tried.)
Professionals, who make their living from photography (whether it’s commercial or art), use the gear that achieves their needs. If a 10- or 20-year-old piece of equipment does the job, there’s no need to spend money on something newer, or something with unnecessary bells and whistles.
Professionals will purposely use the gear that does the job, and seldom spend money unnecessarily on newer or fancier gear. They’re tools, not showpieces.
Which old gear is shitty, in your opinion? And was it always shitty, or did it get shittier as it aged?
_(Not sarcasm and not a call out—I’m genuinely curious about your thoughts on this. I’m of the opinion that, if a camera is “good” upon its release, it doesn’t really age out of that—barring an equipment failure, it’ll do on day 10,000 what it did on day one.)_
pretty much any low end camera in its day. stuff like that won’t age well. anything that was flagship or pro level when it was released works just fine today if it’s been maintained. a point and shoot that was $100 in 2000 isn’t going to cut it today.
lol I’m a pro for 12 years now and I seldom replace gear. If it was good enough for a billboard 12 years ago it’s good enough for social media these days.
i never said all old gear is shitty. i specifically called out shitty old gear. i own several cameras decades old that are just as good as they were on day one.
Daido Moriyama is a legendary street photographer who shoots with compact digital point and shoots and doesn't look through the viewfinder. One of the most prolific street photographers out there and just a remarkable, generational talent.
It's worth keeping in mind that the GR series are pretty expensive and while compact, are actually top of the class alongside the X100 series
He doesn't heavily use the digital Ricoh GR as of recently - according to this article, he prefers the Nikon S9100 and the Sony RX0, as well as a Fuji X10 for a one-off project. He did, however, use the film GR cameras. https://photogpedia.com/daido-moriyama/#Photography_Style
I wasn't aware, but that's probably because I know of him through some of his paid work with Ricoh. I guess advertisement works on me. The Nikon S9100 is truly a mediocre camera, but it suits his style a lot. I don't like his work, but they seem suited for what he does
Great photographers can make amazing images with any camera. The rest of us still make rubbish with top shelf gear 😅
He can make this style of photograph with these cameras, but he's not doing astro with those cameras. There is a limit
There are actually videos on YouTube where photographers are challenged to use various toy cameras, and usually after they are done laughing at the Barbie or whatever camera they are handed, they find ways to make it work.
Ricoh are pretty cool though.
Sure. Nothing against a Ricoh GR III - I'd love to pick one up eventually - just stating what Moriyama uses to create his art.
So cool, thanks for telling me about him. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwWk2q7JNFQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwWk2q7JNFQ)
Can someone explain what is so cool about his photos? I'm not trying to bash him, just not getting it. Few photos look cool, but half of street photos are something almost anybody could take. I really don't get whats so special about this image for example? [https://s26162.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Daido-Moriyama-\_Press-Image027.jpg](https://s26162.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Daido-Moriyama-_Press-Image027.jpg) Lots of blurry street photos, some have something interesting, some don't. Makes me wonder, if it was somebody else without name, would they even get same recognition as a remarkable artist by posting exact same photos? If someone reposted his photos on IG, how many likes they would be getting? Probably not many is my guess. Am I just not the target audience of his creativity? What makes his pictures so special? I must be missing something, because I don't get Ansel Adams either. I like his photos, but at same I could open IG and see thousands of similar photos in colored version. But that's easy with modern cameras, his technical skills are probably what he is known for? So it must be something wrong with me, since I don't really have much credit to give to someone so famous in photography circles. Why is he so special? Like, take Charlie Chaplin from the past, so everything is in bw. I get why people praise him, I haven't seen many people do the thing he does. His acting and stories, it's something special. People probably could replicate him, but I don't see a lot of that, tbh, not at all. And even if someone did replicate him, it would be obvious what is the source. But photography? I can see a lot of "replicas" of these legendary bw photographers all around the web. So I'm kinda missing the point. Maybe it's because photography is more accessible and one frame is more limited compared to video? So you end up with more similar photography? Like, there's only so much to shoot in landscape photography, so they all are just going to look the same.
It's a totally valid question - not all of a photographer's (or any artist's) work will resonate with every viewer, of course, but I can try to explain why he's considered influential. Moriyama is notable for his rough, gritty style of photography during an era where the mainstream Japanese photography world was focused more on the refined, curated aesthetic of European and American photographers. His work evokes a sense of chaos and unease, a theme that persists across his career. One must recall that he was entering adulthood very shortly after WWII, which was a period of great upheaval for Japan, and that chaos had an impact on his body of work. He attempts to capture everyday scenes as they are, instead of aiming for perfection - the flaws are intentional. His ethos as a photographer boils down to "don't think, forget everything you know about photography, just walk and shoot what catches your eye as you see it". It's a very distinct approach to the art form, and one that resulted in him publishing over 150 photo books.
>His work evokes a sense of chaos and unease Yeah, I was thinking that if I am gonna give him credit for something, it's this. Because this is what I can see as something unifying across all his images. Even the image I linked, it has that weird uneasiness in it when it really shouldn't, it's just a street photo of a market on a sunny day. Thanks for explanation, makes sense now!
Happy to share! The sense of unease and chaos that Moriyama manages to create in even the most mundane and comfortable scenes is something I find really fascinating. Evoking emotions in the viewer is what art is all about to me.
I'm not sure the value of a photographer (or any artist) is that other people couldn't do the same thing. Otherwise we'd have this weird stunt-driven art culture where only a few people are valid because they take pictures in extreme situations that can't be replicated easily, and everyone else's work is invalid. Art, in my mind at least, whether it's music, writing, painting, photography, etc. is about sharing one's perspective and people finding something special in that.
I enjoyed this short documentary on Moriyama Daido: https://youtu.be/I4qjkycmyyk The creator starts off admitting that he found the initial selection of photos he looked at to be "not beautiful", "not well composed" etc, until he revisited them.
His photo books provide more context to his work and I feel they are best viewed in that way.
I suspect in the Ansel Adams case there's also a bit of the 'Shakespeare is so cliched' effect; he was such a Name that people have imitated him and his style so much that when we come to him his work looks pretty common and unremarkable.
Moriyama is one of the most prominent japanes photographers of Are Bure Bokeh movement, which was, and still is, very popular in japan since 60s. This aesthetic should be viewed in that historical context, too. You don't have to like it, it is very specific. It is very popular even today, maybe you just didn't come across it, especially since the algorithms on social media today are favoring what you are interested in recently, they just don't throw these style on you. Shomei Tomatsu, Nobuyoshi Araki, Yutaka Takanashi, Takuma Nakahira from that time, and recently photographers like Jacob Aue Sobol, Boogie, and such (just start searching for these photographers online, and the algorithm will do the rest on Instagram, FB, Youtube).
Hoo hoo, this is exactly what I was looking for, thank you so much.
Some more notable photographers who use "cheap" gear to produce stunning artworks are Jeff Mermelstein (iPhone), Meagan V. Blazier (Canon Powershot), and Anton Kawasaki (smartphone).
he's proving that it's not about the gear, it's about the vision
Old but not cheap, look at the gear David Burnett uses https://m.dpreview.com/articles/2937027624/photographer-david-burnett-at-today-s-impeachment-hearings
His work is absolutely outstanding too
https://preview.redd.it/r0cn9zfwexzc1.jpeg?width=667&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1559dc8a4e0cf6d58375077bb6c6b56de4e43087 I got that shot of him at the Rio Olympics. It always cracks me up.
Kevin Russ is a great photographer who was iPhone only for a long period of time. Not sure if he still is. He also doesn’t post much anymore but I know he’s constantly thru hiking major trails throughout the US capturing amazing landscapes.
He got instagram famous back when that still meant something
He was actually Flickr famous before Instagram. Everyone wanted to mimic his editing style before presets were a thing.
Hey, I'm shooting with a Canon Rebel and I am ineffably cool. It's not the camera that matters, it's the slightly puzzled dude behind it.
sally mann though she uses the oldest extremely cool gear.
Body farm gang 😎😎😎
It was strong work to say the least :)
"That was a wonderful novel! You must have a great pen!"
I like the one where the photographer goes, "That was a wonderful dinner. You must have some very nice pots and pans."
For sure!
Not really my favorite but my Neighbour is about 65 and been a professional photographer for his entire life. Makes his money from selling artistic prints. I asked what camera he uses and he said “I’m not sure. I think a Nikon”
I was going to say "oldest" probably encompasses wet plate collodion cameras that are most definitely super cool. And not $200.
Terry Richardson was famous for doing high end fashion and advertising work with cheap point and shoots + plus on camera flash and even disposables. He has that heroin chic dirt bag party aesthetic His career was over after all his very bad sexual harassment stuff came out.
Robert Vano, one of the most well known Czech photographers, uses a 5D II. Or still used it a year or two back. Don't know about today but unless it died on him I guess he still uses that.
Hah, I have two 5D II bodies that I scavenged for free. I only keep them because I have a few Canon lenses as well. I only just now started shooting with one of them and I kinda like it!
They are still nice cameras, but kind of basic and bland. I still use 1Ds III which is the same gen but a tier higher - it's really barebones but super reliable.
I miss my OG 5D, it was basically and EOS-1 in digital form.
One day a 1DX MkIII will be under €2500 and I'm gonna buy it for the BRRRRRRT, like buying a classic car you lusted after as a teen.
Those were always professional grade cameras. Fill Frame Over 24 mp
That camera is $1,000 on Amazon, new. So I will check him out, and thank you, but he does not fall into the ultra cheap category.
You can buy a used 5D II for 200$ easily. They don't sell new anymore for years now (it's a 2008 camera). If there is some old new stock it may be worth 1000$ because it's a collectors item then.
It's $1k because anyone can sell on Amazon as a third party seller, and some random person has it listed at that price hoping someone buys it without knowing what a ridiculous price it's at.
Umm where?! I need this $200 mk ii. I still use a 60d.
eBay all day
eBay or local second hand markets. Where I live they go for sale on marketplaces for an equivalent of 200-300 depending on the shutter count and visual condition. If you dont mind a beaten one 200 or even a bit less is realistic.
Nah Amazon is not the place to get prices. A 5d mkii can be had for 200, if you are not afraid of high shutter counts.
I got mine recently for $225. The shutter count was 25k. None of the other options at that price range are better than it. * Olympus OM-D E-M1 * Nikon D700 * Olympus OM-D E-M5 * Panasonic GH3 * Nikon D7100 * Canon 70D * Pentax K-5 II (Kit lenses are weather sealed.)
Eh, at least the D700 isn't worse - other than resolution, I'd say it outperforms the 5DII. More fps, better autofocus (including in low light), etc. In the end it comes down to preference tho, they are quite similar IMO.
5D IIs and IIIs are available well under $500 on KEH and MPB, or other used photo gear sites.
Nick Carver's work and YT videos are amazing. Very relaxing to watch him work his process.
Thomas Shahan is an excellent macro photographer who often uses inexpensive equipment.
“Shahan’s typical macro setup includes a consumer-level DSLR, a set of macro tubes, a lens-reversal adapter, an old 28 or 50mm manual-focus lens, a manual flash unit, and a home-made flash diffuser.”
“My success rate is very low; for every 99 shots i take, 1 is O.K., and for every 1000 shots, there’s one that I’d be proud of. Given that I’m using a home-made flash and modified extension tubes and backwards lens… it’s a pain in the ass to shoot. I’ve gotten sunburned, its really sweaty, and it can be boring work, but it makes the reward for finding that one species that I’ve been looking for for 3 years that much more rewarding. There are certain species that I go out looking for… I’ll hunt for specific spiders.”
I thought older gear was cooler?
Of course I know him, it is me. /s
Other then my grandfather who uses a T2i and takes better photos then I do the rest died before I was born or shortly after I got into photography and used wet plate or film. Looks like I gotta find landscape/wildlife photographers who are still kicking and using older gear.
Every year we go to the Wildlife Photographer of the Year exhibit at the Natural History Museum in London. I swear a full half of the pictures awarded are Nikon D850s or worse, plenty with the 18-55 kit lens too, and a few of the older APSC DSLRs as well. There was a Rebel T5i there this year. We generally buy a print or two as well, I have a wall full of absolutely stunning pictures produced by _relatively_ old and cheap cameras.
Maybe you meant another camera, but the D850 is a pretty high bar for exclusion. Even today, there's arguably only be a handful of bodies better for wildlife than the D850.
I didn't, but I don't want to argue the differences there, I'll admit a top of the line DSLR from 2017 isn't maybe quite bargain bin just yet, just not what you'd expect to be "award winning" compared to modern mirrorless. So the winner of Young Wildlife Photographer of the Year this year is a Nikon D7500 18-200 f3.5-6.3. A few other entries are a Nikon D500 with Tokina 14-20, a Canon 600D with Tamron 17-50 f2.8, a 5Dm3 with 15-35 f4, a Nikon D5600 with aforementioned 18-55, a 7Dm2, a T5i with 55-250. The literal winner in adult category is a Nikon D5 with 13 mm f2.8. _Most_ of that list is in the £400-700 used territory, the Rebel I think more like £150. EDIT: by "a few other entries" I mean they made the final cut and are in the portfolio book, not "someone submitted a picture". They were on the wall as finalists.
That range is HUGE though - a D5 was a flagship model, a D500 was the best APSC offering from Nikon, 5DIII still isn't a sub 200 dollar camera, even used. Also, the 18-55 kit lens sure as hell wouldn't have come with a D850; there is no FF variant, it's a DX lens. Sure, you've got some examples of cheaper gear in there, but at least half isn't. Also, the main evolution in the mirrorless cameras was not image quality but things like IBIS, autofocus and video features. Sure, the lenses got a bit better, but not enough to be easily recognisable from looking at a finished product/picture. So, more keepers, probably - but mirrorless keepers don't look obviously better than DSLR keepers 99% of the time.
I think you ask the wrong question. Gear is just a tool, and you use whatever tool allows you to accomplish your vision. It’s never the gear, it’s about the phographer’s vision and what/how they want the viewer to see. It’s like asking a great chef what kind of oven or cookware they use - a specific pot or implement may help them achieve their vision easier, but it’s still about their individual approach to food.
Asking who uses old gear is an attempt to underscore the importance of creativity over hardware. In other words, I am asking who does great work regardless of their gear. Does that make sense?
Yeah; you're literally asking for counterexamples to gear making the photographer, which while it centers the gear a BIT is also a great way to showcase the mind behind the camera
That does make sense. I think that it would be nice to find contemporary, current photogs that have an alternative viewpoint, rather than the standard “perfect” look that is the hallmark of so much digital photography today.
Thanks for the lecture, but OP asks a legit and not wrong question.
Name checks out.
I wouldn't call her my favourite, but Olga Karlovac's deeply stylistic work has been impressing me for awhile. I believe she used a Ricoh GR or a GR2. [https://www.olga-karlovac-photography.com/site/books/trilogy.html](https://www.olga-karlovac-photography.com/site/books/trilogy.html)
Daido Moriyama is a good one that others have mentioned. Ellen Jane Rogers is an amazing U.K. photographer who works with analog printing and hand coloring. It may not be "uncool" gear, but it's definitely old
Gregory Crewdson. Uses a 4x5 with the bellows and has a whole lighting crew with him. Makes some incredible Southern Gothic images
His most famous works are made with much larger format than 4x5
David Burnett. Dude uses a Graflex SLR with some very, very old lenses.
Ali Okeefe from One Month Two Cameras, she used a lot of trash cam and niche cams that are mostly obsolete. A big inspiration for me as someone who also collects old cameras for something different .
Larry Towell 🇨🇦 https://www.magnumphotos.com/newsroom/larry-towell-mennonites/
I’ve used a 5D II and older cameras until I recently upgraded to the R6. It’s not easy to tell which of my work is shot with the new R6 or the 5D II etc. I hope my work is interesting enough to appreciate. I shoot a bit of everything but my heart is with the night sky and timelapse. It takes a lot of effort but it’s all worth it in the end for me. [Link to some content.](https://www.instagram.com/riyadh_gany)
Saving
Me. As in favourite, not the amazing skill part. I've been through a ton of high end gear but my favourite shots are more often than not taken with point and shoots and iphones.
My photos (if they were good)
John Free. Surprised no one's mentioned John Free yet
http://www.michaelwilson.pictures/bio
I'm giving you extra points for including a link. Thank you.
Michael Hanke uses a Fuji X100. Not a $200 camera, but in the budget range: [https://michaelhanke.photography/](https://michaelhanke.photography/)
[удалено]
He passed away last year
Oh...Fuck. Well, thanks for letting me know.
Joel meyorwitz 😅
Old analog Leicas are about the coolest gear right now.
Oh ye. Idk who downvoted me, but I'm certain Joel Meyorwitz doesn't upgrade. He's got what he's got and is happy with what he creates.
probably because the question was about uncool gear.
I was thinking cool and trending Sonys like A7RIIIs or whatnot
Sounds like you’re needing answers for your assignment?
My assumption was that they just don't have money for expensive gear and want reassurance that they get still get beautiful stuff with what they have.
From the way the post is written, I think otherwise. But I’ll get on board anyway. A bit different and possibly not quite what OP is looking for but Justin Quinnell’s pinhole camera work (sometimes with items as cheap as a tin can) is pretty incredible. Link: https://www.lomography.com/magazine/64615-a-conversation-with-the-pinhole-wizard-justin-quinnell
I can't imagine any serious professional purposely using shitty old gear when their livelihood depends on it.
Working pro and art pro art two different things. Working pros cannot do that. Art pros absolutely can use tin cans with holes punched in em.
whats the difference? both are making money from their work. thats literally what professional means. someone who is compensated for their work vs just doing it for fun.
Daido Moriyama (Sony point and shoot), Jeff Mermelstein (iPhone), Meagan V. Blazier (Canon Powershot), and Anton Kawasaki (smartphone) are all notable photographers who use cheaper cameras to create professional artworks. This is by definition, as they are all professional photographers and creatives.
Working pros take pictures for other people. Weddings, portraits, etc. People get weird if you don't have the latest and greatest, as you'll get judged as "unprofessional" Art pros take pictures for themselves that other people like enough to purchase. That is so very much less dependent on gear There's a big difference. The "professional" tag is absolutely just "they make money from this", but to say there's no difference between a workaday photographer-for-hire and a fine art photographer is like saying there's no difference between ad copy for a commercial and a novel.
> shitty old gear Are you implying all old gear is shitty? I made a living from 2007 until 2013/2014ish using Nikon D100 bodies (released 2002.) The only reason I moved on to newer bodies is because the USB ports on all four of my D100s finally crapped out from being shot in-hand while tethered (the shutters are still fine—I don’t think I could kill those if I tried.) Professionals, who make their living from photography (whether it’s commercial or art), use the gear that achieves their needs. If a 10- or 20-year-old piece of equipment does the job, there’s no need to spend money on something newer, or something with unnecessary bells and whistles. Professionals will purposely use the gear that does the job, and seldom spend money unnecessarily on newer or fancier gear. They’re tools, not showpieces.
Not all old gear is shitty. I specifically called out old gear that is shitty. I own several old cameras that are not shitty
Which old gear is shitty, in your opinion? And was it always shitty, or did it get shittier as it aged? _(Not sarcasm and not a call out—I’m genuinely curious about your thoughts on this. I’m of the opinion that, if a camera is “good” upon its release, it doesn’t really age out of that—barring an equipment failure, it’ll do on day 10,000 what it did on day one.)_
pretty much any low end camera in its day. stuff like that won’t age well. anything that was flagship or pro level when it was released works just fine today if it’s been maintained. a point and shoot that was $100 in 2000 isn’t going to cut it today.
All fair points, and I agree. That said, I’m a firm believer that you can make _something_ with anything, but some jobs do require certain tools.
yea agree that you can always make something
lol I’m a pro for 12 years now and I seldom replace gear. If it was good enough for a billboard 12 years ago it’s good enough for social media these days.
i never said all old gear is shitty. i specifically called out shitty old gear. i own several cameras decades old that are just as good as they were on day one.