This is my first blog post.   The tough part was deciding what to talk about.   I decided to share my thoughts on why it isn’t necessary to have the best gear—especially if you are a new photographer starting out.

I would love to have the greatest and best new gear; we can all admit to that.   Who wouldn’t love to be always shooting with the best, fastest lenses, and the latest technology?   I’d also love to drive a Lamborghini, but do I really need one and how practical would that be?   Unless you are independently wealthy or have a very specific need for specific equipment for what you are shooting you can save a lot of money by starting simple.

I’ve always been cost conscious when it comes to getting gear.   I started with a crop sensor Nikon D7000 and used that for several years.   When I started traveling a lot for work, I wanted to bring my camera with me.   Having to lug a heavy large DSLR body was becoming cumbersome, so I switched to a crop body Sony a6000 in 2014.   Note that I didn’t switch to something different until I had a specific need and reason.

Don’t buy into the hype that you must have the latest and best gear to make great photographs.   My personal philosophy is that it makes much more sense to start with something simple and master that before moving on to better and “best” equipment.   For example, do you really need the almost 5 pound $2600 Sony f2.8 70-200 lens or can you make do with something simpler?   I’m not saying buy the absolute cheapest thing you can find either, but I can tell you it’s more about the photographer and your knowledge and skills than it is about what gear you use.

When I got my a6000, I used the 16-55mm kit lens and that was it.   By the way, Sony currently has the a6000 with the 16-55 kit lens on sale for $498 USD or $398 for just the body just about everwhere shuch as B&H or Adorama.   That’s a very capable starter camera for someone at a very nice price.   It was $800 when I got my first one in 2014.

Once I had mastered the 15-55 lens, I was really wanting something with more reach, so I added the 55-210 kit lens.   Granted, there is a noticeable difference in the quality of the images between the kit lens and, for example, the Sony f2.8 70-200.   However, for what you are shooting do you really need the f2.8?   Will the $1500 1.85-pound f4 70-200 lens work instead?   Will the 55-210 work for what you are doing?   How important is size and weight for what you are doing?   The f2.8 is just shy of 5 pounds--that's a beast to lug around.   Only you can decide what works for you, but don’t be afraid to challenge the common assertation that you have to have the best most expensive equipment out there.

I have my own real-world example of why you don’t have to have the best equipment to make great images that people willing to pay for.   My most “famous” image is that image that you see here from Central Park in New York City.   It was licensed for use on outdoor media--which means billboards and other signs such as bus stops, busses, etc.   It was shot with the Sony a6000 with a crop sensor and the 16-55 kit lens.   I licensed this image to the Ad Council for a public service campaign they were doing for the US Forest Service called “Discover the Forest”.   I know it was used on several billboards.   Unfortunately, the only one that I saw in person was this one in Delaware.

In case you are wondering:  YES absolutely!  I did make a special trip there just to see it in person.

I was fortunate that the image I had was exactly what they were looking for, but I didn’t have to be a 50MP image shot with a $2000+ body and $2000+ lens for someone to be willing to license it.

I am personally a big fan of the Sigma Sony e-Mount lenses as they are a lot cheaper than Sony.   I started with the f2.8 19mm and over the next few years added the f2.8 60mm, the f2.8 30mm, and most recently the f1.4 16mm.   I have the Sony 50mm f1.4 and Sony 18-135mm as well.   The most expensive lens out of all six of those is the Sigma 16mm at $399 and I bought a used one from another photographer for even less.

If you have a specific need for a more expensive setup, renting is an option as well.   When I wanted to shoot an airshow a couple of years ago, I rented the Sony a7iii and the Sony 100-400 lens and an extra battery for $300 for 5 days.   The a7iii is $1800 and the 100-400 lens is $2500—that’s a $4400 setup for 5 days for only $300.

I hope this was a helpful post.   Feel free to send me comments via the Contact form if you have any feedback, thoughts or suggestions for future posts.

---