Which Equipment Is More Important: The Lighting, The Lens, or The Camera?
Our recent post on the SLR Lounge Facebook wall has sparked an amazing conversation: Which is the most important photo equipment: The camera, the lens, or the lighting gear? Check out what people are saying by clicking HERE.
This article is written from the standpoint of portrait and wedding photography, where lighting, lenses, and camera bodies each play a very specific role. Other genres of photography, such as landscapes or nature, may not require any lighting at all and may place very different demands on the rest of your equipment. So, keep that in mind as you continue reading!
I have been a (digital) photographer for a decade now. Before that, I enjoyed shooting film, but it was just a hobby and it did not involve portraiture, so I will not count that. Either way, I have learned that in portraiture as well as any other type of photography, one aspect always makes or breaks the photo: The light. Bad light equals a bad photo, it’s that simple.
Don’t get me wrong, some people can take bad light and turn it into good light. There is no such thing as “bad light” in that respect. Even harsh noon-day sun can be turned into something dramatic and beautiful, and I have a few tips on that in a video that you can view by clicking HERE.
However, I noticed something while I was reading through the replies on the discussion. Some people used the word “lighting”, and some people simply used the word “light”. I realized that there is actually quite a difference between those two terms. In fact, probably 75% of my all-time favorite images are made with 100% natural light, or no more than a reflector. Clearly other people might have a different style and a different preference, but this got me to thinking about the whole “lighting VS lenses VS cameras” discussion.
Nikon D700, Nikon 24-70 f/2.8, natural light plus reflector
Lighting VS Light
I usually call myself a “camera geek”, and when it comes to exciting and geeky photo shoots, lighting is really fun to play with. Using off-camera lighting is one of the biggest and fastest ways to make your imagery stand out from the crowd.
A lot of people bash on “natural light photographers”, saying that most of them are simply too afraid to dive into the world of lighting. I agree that if you’re limiting yourself to natural light just because you’re intimidated by lighting, you’re making a mistake. If you’re a portrait photographer and especially if you have professional aspirations, at the very least you should have the skills in your arsenal.
If you are un-willing to get into lighting gear, then at the very least you shouldn’t be allowed to complain about how fierce the competition is, or how other photographers seem to be “stealing” or imitating your style. Or worse, if you’re not careful you could find yourself in a lighting scenario that is simply un-solvable using natural light only, and you’d wind up with a poor product delivery and potentially even a bad business review.
So, there’s an argument in favor of learning how to use lighting equipment. However as I read thecomments about certain lighting equipment, modifiers, etc…I realized another thing: Personally, I get more excited with low-budget Strobist style lighting that is lightweight and “ghetto”, than with high-end expensive lighting setups, and heavy power packs or giant modifiers. I love to MacGyver a lighting setup with a couple cheap strobes and radio triggers, maybe an umbrella or small softbox when necessary. I have much more fun with simple ”voice activated light stands” (AKA friends I can enjoy the photo shoot with) …than having all sorts of stands and gear and stuff that has to be lugged around.
In the end, light itself wins my heart, not lighting equipment alone.
Nikon D300, Sigma 50-150 2.8, natural light
Nikon D700, Tamron 90mm f/2.5 manual focus lens,
Simple umbrella lighting with hotshoe flashes and cheap radio triggers
Quality Glass VS Lens Elitism
So if lighting equipment isn’t my favorite thing to blow tons of money on, what is? Surely it is lenses, not camera bodies, right? Again, I started thinking about this. I’m really not a lens snob, in fact I get annoyed when I see other people scoffing at anything that isn’t “L glass”, asserting that anything less is just un-professional crap and shouldn’t be conssidered.
All I care about in a lens is, is it sharp? Sometimes the affordable glass isn’t sharp at all, or it’s built cheap and falls apart. I would stay away from that, obviously. But do I lay awake at night dreaming about a lens just because it says f/1.2 or f/1.4 on it, or f/2.8? Nope. In fact I dread how heavy such lenses are, and if I’m losing any sleep it is to find ways to avoid needing heavier lenses. ;-)
Bottom line- If it’s sharp and can focus accurately, I’ll take it. Sure, it needs to be built rugged enough to handle a little abuse, but other than that, I’m just not a lens snob.
For example lately Nikon has been coming out with some killer f/1.8 glass, and I have to say I’m actually more excited about those lenses than their bigger f/1.4 siblings. Tack sharp and built solid, for ~$1,000 less? Yes please! Sure, a few photographers out there will absolutely need that extra 1/2 or 2/3 stop of shutter speed that the aperture difference affords, but probably only 5-10% of photographers truly need it, the rest just think they do. They think they’re much better off upgrading to that f/1.4 or f/1.2 lens, instead of upgrading their camera body first.
Uh-oh, did I just suggest foregoing a lens upgrade in favor of a camera body upgrade? The haters and know-it-alls are ready to pounce…
Nikon D300, Nikon 24mm f/2.8 AIS, (manual focus lens) natural light
Nikon D700, Nikon 85mm f/1.8 D, natural light
Nikon D300, Sigma 50-150 f/2.8, natural light
Lenses VS Bodies
After I thought about everything, from lighting equipment to “lens lust” to the ever-obsolete camera body, I realized that the thing I value most in the photographic process is a camera body that I can trust to never let me down. I’d rather have a killer camera body that can nail focus on an affordable f/1.8 prime, than make any sort of compromise on camera reliability, focus accuracy, or overall function and customization.
Why? Because what it all comes down to at the end of the day is, …where is my greatest potential source for annoyance, frustration, and failure? As a portrait and wedding photographer, it is the camera body. If my body starts acting up, it can be game over really quick.
So yes, I value my camera body very highly. Out of lighting equipment, lenses, and camera bodies, I find the most excitement when a camera system overall performs flawlessly and doesn’t let me down.
Does this mean you should go out and buy the best, most expensive camera body you can afford, and forget about lenses or lighting equipment? Absolutely not. Light itself is always your number one priority. And a good, decent lens is the best way to capture light properly. But your camera body needs to be up to the task. Some tasks only require a basic camera body, but when you really start to push the envelopes of light conditions and lens performance, you’ll need a camera body that can perform.
Nikon D700, Nikon 85mm f/1.8 AFS-G, cheap hotshoe strobes & radio triggers
(Shot wide open in nearly pitch-black lighting conditions, without AF-assist)
Obviously, the ultimate aspiration of any photographer is to own the absolute best gear in all three respects- lenses, lighting, and bodies. This article is not attempting to say that you should continually work with mediocre lenses and lighting gear just because you have the best camera body and that’s all that matters. Simply put, I am saying that I would invest in my equipment with a different emphasis than the conventional wisdom and advice you’ll usually find out there.
Also, keep in mind that my preferences are not automatically right for everyone else. However, you should consider your needs, each time you are ready to make an investment. Always ask yourself the question: “What is my biggest obstacle right now, what is holding me back the most?” Maybe if you’ve got a half-decent camera body but no primes at all, it might be time for that first f/1.8 prime or f/1.4 prime. Or maybe it’s time for a basic lighting setup. But don’t get carried away, if it is going to break your bank for the next two years. You could very quickly find yourself pushing the envelope of your camera bodie’s capabilities, especially in the first couple / few years as a digital photographer shooting portraits and especially weddings.
For those who would say, “it’s just wise to always invest in the absolute best gear right off the bat anyways, so why bother with intermediate f/1.8 glass or cheap lighting gear?” …to you I would respond, well, if you’re shooting weddings or portraits, then you should consider that intermediate gear as your eventual backup to your long-term investments. As a professional, you can never have too much gear. In fact I’d rather have two sets of affordable gear than one set of high-end gear, as a professional wedding photographer, simply because having a backup is that important.
You get the idea. Don’t let gear lust get the best of you as you build your system. Always buy the gear that is truly the most desperately needed in your system, not just that sexy new bit of gear that you know will make you the envy of your friends.
Until next time, happy clicking!