Do you consider yourself a successful photographer? Is that something you want to be? How do you even measure that? There are certain things that all top photographers have, whether as amateurs or professionals. The Canon R5 isn’t one of them.
Although it is something I am backing away from, I do shoot occasional weddings. That's because most of my work is training other photographers, which I enjoy more. Several years ago, I had a stranger contact me, telling me that I should let them be my second shooter for weddings. They said I had to teach them how to be a wedding photographer. It wasn’t a request but a demand. I very politely refused. Subsequently, they started making snide comments about wedding photographers not helping them to start up their own photography business. I’m not sure if they understood the irony in their approach, their expectation that I would teach them for free to compete with me. It probably comes as no surprise that they didn’t ever become a wedding photographer.
Around the same time, I had a young person on a photography course I was running who told their ambition was to start working in the photographic industry. They worked hard throughout the workshops. Afterward, I got a wonderful email from them saying how much they had appreciated everything they had learned. Consequently, I went out of my way to help them achieve their dream, which they did, and became very successful at that. Now they send work my way, and I theirs.
Sadly, some photographers think that success should be handed to them on a plate, that they somehow deserve it. They could not be more wrong.
Success in photography can mean many things to many people. For some, it might be winning prizes or awards. For others, it could be a simple pat on the back. It could also be about earning a living from their images. Or perhaps it is having something that motivates them to get out of bed and not descend into despair. Maybe photographic success for some is nothing more than creating something beautiful or captivating.
Something that has become a cliché in the world of small businesses is the phrase “I am passionate about…” It’s so overused that when I read it, it puts me off the business. They rarely back it up with evidence that illustrates that passion. That suggests they lack authenticity, that they are not doing what they were put on this planet to do. Yet, true passion is something that all successful photographers have. They believe in what they do, set themselves goals, and then work hard, going the extra mile to achieve them.
That passion is reflected in optimism that withstands failure. All successful people have that in common, in any field and not just photography. It is their ability to bounce back from failures and at the same time learn from their mistakes that make them successful. They don’t give up but persevere, no matter the obstacles that stand in their way. That persistence is important because we all fail time and time again.
When Henri Cartier-Bresson said that your first ten thousand photos are your worst, although implying that when we start our photos won’t be that great, he also showed optimism that your images will progress and become something better. Nevertheless, it takes commitment – 10,000 photos – to improve. Remember, he was talking about the days of film where images were carefully created one at a time, when significant work went into creating each one. Today, in the rapid-fire digital world, he would probably increase that figure by an order of magnitude. Continuous improvement is something that all successful photographers have in common. They don’t rest on their laurels and stagnate. Their methods, style, and subject diversity constantly evolve and grow.
If you read the comment sections here on Fstoppers or photographic Facebook groups, you will find a small minority who invariably post negative comments that try to undermine the writers and other photographers. Some are quite prolific and even frequent groups for camera systems they don’t own. They will gather behind them a few equally pessimistic trolls that feed on that negativity. I have the good fortune of knowing a lot of successful photographers, and they never make these kinds of negative statements, either online or in person. Instead, they treat other photographers and photographic businesses with respect. They give nothing but encouragement, helping others improve in their creativity. One can only conclude that the trolls are failures.
For many, creativity seems to be a big hurdle, and there is plenty of information in books, videos, and here on Fstoppers that teaches you how to overcome those. Most importantly, it’s the ability to overcome our shortcomings is a skill that can be learned. One thing you will discover is that the more you learn, the more you will realize how much there is that you don’t know.
Learning comes from tapping into the right sources. Identifying the knowledge work accessing is key. I never cease to be amazed that interview articles with successful photographers get fewer readers than information about the latest camera releases. We all have a hankering for a shiny new kit, but as I suggested in the title, that new Canon is not going to magically transform you into a top photographer. Learning what new knobs there are to twiddle if you spend the best part of $4,000 isn’t going to make you the next Rankin. However, reading how Rankin's success is more likely to get you there.
It's never too late to learn. I know many accomplished photographers who have only discovered and become successful at photography after retirement.
Successful photographers are good at adapting to changing situations. Any wedding photographer worth their salt can adapt the shoot for when it's pouring with rain. Wildlife photographers on safari that set out to photograph elusive leopards will find the artistic stripes of zebra just as compelling. Heading out to photograph the sunrise when there is none, the landscape photographer will make the most of the moody skies.
In the modern psyche, there seems to be the opinion that success is measured in fame – mainly in the form of Instagram likes – and fortune. Are they both imposters?
I’ll let you draw your conclusions about Instagram. Do thousands of followers and likes equate to success? I have my views on that, but I’ll let you comment with what you think.
However, if someone’s idea of success is making money, and that is their main motivation, then they are barking up the wrong tree. Getting an income from what we love doing is nice. After all, it’s how I make my living. But money is nothing more than a pleasant by-product of running a successful business. It comes from all the time and hard work that goes into that. A measure of success it can be, but pursuing money doesn’t work.
If buying that top-end camera won’t make you a success, why does it is that successful photographers seem to have them? This is because they are successful, like the money that bought them, those cameras are a by-product of that success.
Success is no accident. It is hard work, perseverance, learning, studying, sacrifice and most of all, love of what you are doing or learning to do - Pele
Thank you Ivor.
I got my first SLR in 1980. Many years later I had a School Sports Photography business. I view success as capturing the image that I envisioned. My spare time is still spent reading books on photography techniques and art.
I truly enjoyed your article.
Thank you, Mike. I am glad you enjoyed it.
Finally got chance to read this properly Ivor… another great article, enjoyed it.
Thanks Stuart.
Perhaps I'm old - partially true depending on whose vision, but when I started out in photography (1979), I asked many people to help me, and all were willing. You see, it was my mistakes that cost me time and money. I had to take notes on each individual photograph I took (camera settings, weather, lighting conditions, etc.) because feedback was not instant. I had to take my roll of film in to be developed and request "no enhancements". Then a week later, pay to get my photos, look at them and determine, was the ASA (ISO) correct for the image, did I hit the correct exposure, shutter speed. Was my pan good (if photographing moving subjects, etc) If all was not spot on - and a vast majority were not, I had to pay for that lesson, one frame, one roll at a time.
So, does the Canon R5 make you a successful photographer - it probably does, and does so at a lesser cost. But, the lessons I learned when the mistakes cost me more money than I made, those lessons are with me today. Just now, I just take fewer notes - while still learning.
For me, I remember back in 1979, using my Canon A1 and thinking, I have one roll of film left, I hope I hit the exposure, ASA, focus and film grain right - in a week's time after development, I knew my answer. I still have that excitement - it's just instant feedback now - along with a bit of photoshop.
Yes, I remember keeping a similar notebook. It's a habit I am getting back into as I shoot more film. The instant feedback is great with digital, but I do wonder whether a lot of people don't take the time to study that and work out why an image worked or why it didn't. Thanks for the great comment.
With systems like the R5, high keeper rate of moving, especially fast moving subjects towards you = joy = success. You get the shots you want as opposed to settling for the in-focus shots you got. :D
I think folks that dismiss the importance of fast and accurate AF probably shoot mostly subjects that aren't moving or moving very fast, especially towards them.
But let’s be honest, modern tech has created a culture whereby anything that is over 2yrs old is now classed as old, outdated and unsuitable for the job… when the reality is it’s anything but.
Look a Fuji, people all over the internet claim the AF is horrible etc, yet it’s still way ahead of any professional Nikon and Canon DSLR that was being used to great success just a few years ago. Now because it’s ‘not as good as Sony’ it’s suddenly unusable.
Modern tech is not to blame. I prefer tech advancement rather than patronizing systems that refuse to keep up.
People with GAS probably has more to do with that culture (anything over 2 years is considered old, etc). And, probably job requirements. If a more modern system helped stack odds in your favor, why wouldn't you use it.
I'm not sure how Fuji was ahead of Nikon and Canon DSLRs, especially their flagships. AF is key. If it's not on par with the competition, it'll fall to the wayside. It doesn't make them unusable, just not as desirable.
The AF tech itself is far more advanced than the old DSLR stuff, it’s just funny how people quickly switch from those cameras being absolutely cutting edge, to now cameras with more advanced tech being ‘far behind’
The subjects, lighting, genres haven’t changed.
I often read comments about how unusable, or terrible my own camera is, yet i manage to sharp shots with it, shooting a whole range of subjects and styles. I also don’t find it limiting at all, but then I guess the classic response to that is, I’m not able to push the camera sufficiently to realise it’s limits.
A quick scan around any online Fujifilm community and you don’t have to look hard to see these viewpoints, having said that, it’s rarely by anyone who actually displays their own work which might, or might not, mean anything.
Yep. I have never been as busy as this first quarter. I mean double my best year ever, yet I have not made the switch to mirrorless. My "old" Dslrs are still doing fine and profitable. This is probably the year I will make the move if Canon comes out with the larger pixel count I've read about. R5 is almost 2 years old. That's "old", not by my standards but by what I read on these posts. So, no R5, may be that big count Canon or it will be a Fuji.
Exactly that 👍🏼
I always think I’m only an amateur and I can use the camera perfectly well, so pros will be a walk in the park… which then leads to the question, who are these people who are moaning? And what reliance are they putting on the gear for it to be such a negative experience.
People in portraiture and sports certainly will see the benefits. Probably not all of them but for a day to day operation, I can see that.
Oh yeah the tech is fantastic, particularly what Sony and Canon are doing… but my point was around the downright negativity and poor choice of words people use to describe Fujis AF. Slightly less advanced AF = unusable with these people.
Last week I was shooting fabrics camera down from the very top of my stand. At a certain point, I needed to change lens and took out my only 50mm. That's a lens I have used very few times in the 15+ years I have owned it. It's a 50mm EF macro and if you have never used one, it's super slow and super loud when focusing, a real slug. But it's a very sharp lens and at f8, I was taking zero risk. My point is, let them talk. Canon told them they could shoot 8k Raw video and they all jumped on it.
Thanks for those interesting comments. I also do wonder sometimes whether the tech is gradually deskilling photographers, or removing the joy of creating something completely manually.
I don't believe so. I don't know of any camera that prohibits photographers from shooting manually.
I agree with that but are photographers using the manual features. I do, especially when I am shooting long exposures at night. I am just not sure how common that is. Hopefully, it is more than I suspect.
Manual isn't always for everyone for everything. Just because one chooses to do it the hard way, doesn't mean they did it the "right" way.
For your long exposure scenario, manual probably is the only way to accomplish that. But for constantly changing scenarios, manual could be a limitation and a hindrance.
With that said, I use manual when using flash. Or, when I'm in the mood to hear and feel the clicks.
Which should I own then...??
Please one XF IQ4
I've got a 1950s Voightlander TLR for sale, if you are interested! If not, I would stick with whatever you own.
Great article, and while most of the insight I’ve learned well over the years, including the camera just being an end to a means, a tool, the writer has glossed over the greater importance of the stuff which actually makes the image: the moment/subject/storytelling/framing, the lens, and the lighting/exposure/DOF/focus, the camera only records those variables.
I realize the camera headline was clickbait, incite vs insight, but gear and the mastery of it DOES matter. There’s a difference between being an artist, a tech nerd, and a businessperson, and the balance between those will define success for many.
An excellent, positive article. I knew photography would be my profession at age 13, and am now in my 47th year of making my full time living as a photographer. I have always considered myself extremely fortunate to make a living at something I love doing, which to me is the true measure of success.
As pointed out, always being willing to learn new things is an important part of success. I am reminded of the story about Pablo Casals, the great Cellist. Already in his 90s, someone came by one day while he was practicing." You are practicing? " they asked." Yes, and I think I am improving," he answered.
Fabulous, Harold. Thank you.
Una manera vil y ruin de desprestigiar a una marca en concreto, ya que el articulo ( titulado con mala intención ) puede hacer referencia a cual camara de alta gama. Procurare no leer mas sus articulos ya que daré por hecho que será mal intencionado. Deje de escribir artículos dañinos y con mala fe.
A vile and vile way to discredit a particular brand, since the article (titled with bad intentions) can refer to which high-end camera. I will try not to read your articles anymore since I will assume that it will be malicious. Stop writing harmful and bad faith articles.
Alfredo, thank you for commenting. It was not written with bad intent at all. If you read the whole article, and all the other comments, perhaps you would see that isn't what I was doing. I think you have completely misunderstood what I have written. Is that down to the translation tool you use?
Yes, I could have used any high-end camera as an example, but I chose the biggest, richest, most prolific brand because it is popular, and the camera is one a lot of people own and a lot of others aspire to buy.
If you read the article you will see that I am only making the point that owning a big posh camera won't bring success. I am not saying there is anything wrong with the camera. If you disagree with that sentiment, then I have no problem with that. If owning an R5 or another specific top-of-the-range camera has been the sole reason for your own success as a photographer, then let us hear your counter-argument instead of making a personal attack.
I emphasize that using a certain brand in the title is putting it in the spotlight for better or worse. I have read the entire article and I understand the message perfectly, it is very clear that the camera does not make the photographer, but it is also prejudiced to use a brand as an example. You have wanted to fish with the title but in my opinion damaging Canon r5 in particular
It is a constant struggle to choose titles that entice the reader. I write because I want the article to be read, just as I take photos because I want them to be seen. Bland images don't challenge people, just as bland titles don't get people to read the article.
The truth is that titles that mention just one particular camera get read more. Just as controversial titles do. My job is to write articles that people want to read, and plenty have read this.
Does it hurt the camera? No. All publicity is good. When you get to the end of the article, as well over 20,000 people have so far, you might be thinking that an R5 is a good reward for success, then go and buy one. That's pretty effective free advertising for the camera.
Next time I'll choose Nikon or Sony so not to upset the Canon owners.
If only it had a mirror......
Haha. It's funny, back in the very early 2000s I still had my original SLR and a very early bridge camera, possibly one of the first. I remember thinking how great it would be if my SLR had an electronic viewfinder. Horses for courses! Thank you for commenting.
There are very few regulars contributors on here that I consistently agree with. I’m not saying agreeing with me actually counts for anything! However, Ivar always appears to have his feet set firmly on the ground and his views locked into reality. Too many click bait articles on here proclaim this or that about photography or how owing this one camera/lens will be the answer to all your photographic needs or problems. Any camera regardless of what it is in theory allows one the potential of turning photographic ideas in photographic reality. Too often the reality does not match up with that photographic vision. It happens to me all the time. What then is the problem? It must be the kit or so say all these on-line column inches. The problem with questionable images is seldom to be found with camera that was used therefore replacing it will do nothing to fix the problem. Try judging a photographic competition and you will quickly learn the source of most photographic problems. How often have you heard, that’s a great image you must have a really fancy camera. Or . Wow that’s a really fancy looking camera it must take great photos! In all cases the focus is on the kit and not the photographer. It can then be said that those starting off photography may well hold the belief that taking great images requires no more than having a great camera. Like all misguided beliefs they can through constant repeating and reinforcement become an accepted fact and one that is bolstered by the constant flow of click bait that can be read on this forum. It may be obvious saying that a great photograph is the product of the mind of the photographer, but even those who know this still talk about, this being a great camera or that being an amazing lens. We are all our own victims. Photography is rife with make believe and hocus pocus when it comes to bestowing magical photographic properties on these lumps of metal glass and plastic that we all own. Be honest and ask yourself this, how many times have you secretly thought:- if only I had X my photographs will be so much better? I think that kind of thinking comes with the territory and has now extended into owning the right software.
A great photograph is dependant on having a great photographer behind the camera but as we are all great photographers any deficiency in any of our photographs must rest with the camera….. and so it goes on… if only my camera had the magical 🔴.
Thank you for taking the time to comment, Eric.
You took the words out of my mouth regarding the camera being a lump of glass, metal and plastic. I was about to make exactly that point in reply to another comment. It seems to me that a lot of photographers make idols out of their cameras, and to even hint at criticism is akin to blasphemy and generates outrage. They have become false gods.
In reality, the camera is just a tool and has no feelings. The three most prolific manufacturers are big, rich businesses. Are they any concerned about anything other than their bottom line? They are probably pleased at the mention of their camera as all publicity is good.
Your portfolio photos are great by the way. Is your Sony magic? :D
My "keeper" count doubled after acquiring my R5's and I just had the most successful basketball season stock sales I've ever had. So yeah....
Hi Michael, did it make you a successful photographer or help you build on the success you already had? Was that success down to the camera you owned or your hard work getting the skills?
Good to hear you've done well this year.
That's no surprise considering the autofocus and frame rate improvements from any Canon DSLR. In fact many photographers who make a living from sports have already moved to the R3.
Personally, I think Ivor wrote this piece for photographers that do more creative work, from art to most commercial work.
Frame rate is much more oriented on capturing in the instant and today more often than not, it's about pointing at the action, framing in an instant but the chances the photographer does actually see the #1 frame, the keeper that will sell is very slim. That's the way it works, you keep going with the action but can't keep up with the details at 20 frames per second. I shoot moving cars (not full time) so I can definitely say it with practical knowledge.
It's not about the frame rate because I don't take much more frames than before I just have way more keepers to send now. My style of shooting hasn't changed but the camera's AF can keep up with me way better than before.
I know many people in my industry have moved to the R3 but I can't justify the cost of the bodies so soon after the R5's especially when we still have the pro body coming around the corner as well. I fully expect to make the pro bodies my primary bodies soon after they're released.
Good. twice the keeper, double the fall.
Using an R5 won't make me a better photographer, but it would give me better photos than my current gear is giving me. So much of photography is about studying and becoming intimately familiar with one's subject matter. And so much of photography is about form and balance and symmetry and composition and use of color. But so much of photography is also about technical excellence - achieving critically precise focus, resolving all of the super fine detail with astounding clarity and distinction, and having all of the out of focus areas rendered in a gorgeously smooth manner.
Looking at your portfolio, your current gear is doing a pretty good job of all that. Or could it be the skills of the photographer? Thanks for your comment, Tom.
But when you look at my portfolio, or any photographer's portfolio, you only see the photos that they got. You don't see all of the photos that they were in position to get, but missed. And these misses are usually with rapidly and erratically moving subjects, and we usually miss capturing those shots properly because of not getting perfect focus on the eye of the critter that is madly dashing or flying about.
The autofocus systems that are programmed to find and lock in on an animal's eye are enabling photographers to routinely capture images that they used to never capture, or only very rarely capture. I regularly hear some of my country's most successful pro wildlife photographers talk about how they are getting images now that they never could have gotten just two or three years ago, solely due to the much improved animal eye focus and subject recognition focus capabilities of the very latest flagship camera bodies.
When some of the world's most successful (most widely published) wildlife pros are telling me that the new cameras are making an enormous difference in their success rates, I believe them.
That's fair enough, Tom. But those most successful wildlife photographers became successful with other cameras. If you gave every wildlife photographer an R5, would those at the top still be better than the others? It would be an interesting experiment.
If you want to see successful photographers, read this article by some top players in the game. They don't mention their cameras as part of their success.
https://fstoppers.com/education/storytelling-layering-and-gutsy-setups-t...
Instagram is another tool to get your work in front of the right people or market. I wouldn’t put all my efforts in one place. The R5 is another tool to allow you to create your best quality product. With its freezing issues I haven’t been impressed. In wildlife photography the specs of the camera can become important to freeze the frame or crop a subject with detail. More important is the quality of your glass & having an eye for what looks good. My goal is to become a full time wildlife photographer making a sustainable living doing something i enjoy, If not I’ve had fun trying. The right tool for the job is important.
Instagram @Photoapeal
On Instagram, cosplay and fitness models take simple photos with simple iPhones and the results are amazing, not to mention those chefs who with the right angles and compositions and good lights manage to take great shots of their dishes with simple smartphones.
So what do we want to talk about again?
Of those who spend thousands of euros and go hunting for birds in a shed, and know nothing about techniques in the studio or in ceremonies?
But they are masters of photography when they describe their animals frozen in the shot.
There are also photos on instagram of guys from the US to Japan, with equipment from 10 years ago that would make many professionals I know pale.
But Yes, come on ... there is something for everyone.
Picked up photography (and speed skating...but never with a camera) as a way to deal with my girlfriend's suicide in 2013. People constantly ask me to take wedding or portrait photography. I politely decline and direct them to fellow photographers. I still communicate regularly with my university photography instructor. I still learn new things from him. I learn new things from other photographers. I don't think I'm ever going to win any awards or make serious money with my photography. It's gotten me through some rough patches. And that's all I want...that and to grow and learn from my mistakes. Someday I'll upgrade from my 7dmkii.
What a horrible thing for you to go through. Photography is a massive help for so many people who struggle with all sorts of mental health challenges, including dealing with heartbreaking bereavement. It's an activity that gets us out and about, we concentrate on the photography that distracts us from the dark thoughts, and it can be a social activity too. It's good to hear you have found it helpful.
Your photo is absolutely spot on, by the way.
Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate that more than you know.