"Mitts and Booties" - Canon EOS 5D Mark II and EF 85mm f/1.8 USM; 1/40 sec at f/2.8, ISO 800. All rights reserved.

Sometimes you have to look very hard for a compelling subject or a pleasing composition; at other times, the planets seem to align and the subject and composition present themselves, and the visualisation just works. This is one of those times. I used an orange filter, and used Fill Layers in Photoshop CS 4 to quadtone the picture to get the tonality I like. It may be digital, but it doesn't feel as clinical.

The project will be done on both digital and film, and hopefully I will achieve a 50/50 split between film and digital pictures, but it will not be a requirement. I will be updating the Home page with the newest picture of this project when I make them, as well as post them in individual blog entries. For full-sized pictures, visit the Gallery or my Flickr set. Here's hoping you enjoy it as much as I will.

Again, this is possibly one of the most often-heard and yet most important advice I can give any photographer: commit yourself to a project and make pictures if you want to improve, and a project like this, which will force me to see in luminance and contrast, will always be a useful photographic experience.

I strongly disagree; but before I explain my rationale, I thought I might point you to two excellent articles, Mike Johnston's "Letter to George" and Thom Hogan's "Serious Support" (which I have christened "The Law of Tripods", and wish I read it prior to buying mine.) Also, a disclaimer: I do not claim that my rationale will work for everyone, only that it works for me. This is also not a defensive reaction, but rather one where I choose to put on the record in the hope that it will be useful for someone other than myself. Take it however you will.

The Newb Tax

First, a little anecdote about my tripod. In late 2008 I bought myself a Manfrotto 055CXPro3 with a 488RC2 ballhead. It was reasonably-priced at about $195 for the entire setup, was light and stable enough for my irregular tripod work, stable, and well-built; Manfrotto was a known name, and though I was recommended to get a better ballhead and tripod, which would cost me around $1000, I went ahead with the purchase anyway. After all, why spend 5 times the money for something that, in my mind, worked just as well?

It didn't quite turn out that way. The 055CXPro3 has 3 sections, which made it a little too long to walk around or hike with, thus making me more reluctant to bring it out with me. The 488RC2, while having the panning movements I needed, added quite a bit of weight to the setup, and worse, it does not lock my camera into place even after I turned the locking knob into its tightest possible position. This made using it rather frustrating, and no photographer skill can compensate for the inconsistent locking. 

I am still using the Manfrotto because most of my work does not require a tripod, but I am now looking to buy a Benro C-158M8 and Acratech GV2 ballhead to replace this setup. It'll cost me $1000. I could have saved $195 and a frustrating experience handling a tripod that was not suited for my needs. It turns out that this is commonly known in photography circles as "The Newb Tax", where you end up paying more because you wanted to save.

More Newb Taxes

Before I went to Malacca last year for a photography trip, I hunted down a copy of the Canon EF 35mm f/2 lens for $430 as that focal length appealed to me on many levels. It works great on both full frame/film bodies and APS-C bodies, like my wife's 450D. I had made up my mind after spending a couple of days with my zoom gaffer taped at 35mm and enjoyed that experience tremendously.

At first, I loved the lens. It was sharp in the centre, was decently fast at f/2, focused faster and better than my 50mm f/1.8, and was light and unobtrusive. It also weighed next to nothing and was so small no one bothered if I pointed it in their direction. It also focused pretty close, so it can act as a pseudo-macro lens. Why pay $2000 for the f/1.4 version when this one worked just as well? 

(That refrain is always something to look out for.)

It didn't quite work out like that either. The autofocus was iffy at best, even though it did not exhibit weird focus shifts like my 50mm does. The image quality was great in the centre, but the details start turning into mush in the borders. Wide-open performance was average on crop bodies, and borders on unacceptable on full frame. And the colour rendition was muted at best, requiring more post-processing.

I now own the 35mm f/1.4 lens, bought at $2070, and sold the 35/2 at a loss of $50. Put it on the ol' tab. The one that says "Newb Tax" on it.

Lesson learnt

What I take away from my experience, short as it may be, as well as the experience of other professional/serious photographers, is this: buy the best you can afford, even if it takes you a little longer to save for it. In addition to avoiding paying the Newb Tax, you also avoid the pitfalls and frustrations working with gear that get in your way of actually making pictures. Buying the best also means you have no excuses when you make a bad picture.

What are you after?

The interesting thing about photography equipment is that there is no perfect, all-singing, all-dancing, one-size-fits-all lens or camera. Nothing like that exists. Everyone is looking for different qualities, and will arrive at different solutions. "Buy the best you can afford" is very much affected by this fact. The criteria could be weight/bulk, or features like IS, or high ISO capability, or 10 frames per second, or even as superficial as how many colours the camera comes in.

For every one of these criteria, we find the compromises that work for us, and you pay accordingly. Generally, there are reasons why some equipment are more expensive than others, and it may not be all marketing. All that matters is it does what you want it to do and costs what you are willing to pay.

There is another dimension to it though, and that is gear shopping. Yes, I enjoy it. I enjoy researching about what to buy, and am constantly excited by new toys. And if people are honest, they will admit that too. Michael Reichmann's pronouncement is exactly how I feel.

I admit it — I'm a photographic equipment addict.  In fact I enjoy every aspect of photography, from the travel and location work, to the use of fine equipment in the field, to processing, printing and exhibiting my work.

There you go. Yes, equipment are tools that enable us to do our work. But to say that there is one should not feel happy about equipment purchases is just silly. My joy in procuring new kit is only dwarfed by the joy I get from using it and finding that it does exactly what I need it to do. At the end of the day, that is what matters. I am coming to a point where I sell the gear I don't use any more, like my old 50D and 70-200mm lens, to offset the expenses. Some say I should have kept them, but even now, I don't miss them.

What I will admit to is this: I have been moving along quite quickly where gear is concerned. At the same time, I feel that I'm constantly improving my picture making, and that is in no small part a result of not being hindered by inadequate equipment. That makes it all worth it.