The four images above were all taken on different cameras. A Nikon D750, a Leica Q, Panasonic CM1 and a Blackberry Q10 (Not of course in that order). At some point in the future, when I get round to editing them they will be sitting for sale on picture library websites. Will the gear I used to create them make any difference to their sales potential? Well, if my previous experience is anything to go by, no it won't. Several of my best selling images were shot on a Pentax K10. (10MP) I still sell pictures shot 13 years ago on 4 and 5MP early digital cameras. I sell stills from video, scanned 35mm and MF film and in recent times smartphone pictures. As well of course from lot's of DSLR's and Mirrorless cameras of every format from 1" to 'Full-Frame.' Apart from anything else, the people and companies who buy my images have no idea what I shot them on. And I have never had a single sale rescinded because the client thought the quality wasn't up to scratch.
So what on earth is all this endless bickering on the photographic internet about which camera is better than another all about? It's certainly not about what a photographer can use to make a living. It's not about what gear is capable of earning that photographer their living and it's not about how a more expensive, more extensively specified and therefore in the eyes of many consumers, better camera, produces results that will generate more income. A well known English nature photographer, Heather Angel, who shot on 35mm film (as opposed to Medium-Format) once said that if larger formats made more money she would immediately have all her 35mm transparencies duplicated up to 5x4. But since they didn't she had no need to do that.
It is of course all about bragging rights. It's about demonstrating on forums and various social media outlets that you have made the right and wisest choice in your purchase. It's about demonstrating to people you will never see or meet (or even usually know their real name) that you have the biggest, the best, the newest and / or the coolest gear. This anonymous need for a pat on the head because of what you spend your money on is somewhat bewildering to me because it's as pointless as it is annoying. And the gratification that people get from it, however second and third hand that may be obviously floats certain individuals boats, which is strange, because aren't cameras supposed to be about making photographs?. But then it's obvious that many people who inhabit these chatter channels see more value in winning an argument on the internet than actually going out and creating some worthwhile images.
Take all the fuss about the Sony A7r II. Described on a website I encountered recently as the best ever mirrorless camera. Who says? And even if it is (which is difficult for anyone to pontificate about because it isn't even on sale yet!) what exactly is the value of owning the 'best mirrorless camera' if you are incapable of taking pictures with it that never reach further than the banal, the cliched and the mediocre? Unfortunately you can't buy talent. And the notion that A Better Camera = Better Pictures, though ridiculous still seems to motivate people in decisions as to what they buy. Crassness, a breathtaking stupidity and an astonishing ignorance of reality though that might demonstrate. Because what else is arguing about gear all about? Surely it can't be just about measuring our worth as photographers by what we own............could it?