[simonsarris]

On twitter I got sorta-popular mostly sharing photos of my life, documentary style, and a few are with a Leica Q2 ($5000). Most are with a Pixel 5 (or recently Pixel 7).

People very often ask me what camera I used to take a photo. When they do, it's usually the Pixel! Maybe 80% of the time it's a phone camera shot.

Of course highly specific gear matters for sports shooting (as he mentions) or wildlife shooting (telephoto), but otherwise limitations don't matter too much. Blurry or lower dpi photos are OK. Quick editing on your phone is OK. Finding the right photo in the world is still what matters most.

One of the reasons I love the Leica Q2, with its fixed 28mm lens (no zooming, no changing lenses), is that it forces you to find these photos. You're not thinking about gear, about what to bring or how to start. Instead you spend your energy just seeing and moving (zoom with your feet only) and I think this makes you a better photographer than one with a bigger gear loadout. It's also why I think I can seamlessly switch between my 'real' camera and my phone when thinking about what to point at, since I'm married to just a single focal length.

Since I always have my phone, I get more shots on my phone, and maybe to the audience those are the most impressive shots, so they ask, and they find out I'm using a phone camera. The gear definitely doesn't matter that much.

[prawn]

I've shot content for a professional tourism contract on my phone. Helps that phone cameras these days are very good!

I think what stands out to most people is when something looks non-standard. Usually that's because it's shot on a camera while everyone else is using a phone. But increasingly, it's shot on a phone by a photographer who's just using it in a slightly different way or who's edited it.

[vaidhy]

If the goal of the picture is to view it on a phone screen or print it on a brochure in small size, I am 100% there with you. If you want to make a print of the picture, then it makes a difference. The photo from iPhone lacks the details that my semi-pro camera captured. Same animal, similar distances.. but the photo from my semi-pro camera had the details when you zoom in versus the photo from iPhone was more a blob.

[ghaff]

Audio gear is like this too. I certainly don't have an either natural or trained radio voice. I did use decent (tens of dollars) mics when I was doing podcasts and it was probably better than using an AirPod or certainly just the laptop speaker. But anything above that wouldn't really have made any difference no matter how much money I spent--especially outside of a real studio environment.

Also, to be honest, a lot of pros probably use gear that's expected and very few people would notice any difference if they didn't have the latest cool new camera they bought.

[ilyt]

Better approximation would be saying "gear is a multiplier on skill".

Sometimes good gear just makes it take faster. Sometimes it allows you to do stuff otherwise not possible. But lack of core skills can't be compensated by fancy equipment for all but the most extreme difference