Ok, so let me see if I understand your point. What you are saying is that if I "shoot and shoot and shoot" with the present camera I have I will become familiar enough with it to nail the shot "under any circumstances"? Ok, so then if I have a Nikon F3HP with a 105mm 2.5 AIS lens I will be able to "nail the shot" everytime so long as I shoot and shoot and shoot with it; practice with it until I know it very well?
Ok Eddy, here is my dillema. I have been using my F3 with 105mm lens since 1983. That it a total of 26 years. I am not saying that the camera was made 23 years ago, I am saying that I have been using the same camera and lens for 26 years. Does that qualify me for "knowing one particular camera"? I recently shot a night football game. There is no way I could have achieved great results with just that one F3 and the one 105mm 2.5 lens. I had to use my D200 with grip and an 80-200mm 2.8 AF-D lens on a monopod in order to nail the shots.
A few weeks ago I took my kids to a park with water rides. I would have taken my F3 with 105mm 2.5 lens, but I felt that taking my "experimental" little Lumix TS-1 waterproof camera would enable me to "nail the shot" without ruining my gear. Having used an F3 for the past 26 years I can tell you first hand that they are rugged but not waterproof.
Now let's talk a bit about AF vs. manual focus. I have gotten many nice shots throughout the years with my F3 and 35mm 2.0 AIS lens. I have also gotten many out of focus shots beacause the action was too fast for me on occasions. I have been able to nail quick action shots with my F100 and 35mm 2.0 AF-D lens that I know I would never have been able to with my F3. Does this mean that the F100 suites me better than my F3? Not necessarily. There have been times when my F100 will not AF on a particular subject because of lack of contrast issues; times when only the split image prism of my F3 will work.
I can't subscribe to your idea of "make up your mind what you want to shoot and learn how to shoot that and forget about shooting anything else". That seems a bit too narrow-minded for my taste. This is photography (an art form) we are talking about, not bootcamp. We grow by learning and experimenting. It's about expression, not supression.
Nope, you don't understand my point. My point was that if you have owned and used that F3 for 26 years, you should know by now what gear you need to "nail the shot" FOR THE TYPE OF PHOTOGRAPHY THAT YOU WANT TO DO. Yes, if you plan to shoot wildlife, you will need long, fast lenses. But you don't need long, fast lenses just because they look sexy in a catalog or on a dealer's shelf, or because you see other people lugging them around.
Yes, if you've been shooting your F3 for 26 years, you should know it pretty well. But I disagree that you can't get good shots at a night football game with a 105 f2.5 lens, especially with the great fast films that we have nowadays. Thirty years ago, I used to shoot night football games with a Pentax MX and 85mm 52. And yes, I got some great shots.
I don't know what your manual focus rant is about, I never mentioned autofocus. But since you brought it up, I used to shoot dance and theater with Leica M's. Plenty of fast action, but I learned how to focus and follow the movement and predict what was going to happen next so I could catch it. Sadly, now all the dance companies want digital images instead of prints, so I have gone to a D700 with, as you suggest, an 80-200 f2.8 AF and a monopod. I had to relearn my trade, but I did so because that's what the client wanted and needed. But I sure miss my Leica's!
Sorry if you think I'm narrow-minded, but I'm just tired of hearing people say that their photography would be really great if they just had one more lens. And that's the message I got from your post. No, photography is not boot camp, but you do have to learn and practice. I don't find that "suppression."