GAS, and it's ultimate effect

I stuck to canon FD because I couldn't see any advantage in terms of the photo technical quality that could be produced by using another 35mm SLR system and that the limiting factor wasn't in the equipment but in my ability which was a factor that couldn't be solved by spending more and more money on equipment .

Click to expand...

So well said.
If I have had more wisdom, I would have just kept the Canon FD and keep going with it.

benjiboy said:

I rationalised my equipment many years ago and sold what didn't make sense as a practical usable outfit, now my 35mm S.L.R. bodys are all Canon FD and so are my lenses, all my lenses fit and work correctly on the bodys I own, my two Medium format Mamiya T.L.R. bodys work with all the lenses and accessories I have for them too.
I'm very happy with what I own and have no desire to acquire anything else, any spare money I have had to spend on my photography in the last two or three years I have spent on getting all my cameras professionally C.L.A'd because I have had them all more than twenty five years, and they were all second hand when I bought them, so all my gear is in tip top condition now and I can just enjoy using it.

Click to expand...

That makes good sense! When I decided to get a film camera one reason I went with the model I did (Nikon FG) is it use any Nikon F lens and therefore share to some extent with my D3100 (obviously the newest G lenses are limited to the D3100 which has AF.) This whole discussion reminds me of something I heard Ray Charles say in an interview (for a musician of his magnitude his lifestyle was apparently rather modest)...something like "you can drive in but one car at a time, you can live in but one house at a time..." Truth is there is only so much time for shooting, etc. and if you collect too many you won't have time to use them all.

What strikes me about this story is there's no indication the man was an actual photographer. I have a small collection of film gear - maybe a dozen cameras, about 3 of which I use frequently. When I die, I don't want to be remembered as a collector of gear. My dear wife may well throw it all away, anyway.

I want to be remembered as a man who took pictures. And, occasionally, some really good ones. Nobody but a camera geek cares what kind of cameras Ansel Adams used.

There's no need to be a photographer to collect cameras just like there's no need to be a painter to collect paintings. Collecting stuff might be "useless" because ultimately we cannot bring those cameras with us on the dark side. On the other hand, we cannot bring our pictures with us as well, and they're not necessarily more useful.

Collecting is a basic instinct of man. Some have it more, some have it less. This guy was normal. His wife was insane.

Imagine if Scipione Borghese had to hide his art collection to avoid quarrelling with a nasty wife. Luckily for him, he was a cardinal, so he only had mistresses and, like the lucky gentleman who originated this post, he probably was endowed with excess money that he had to put to some use.

The collector in question was indeed a pretty good photographer, judging from the images framed in his home which his wife says are his pictures. I think his collecting stemmed from a love of the medium and then a love for the marvelous little machines that cameras were. I say "were" only because of the machine-age beauty of many of the old metal and glass cameras he collected. There was very little plastic in the lot. Modern cameras may be seen in the same way someday, but for me, for now, they seem to have less personality. Perhaps it is just the patina of age these cameras have, or maybe the age of the observer–– who knows, but a modern, plastic camera- even an expensive, well-designed one- doesn't have quite the star power of a 1950's Retina or a 30's Zeiss.

Someone could be a decent rather good photographer and be an obessionnal collector. And it looks to be the case here, so far.