Lee Universal Hood: First Impressions

This Christmas Santa was kind enough to leave me a Lee Universal Hood and a Heliopan 105mm polariser (must've been a good boy!). I know a few people have asked questions about the hood so I thought I'd share my initial experience with it as well as the polariser.

Prior to buying this combination I had a 77mm polariser which fits the filter thread of my Canon 24-105mm lens. As I've said before I'm increasingly using prime lenses and - surprise, surprise! - they have different filter threads - 67mm, 72mm, 82mm, everything but 77mm! This basically mean that when I wanted to use a polariser I had to use my 24-105mm. Indeed the polariser became pretty much permanently attached to that lens which in effect made it a very expensive polariser!

When using a polariser it's very difficult, in some cases impossible, to use it with a lens hood. Often the lens hood is so narrow and deep that you can't get your hand in to turn the polariser.

Even without a polariser, I use filters most of the time when I'm in the field and these absolutely rule out the use of the standard lens hood. If you don't know, with the Lee filter system you basically attach a big filter holder to the front of the lens which means there's no way to mount the lens hood on the bayonets.

I get by without using a lens hood but there have been more than a few occasions where I've had sun flare causing me problems. I could try to hold my hand in position just out of frame to block it but more often than not I'd wobble (especially with a long exposure) and my hand would come into frame. Not quite what I'm looking for!

So I went for this combo so that I could use a polariser on any lens, and I could shade my lens whilst using my filters. Winner!

What's In the Box

Ok, more like what did I get:

• Lee Universal Lens Hood (e.g. here)
• Heliopan 105mm Circular Polariser (e.g. here). Note: "SLIM" fit.
• Lee 105mm Front Ring (e.g. here)

The hood itself looks like a regular Lee Foundation Kit (the normal holder) with 2 slots behind the hood which work as you'd expect. It clips onto the adapter ring on the lens in exactly the same way. Indeed, it's pretty much a Foundation Kit with a bellows hood attached to the front. It comes with a case which is pretty handy as normally my foundation kit just rattles around my bag.

The front ring goes inside the hood. You have to unscrew the 4 screws holding the filter holder together, put the ring in place and then screw it back together. The ring comes with a little screwdriver to let you do this. It's a good idea to note what bits go where before unscrewing so you know how to put it back together again!

Although I also got longer screws the ones that come with the hood were long enough. If you wanted to add another filter slot, you would follow the same procedure as here or for the Foundation Kit: unscrew, put extra holder retainers in, and screw it back together. The kit doesn't come with extra filter retainers and you'd need the longer screws (5/8" ones for 2 slots + ring, so it would be the 3/4" ones you need for 3 slots + ring).

The ring itself is nothing more than a metal 105mm filter thread and the circular polariser is no more than a regular screw-in 105mm filter. There's nothing special about the Lee one or the Lee system here, it's just giving you a filter thread in front of the Lee filter slots to screw another (in this case non-Lee) filter into.

That's all you need. Pretty straightforward.

First Impressions

I love how the hood looks (note: looks!). Really love how it looks. With its bellows arrangement it looks like something you'd use on a "proper" camera. My wife even said "did you get that to make your camera look older?". It's a cool looking bit of kit.

Simple things perhaps but I have a love of things that look and feel "proper". Well engineered and crafted. I'm not saying that the Lee one neccesarily is (time will be the test there) but its got that feel to it if you get what I mean.

One of the main draws to me trying film is enjoying the engineering quality and aesthetic of the equipment. I remember Bruce Percy letting me have a go of his Hasselblad on his workshop. Aside from the fact that the viewfinder was enormous, the whole thing just struck me as a beautiful instrument. Controls were crisp but fluid, it was cold to the touch, it felt well engineered. And the noise of the shutter? *swoon*.

Anyway I digress. The bellows hood makes me feel a little more part of that world without all of the faff of having to develop film and what-not! :)

Positioning

The point of the bellows is that you can extend or retract the hood to suit the lens you're using - hence why it's called the "Lee Universal Hood". With a wide lens you have to retract it most of the way. With a longer lens you pull it all of the way out.

This presents the first problem for me. With a regular lens hood, it's designed to be be just out of frame when fitted. You don't have to check that it  actually is out of frame, it's designed to be.

Not so here. With the Universal Hood you decide the position of the hood and so you need to check that the hood is in the right position.

Of course the right position isn't just "out of frame", it's actually "out of frame, but right on the edge of out of frame to block the light". So there's some guesswork and jiggery pockery required to get it just right.

On several occasions I've thought it was positioned correctly only to then find that it had crept into the side of the frame. I hadn't noticed because the hood is black and the camera is black and so the hood coming in just looked like the frame edge. Of course that is very much user error but it's another "faff" to think about and pay attention to.

Fully extended the bellows is about 10cm long. My 24-105mm is about 10cm long, my primes are shorter, and so it's kinda big! And this probably points to another, at least potential, problem - wind.

It's big, it almost doubles the size of the camera and lens and being cube shaped, it's not what you would call aerodynamic. Also being mounted on the end of the lens it's at the furthest point from the ballhead to offer resistance against anything pushing on it (i.e. wind). Think of a door. It's easiest to push the door furthest from the hinge, and so the wind blowing the (lightweight) hood will have more of an effect than if it was blowing something directly on top of the tripod.

I haven't used it enough in breezy conditions to draw a definitive conclusion as to the extent of the effect in practice, though I did shoot a couple of 1 minute long shots with a stiff side wind that showed noticeable shake that I would attribute to the hood.

Polariser Access

It's easy enough rotating the polariser by putting your hand in the front of the hood. A bit of a bonus with the Lee system is that - if you're not using grad filters - you can rotate the holder itself rather than the polariser which is much easier.

I have had the polariser get stuck on the thread a couple of times. I think because of the hood coming up from the sides, it's difficult to get my sausage fingers in and screw the filter with it perfectly flat. I think I'm applying some vertical pressure onto the filter threads which make it stick that little bit more. It's sortable by using a rubber band, but I wouldn't screw it on too tightly!

Water Drop Protection

One of the things I wanted a hood for is to keep stuff off the front of my lens. I seem to spend my entire life wiping water off of my lens and filters. The hood does help here, particularly with snow and rain which is more or less vertical.

In the case of (the more usual?) horizontal rain when you're shooting into the wind then obviously it doesn't help. I've had very mixed results with keeping splashes from waterfalls off. Given the trajectory of these splashes they tend to arc horizontally, and so the hood tends to offer little protection if shooting in the direction of the fall. Bit disappointed with that, but predictable I suppose.

If you are using it to keep rain off then note that the regular filter slots aren't covered by the hood. This means rain can fall between the slots onto the filters without you realising. Also if the holder gets wet then you tend to get water smears on the filters as you put them in or out.

This is true of the Foundation Kit too, but the hood doesn't completely save you in these circumstances as you might otherwise hope. Doug Chinnery (@dougchinnery) put me onto these chamois from Skyeskyns. They provide similar protection to rain covers but are a lot more versatile and a lot less faff. In problem rain I'll drape the chamois over the camera including the filter slots to stop water getting down there. Oh and offcuts are awesome for absorbing water on the lens! :)

Vignetting

I've talked about the need to get the hood in the right position so it doesn't encroach on the frame.

As you might expect at 21mm you can see that fully extended the hood comes all the way into frame. Retracting it to about halfway takes it out of frame.

This is true at 24mm as well - in fact, it encroaches more. How can that be you may ask (I did)? I believe it's because my Zeiss 21mm holds the filter holder tighter to the lens than the 24-105mm does. You can see this when I mount the polariser as well. At 24mm the polariser encroaches into the corners (note not evenly which I found odd, not perfectly seated?). At 21mm it's out of frame.

For a little additional info, I have a Foundation Kit with 3 slots and another front ring - with the polariser at 24mm it was very noticeable in the corners. By removing one slot from the holder the polariser was not longer visible. I presume the extra layer of metal that forms the back of the bellows sandwiched between the ring and the filter slots moves the polariser out that little bit more causing the polariser to encroach. 

Oh one other thing related to the metal plate at the back of the bellows. If you have a 100x100 filter such as a full ND, it's better to put this in the slot closest to the lens. Otherwise this metal plate makes it difficult to get the filter out whilst mounted on the lens. This is good practice anyway to minimise light getting in behind the ND filter.

Fully extended at 35mm there is slight encroaching of the hood when fully extended. At longer lengths it can't be seen.

With respect to vignetting (rather than "encroachment") I tried shooting at different positions with different focal lengths and didn't see the more common "shadowing" in the corners. Thinking about it, I'm not sure if this is normally a problem with lens hoods rather than with the lens itself. It certainly seems that either the lens hood is actually visibly in frame or you don't know it's in use, I haven't noticed any other effects in between the two.

Flare Protection

One of the main reasons to use a lens hood is to reduce flare. Does it work? I wouldn't know as I haven't seen the sun for about 5 weeks!

In seriousness I've not had many situations so far where I think it would add much benefit so I'm not in a position to say at this point. I certainly expect that it would given that you can adjust it to literally the edge of the frame. It should work fine. The only potential concern would be with the shape. The lens hood is square and the lens is round. I don't know if the corners of the square would let in light that a regular lens hood would otherwise block, or if that would be a problem. I'll find out in time.

One source of "flare" that I find annoying is where you have a bright object just out of frame. It can have a "bleaching" effect on the frame edge. For example if you want to exclude the sky and crop it just out of frame, the glare from the sky still has an effect on whatever is below. I didn't expect - but hoped - that the hood would help too much with that. And it doesn't. Oh well.

Final Thoughts

Firstly I'm glad to have the polariser. I haven't had too much opportunity to use it so far but glad to have a more flexible option than my 77mm in my armoury.

The Universal Hood I'm a bit more ambivalent about. It's got its good points. I'm sure it will do what I need in terms of preventing flare and it keeps stuff off the front of the filter in vertical rain. But in a wind it's going to cause problems, and doesn't do a great job of keeping water splashes off. It's something of a faff to use and I dislike having to faff.

At the end of the day it's good to have in the bag. I'm not sure in general usage it will offer me better results than the regular, straightforward Foundation Kit. It will certainly be situationally useful but, on balance, considering the money, I'm not sure it's that great.

I'll see if my thinking changes with more experience.

Have you had similar experiences? Or do you have any questions about the hood (or even the Lee system) that I haven't covered?

 

Given I had the images, for a laugh I put together a short stop-gap video showing the "extending nature" of the hood. The captions seem to have gone a bit screwy on upload but hopefully the video gives an impression of how the camera "grows" using the hood.

[vimeo https://vimeo.com/58658481]

Live View: Not A Gimmick After All

When DSLRs first appeared with Live View I, like most photographers, was bemoaning its inclusion. It felt like "dumbing down" of DSLRs to appeal to those used to the LCD on their point and shoot cameras. However rather than everyone holding their DSLR out at arms length as was predicted, I've found it's actually a very useful tool.

One of the things I noticed when I moved from my Canon 400D to the full-frame 5D Mark II was how much bigger and brighter the viewfinder was, it was a massive improvement. However it's still not what you would describe as massive and having had the joy of looking through the VF of a Hasselblad, it's clearly a very poor relation to medium- and large-format equivalents. Without wanting to suggest that Live View provides a similar experience, it certainly does provide a more useful and pleasurable viewing area.

I've gone from never using it to using it for the majority of my shooting. If you haven't taken the time to get to know Live View (LV) you may be pleasantly surprised.  Below are 10 good things I've found using Live View.

1. 2D Representation

One of the biggest challenges for a photographer is translating a 3D world into a 2D image. I find the viewfinder often makes a scene a lot more alluring than the resultant image. I am sure there are a bunch of scientific explanations and optical illusions at play here, but I think one factor is that you are still seeing the world in 3D. You may be looking through the camera's lens, but you're still pretty much seeing what your eyes would see. That makes you susceptible to "wow that looks awesome, this is going to be a great picture" syndrome.

One of the benefits of Live View is that it helps you to see what and how the camera sees, rather than what you see. Where certain objects may look distinct through the VF, Live View shows that in the final image they will render as an overlapping mess of similar tones. It helps you to visualise how the scene will look in the final image rather than what your eyes see.

2. Exposure Simulation

When looking through the VF we still have the benefit of our eyes' wide dynamic range which is much greater than our camera's. By using the "exposure simulation" mode in Live View we get to see the scene as the camera sees it. Suddenly bright areas become burnt out white patches and shadows become black and blocked up. Although the quality of LCDs is improving, we still shouldn't rely on it to give us an exact representation of the final image. But we can use it to judge tonal differences, so we can see where we have very bright or very dark areas.

3. Live Histogram

Even better, we can display a live histogram to show the spread of tones in the image.

As you probably know, learning to read and use your histogram is much better than relying on the LCD image. Being able to see this in real time is just awesome! As I tend to "expose to the right" to maximise the amount of data in my files, it sometimes takes a bit of guesswork to know how far to the right I can push it. With the live histogram I can see where the tones are going to end up before I take the shot, making sure that my highlights aren't being clipped.

This also lets me know where I have contrast issues to deal with. Although I've got a good eye for a wide contrast range, this makes it very clear. If I have a histogram with a big clump of tones on the left (e.g. the ground) and a big clump of tones on the right (sky), I know I'm going to need an ND grad filter to better balance the image.

For illustration purposes the below screenshot from Lightroom shows an image where the ground has had -3EV applied. The histogram shows what I would see in Live View. All of the tones blocked up on the left tell me I need an ND grad.

Applying a 3-stop grad (as I did in the field), I get a better exposure with a better looking histogram. Live Histogram can help us spot these problems and fix them quickly in the field.

I've also found that live histogram can be useful for the placement of my ND grad which I always find tricky even with a hard edged grad. If I've got bright clipping highlights from e.g. a setting sun, I can watch the histogram as I slide my grad down, stopping when I see the highlights move to the left on the histogram.

One thing to note is that the histogram isn't 100% reliable. You may find that when you take the shot the resulting histogram can be slightly different. I think this is normally only an issue when shooting long exposures where the light levels change over time, where the histogram can only give you an immediate snapshot.

In particular this can happen when shooting long exposures of waterfalls. The "silk effect" on water in the final exposure builds up to white over time but that won't be apparent to the camera and hence the histogram pre-shot. This can mean that the histogram leads you to believe that your highlights are fine when they may be clipped in the final image. It's probably worth leaving a little more space to the right on such occasions.

4. Focusing

I almost always use manual focus for landscape photography. But even with decent eyesight I find it difficult getting the focus point spot on using the viewfinder. Live View makes manual focusing of a relatively static scene so much easier, especially when zooming in 5x or 10x.

I'm not sure if this is a Canon-only tip, if you physically switch your lens to MF then LiveView will let you move the zoom box right to the edge of the display to check focus along an edge. When still in AF, it leaves a border around the edge which you can't move into, presumably due to how much of the image is required by the camera's AF module.

5. Depth of Field Preview

DoF Preview is one of those buttons that a lot of people don't use (or maybe know about!). If you don't know, it will close the lens down to the selected aperture. The idea is that this lets you see the depth of field you get at that aperture.

However as your aperture becomes smaller (bigger f number) it lets in less light (half as much for each "stop"). This means that while you are "DoF previewing" your viewfinder goes very dark (maybe even black!) as the lens is letting in a fraction of the light it was. For example if you have a lens with a maximum aperture of F4 and you set the aperture to F11, when you use DoFP you are letting in 8 times (3 stops) less light.

The situation is very different with Live View. With exposure simulation, the LCD will display an amplified, brighter version of the image while using DoF preview. Suddenly DoFP has a use again, and it is very useful indeed. Combined with 5x and 10x zoom, you can check the the foreground and background for sharpness before tripping the shutter.

You can even change your aperture and focus point whilst holding the DoFP button which is great for making live adjustments.

I will often adjust the focus while zoomed in at 10x on both the foreground and background, watching the display go from out-of-focus to acceptable to out-of-focus again. I can use this to balance the focus between the foreground and background. If I find that I can't get my foreground and background acceptably sharp at the same time then I can change my aperture and watch the effect in real time.

Obviously the use of hyperfocal distances means that this isn't entirely necessary, but even then it can be useful to fine tune the focus.

Note that if it gets so dark that the camera can't provide an accurate exposure simulation your display may still be very dark. Even then using 10x zoom you can normally find something discernible for a focus check, or you can use a torch.

6. Checking the Edges

Unwanted objects encroaching into frame has been the downfall of many an image. Live View lets you check the composition in greater detail, checking the edges of the frame for unwanted distractions.

7. Cramped Spaces

When you're working 30cm from the ground with various rocks or trees getting in your way it can be difficult to physically get your eye to the viewfinder. Here Live View is your friend, allowing you to check and refine your composition in relative comfort. I'm still mystified as to why articulated or detachable wireless displays (one can dream!) aren't a standard feature these days. I often find myself very low to the ground so it would really help me out.

Even in open spaces, it can be a lot more enjoyable to work with the larger LCD display than the small viewfinder.

8. Metering

The "zoom box" in the Live View also affects your metering. I haven't researched enough to see if this can be switched off or if it's Canon specific.

If you're in Exposure Simulation mode, as you move the box you will see the LCD display getting brighter or darker as the camera's metering changes. If you put the box on the bright sky, the exposure reading will change and the LV display will darken. Conversely putting it on a dark rock will see the display brighten as the metering tries to bring the dark rock up to mid-gray.

This can be a blessing or a curse! The blessing part is that you can place it on a particular tone to get your exposure just as you want it. The curse part is that as soon as you move it (e.g. to check focus at the back) your exposure changes. You need to remember to put it back to where it started from to keep the exposure the same (or use EC to compensate).

Increasingly I am finding this annoying! Obviously this doesn't change the exposure in Manual mode and so I find myself using Manual more often these days.

9. Mirror Lock-Up

For years landscape photographers have been crying out for a mirror lock-up (MLU) button easily accessible on the camera rather than having to burrow through menus to enable it. With Live View we've kinda got it. When you press the Live View button, the mirror flips up to reveal the sensor to the light just as would happen with MLU. So if we're using Live View we are also removing mirror "slap".

I say we've "kinda" got it. As noted above the metering can change based on the location of the zoom box in LiveView, where MLU would have no effect on metering. There's also potentially an increase in noise (covered below) that wouldn't occur with MLU.

Nonetheless as I often use Live View I often don't have to worry about MLU.

10. Grid and Aspect Ratios

The Live View display can show a grid super-imposed on the image. This can be very useful for getting horizons level. It can also be useful for aligning things on thirds if you're that way inclined (I must confess sometimes I am!).

I believe with cameras later than my 5D2 that you can configure an alternate aspect ratio to the camera's native 3:2 ratio for the LiveView display. The camera still records the full image but the display will show what a cropped e.g. 5:4 (my preferred aspect) image would look like. This is better than relying on guess work or gaffer tape on the screen and I'd love this feature on my 5D2.

Things To Be Aware Of

It's not all good with Live View. Here's a few things to be aware of:

1. Battery life: it's obvious that using Live View will use more battery, but it uses a lot more battery. When I'm being energy conscious I can get almost 1000 shots out of a fresh 5D2 battery. Using Live View extensively this can be fewer than 200 shots. Recently I'm shooting less images per session these and I always have a backup battery so this doesn't tend to be an issue. But if you were away from power for a period (such as I find myself on camping trips), extensive use of Live View may cause you battery problems.
2. Noise: I haven't looked at this in much detail myself, but using Live View can apparently increase noise in your image. This seems to make sense as the sensor is charged and heating up for much longer prior to the exposure itself. Personally I haven't generally been concerned with noise levels so I don't know if this is real, theoretical or only apparent when pixel peeping. On future noise prone shots I'm going to see if it makes a discernible. If you want to absolutely minimise noise, avoiding use of Live View or switching it off and allowing the sensor to cool before taking the shot may well be advisable.
3. Forgetting about it: I always forget that I've left LiveView on. I will go off exploring, move something out of the composition or just sit down and have a bit of a think all while the camera is recording everything in LiveView. This isn't a bad thing per se (at least I don't think it is!) and the camera will cancel LiveView and close the shutter after the camera's auto-shutdown period has elapsed. But for the above reasons alone it's probably best to be aware and switch it off yourself when it's not in use.
4. Something else to get in the way: there are those that hold the view that the more technology you put between yourself and the scene, the more disconnected you are from it. Instead of being part of the environment you are simply looking at a picture on the back of the camera. I certainly understand this point and being out in the environment is one of the main reasons I make landscape photographs. I'm not purist about this and I think using Live View can help us make better photographs. But it's good to remember why we're there, and being glued to the back of an LCD screen (like we seem to spend 99% of our waking lives!) should not be foremost of our concerns.

Summary

If you've previously dismissed Live View as a gimmick with little to offer the more advanced photographer, it may be worth thinking again. There are some solid benefits to its use with relatively few downsides. We wouldn't want to become entirely reliant on it such that e.g. the extent of photographic knowledge required is turning a dial to get the histogram to "look right". Nonetheless it is a very useful tool to have in our armoury.

The One in Your Eye

I received a question recently about camera gear - specifically lenses - which left me struggling to phrase a coherent response. The 'Gear Trap' is created by what I consider to be one of the great photography myths - better gear will make you a better photographer. Without denying it's obvious importance it comes a distant second to your own passions, vision and abilities.

Paraphrasing the question for brevity:

"I want a wow, this is a 'could make me money' lens. Would you suggest:

1. Canon EF 100mm f2.8L IS macro - for macro obviously (which I enjoy) and portraits (probably outdoors)
2. Canon EF 85mm f1.2L - for portraits (because there's no money in macro)
3. Canon EF 24-105mm F4L IS - for versatility

I know I'm asking about different lenses that are intended for three different roles, but which one do you think would bring in more money to buy more kit?"

To be honest I didn't really know where to start with a response. Whilst the question may be well intentioned it is very anti- my way of thinking.

The short answer: the simple fact is that no lens or equipment will make you money, short of a money printing press.

The longer answer of course is a bit longer.

There are a couple of points that this question implies:

1. good gear is required to make good pictures
2. you should choose a genre of photography based on what makes money

Gear Makes You Better

Good and expensive gear exists for a reason, it's better.

However it's not better in a "take this crap picture and make it amazing" way. I think it's a common trap to think otherwise, "if only I had...". Yes, better equipment may be sharper in the corners, or give you an extra stop or two of light but when people look at your photos are they saying "awesome shot, shame about the soft corners!"? Probably not.

I like to think of gear as giving you an incremental (and increasingly expensive) improvement. It doesn't give you the massive, occasionally exponential leaps in improvement that working on your vision and your skills will bring. If you are making mediocre images then a new lens will just help you to make better mediocre images - and I'm not sure that's something any of us would aspire to. It's the icing on the cake, not the cake itself.

There are some cases where better gear is a requirement. For example if you want to do macro or wildlife photography you're going to be at a serious disadvantage without a macro or a super-telephoto lens.

You probably already own perfectly usable lenses that cover your immediate needs, you just need to get to work with it. Once you become proficient with your current gear you'll understand what you need from new gear. This is more important than chasing the impossible dream that gear will take your images to the next level.

Choosing a Genre

"Shoot what you love" is a common piece of guidance. This is the way I think, so choosing the type of photography based on money making potential just seems alien to me!

I don't do photography to make money. Photographing the landscape is something I love, for a whole variety of reasons. Making money from it would be fantastic but ultimately should all else fail I will still have my love for it.

Because I love (that word is going to appear a lot!) landscape photography, I get up in the dark to go out on a cold and wet mountainside for a shot I have in mind. I work hard to improve - reading, researching, looking, exploring, getting out there.

I know that I couldn't bring the same level of enthusiasm and hard work to, say, portraits. Sure I can for a time but when the initial enthusiasm wears off it's your passion that sustains you. It's the passion that keeps you going when things are tough, the weather is miserable and you're struggling to make shots you love.

I think without that you have nothing but a job. Sure, for some people photography is just a job and that's fine. But that's not for me. If all you want is a job to pay the bills, there are much easier and more lucrative avenues to explore before you come to photography. The phrase "starving artist" exists for a reason! You've got to be prepared to put up with hard times and a lot of non-photographic related stuff to make it work. I first saw this infographic on Chase Jarvis' site. If you haven't seen it before it may be eye opening!

So to me the question is just back to front. Putting the money first is a sure path to disappointment. You have to find the thing that you love and throw yourself into it, determined to make it work. I'd fully expect that a passionate, energised macro photographer would be more successful than a disinterested, lacklustre wedding photographer.

Of course I'm saying this from the perspective of being a non-working photographer (I have a full time job in IT). There are many professionals out there that have to work across several genres to make their business viable. The difference between them and the question is that the question is putting the money first. Those professionals are putting their love of the art first, and then finding a way to make it work. I'm sure if they didn't love what they are doing then they would have given it up a long time ago (though I'm sure there are more than a couple of dissatisfied photographers out there that may well disagree!).

I know that if I wanted to make this my full time job I'd be doing it because I'm following my passion and my dreams. I'm not interested in just exchanging a keyboard for a camera to still end up unhappy.

And so I say put first things first - find the thing you love, get damn good at it, and then try to monetize it. Anything else is built on shaky ground.

Finding What You Love

I remember having lots of questions like the one at the top when I started out. It felt like I was chasing answers and once I had them, everything would fall into place and I'd be set. Asking about gear, compositional "rules", tricks of the trade, etc lead you to believe that successful photography is an accumulation of knowledge.

But as a creative pursuit photography is about much more than knowledge. Don't read that to mean "ignore technique" which is vital. Rather I mean that knowledge and technique are merely the starting point, they're a given. From there the hard work starts.

That means shooting a lot of images (I have 50k in my catalog over 5 years), experimenting, finding things that interest you, understanding what you don't like, learning to make engaging images, and over time naturally being pulled toward the thing that you love.

For me it clicked when I found myself consistently getting up in the dark, going out in the wet and slogging up hills in pursuit of better images. Before that I would shoot everything I saw haphazardly, with no real plan or particular inclination. I think you have to go through that process. Some may go through it quicker than others, but I think it's still a necessary part of improving and finding yourself as a photographer. In some ways it never stops, you have to keep exploring and experimenting, you just become more focused over time.

I think once you've put in those hours and you've worked at your art and your craft questions like the above disappear into irrelevance, you develop an intution for what you need to do and the tools required to do it.

Becoming a better photographer is the key advancement you need to make. Gear is a distraction and it can be a crutch that you lean on when the truth is that hard work and dedication is what's required to improve.

If you did have £1000 to spend on new gear and you're struggling to work out what you wanted or what you wanted to shoot, I'd say forget about the gear and go on a workshop. I've previously posted about how fantastic I found a Bruce Percy workshop I attended and the improvements I made during and more importantly after it. There's not a single piece of gear that would have had the same effect. It's as close to a shortcut to better photographs as you will find. (Of course, you need to find out at least broadly what you want to shoot to be able to pick a workshop!)

To Summarise

A single piece of gear isn't going to make you money. A new lens might bring you an incremental improvement in image quality, but it won't bring huge improvements to the overall image in terms of how it engages the viewer.

Some genres of photography certainly have higher earning potential than others. But if you don't love it to the point of throwing your heart and soul into it, then when the chips are down I fear you'll fall short and hate it like any other job. Better to find the thing that you love, get awesome at it and see where it naturally leads you.

If you want to make money, you need to become a successful photographer. That means looking beyond the allure of gear, dedicating yourself to hard work and improving your images. In that sense the lens that will make you the most money is "the one in your eye" (thanks to @Anthony__Smith for the title suggestion!).

I'm conscious that this post may open a can of worms but I do fundamentally believe you've got to love what you do to make a real success of it. I'd rather do that than do something half hearted just to make some money. Agree/disagree? Leave a comment!

I'm a big fan of David duChemin's blog and his "Gear is good, Vision is better" manifesto. His Craft & Vision site has loads of affordable eBooks aimed at improving your vision. As a starting point I'd recommend his original eBook TEN, which I believe was originally titled "Ten ways to improve your photography without buying gear". I think the shorter title works better! Or if you want a free intro to C&V, check out Craft & Vision: 11 Ways to Improve Your Photography.

I've also enjoyed reading Steve Simon's The Passionate Photographer which is structured around 10 steps to improving your photography, including the need to find your passion and to shoot a volume of work.