Its not the equipment that matters, its the results.

Check out THIS ARTICLE about the great Yascha Heifetz and his violin.

A musical instrument is different from a camera in that the listener actually hears the instrument as it's being played. The camera was used outside the sight lines of the viewer, though it impacts the picture the viewer sees.

Equipment does matter. Like anything else, it can be obsessed over to distraction. And it can be over-emphasized. But there's a no reason a photographer might not feel at least a degree of intimacy with his "instrument," much like a musician.

A photographer may use whatever piece of equipment he has to get results. A photographer's vision ultimately will determine the effectiveness of his photos. But equipment may very much matter. Photographers who utilize cell phones to make art may very well make different pictures with those cell phones than they would with a 4x5. They don't have to, but they certainly may. Equipment will often affect vision, as will so many other things.

You can't always completely divorce tools from results, since they are sometimes so interrelated. These discussions need not always be posed as debates, the notion that either this matter or that matters. It can all matter, to different degrees, in different ways at different times and to different people. Equipment is a tool used in getting a result. It's connected. It can matter.

Yes, agreed, sort of... The equipment doesn't matter in many respects... but the article makes mention of his using a 110 Instamatic! I mean, have you ever actually used one of those pieces of junk? I had one in my glove box for a while, merely because of its size. I can assure you the film plane was so tiny that in that case equipment truly did matter. The camera remains in my Kodak collection as an example of a horrible mistake in camera evolution -- somewhat similar to polester leisure suits. IMO, any picture worth taking is worth taking with a competent camera.

Equipment matters. It makes a difference. But there are other factors involved, too. Skill, vision, personality, creativity. It all comes together in the final result.

The problem with equipment comes in when you go from an amateur to a professional level. There are not many publications that are going to accept images from a 110 instamatic on a regular basis. Sure the equipment is just one aspect there is also composition, emotion, skill, vision, creativity just to name a few.
For travel I often take my Point-and-shoot camera, because it's convenient. The pictures are not great, but they are good enough for small prints and the web. However, if I were to take a picture of a UFO with my PAS I would become an instant celebrity.
That picture would probably be seen by more people than the front of a fancy magazine cover. So 'content' is equally as important, probably more so than all the other factors.

Somehow that phrase, "It's not the equipment that matters, it's the results" usually omits the bit about "for my particular style of photography and subject matter."

That looks like a Canon AF35M in the photo. Not bad for the early era of 35mm P&S. I had one for several years. It's just fine for many candid situations, if you don't mind the obnoxiously noisy whining and whirring of the autofocus. I'd rather have a Canonet GIII QL17. Ah, for the good ol' pre-ebay days when those were bargains. Many of my favorite candid snaps were taken with one, or with an Olympus 35 RC or XA-3.

Not all of the 110's were so bad. I rather like my Pentax Auto 110 SLR. I'm hanging onto it in case I ever get the urge to cut some b&w film to use in it. There were a couple other decent "serious" 110 cameras made, one by Minolta. Don't recall the other, maybe Canon? Anyway, it was a dumb format and no improvement over the 126 Instamatic since few 110 cameras were small enough to suit the tiny cartridge. It's like they wanted the cachet of the sexy subminiature film format in a more accessible cartridge style - only without the film flatness, or tiny cameras, or good lenses, or ultra-fine grain film. But a few good 110 cameras were made in spite of the silly format.

>>> Its not the equipment that matters, its the results.

So true...

It's always about the results. If course the gear matters to some extent (if you are in any way limited technically or creatively by your equipment, it's time to upgrade), but new or better gear alone will not make you better at what YOU do.

This is an article I wrote at the end of last year on this very subject for The PARM magazine (Postmodern American Renaissance Man) - http://www.theparm.com/?p=53

The problem with equipment comes in when you go from an amateur to a professional level. There are not many publications that are going to accept images from a 110 instamatic on a regular basis.

A lot of people don't realize that. There is a thread on here where someone was asking why the APS film format didn't take off with pros. People don't realize there are certain circumstances where even 35mm print film wouldn't be acceptable. The minimum requirement is medium format slides. I've heard until very recently Arizona Highways only accepted large format submissions. No digital and certainly no 35mm film/transparencies.

I would hate to use a smaller format with a so-so lens and limit the market for my work. A 35mm compact is probably great for taking unobtrusive candids. You probably carry it to more places than I carry my medium format camera. You probably also don't draw as much attention and intimidate as many people with it. I have several cameras. I would use a tool where it is appropriate. But I would not use just one camera for 30 years unless it was an 8x10 and I was Ansel Adams! Life is too short.

I checked this guy's Wikipedia page out and it doesn't even mention his little Canon 35mm camera. It's strange to see what different people value. I think it's amazing that he managed to pull this feat off and other people wouldn't even mention it.

Anyway the exception does not disprove the rule. Just because someone somewhere pulled this off doesn't mean that it's a good idea. But it takes away the excuse that you can't shoot interesting pictures because you don't have a full frame DSLR. You can start off with a solid 35mm camera from flea bay and a decent 50mm prime for <$150. Buy some B&W film and process it yourself or get some cheap color print film and process it through the send out service at Wally World. No excuses now!

I never heard of him until now but I just figured he liked the camera he had and used it. It apparently worked fine for the type of pictures that he was taking. I think he should have bought a Leica M model but he was the one taking the pictures.
I currently own a Kodak 110 camera. It is in it's original box and sits there with a flash cube, 1 roll of expired film. The camera itself is a metal bodied Kodak. It was my Mom's camera but she never used it. I suppose it was a gift at some time or another. .