How about new rule: if the price of all gear you have is below 5000$/€ --> it is ok
?
That's way too little money, just the camera body and one lens and one flash can equal more than that.
Heck just the body of some cameras cost more with no lens!
too much gear?
-
- Thread starter BradS
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Voigtlander Helomar 240mm f/3.5 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Kodak TMax 400, expired, 150 ft rolls
- Started by MCB18
-
For Sale FS: TTH Cooke Series V 12x10 Lens Eq. Focus 16.3 inch
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
Sold SOLD!
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
That's way too little money, just the camera body and one lens and one flash can equal more than that.
Heck just the body of some cameras cost more with no lens!
Stone, I thought you were short on funds? 
Stone, I thought you were short on funds?
I am, but that doesn't change the fact I make money shooting (digital mostly for the money) and that my camera body and one of my lenses and flash all bought new cost a total of over $6,000 and I didn't even buy the top model body which is around $8,000 just for the body.
My point was that figure is too low for "too much gear" because the cost of camera equipment varies greatly.
I can buy 100 35mm cameras for less than $400, but 100 cameras is WAY too many.
So cost shouldn't be a factor UNLESS it affects your life negatively like... "I couldn't pay my mortgage payment because I spent all my money buying camera equipment" then it's a factor.
I've seen better photos taken by a competent photographer with an Argus C3 than by some affluent gearheads. Know the capabilities and limitations of what you can afford, and make the most of that. More equipment may expand the range of what you can tackle rather than how fine your photographs can be.
You're a wise man Jim, the cameras that many of the great photographers used to make iconic images would be scoffed at by many of todays gear heads.
And her number of purses = your number of camera bags.
Four pairs of shoes and I've never owned a handbag/purse.
I'll only worry that I have too many cameras if their number surpasses the number of books I have....and with seven or eight six foot shelves making up my "library", I doubt I'll have cause for concern in this lifetime.
Who doesn't run short of funds occasionally? I know you are kidding but can't we cut the kid some slack... he's trying to make a living with a camera. Not an easy thing to do and quite commendable of him to make that his vocation.Stone, I thought you were short on funds?
I intended no disrespect. The rest of us can't buy pricey gear and are selling just to stay afloat. Don't make me post cut/paste PM's that could skew your view.
EDIT: I just realized I need to stop posting today because a certain amount of resentment is affecting my judgement... along with too much vodka.
Last edited by a moderator:
From four decades of experience I take only what I need, and no more than I wish.
I intended no disrespect. ...
EDIT: I just realized I need to stop posting today because a certain amount of resentment is affecting my judgement... along with too much vodka.
Good judgment.
Last edited by a moderator:
As the typical student with no money, I first bought an inexpensive camera and one lens. I used that exclusively for over 15 years and owned no other camera or lens. I did my own developing and printing. Since then, having a very good technical career, I've been able to afford and buy what I like and appreciate, although most of that has been acquired after I reached 50 years of age. I've also made many admired photos with equipment that costs less than $20, so I do have some talent. I offer no apologies for buying what I like and enjoy, whether it be cameras, mechanical watches, sports cars, or firearms.
What I do doesn't harm anyone and at least brings me some enjoyment in the ten or so lonely years I have left.
What I do doesn't harm anyone and at least brings me some enjoyment in the ten or so lonely years I have left.
If it wasn't used for six months - time to go.
I remember my college color photography course very well. Most of us youngsters used overblown Canon or Nikon systems. There was a middle-aged painting major that went through the course using a 110 Pocket Instamatic. She blew us all out of the water.
there is no such thing as 'too much gear'. the gear is have the fun.Don't question my toys.it was hard enough to justify their purchase
I have what I have because I enjoy using them. Stuff that doesn't get used gets sold or donated. Well, eventually...
When I first got started in photography I had an F1X bag stuffed full of crap I wasn't using. It took me a couple of years to figure out I wasn't doing my back or shoulders any favors, and promptly sold the lot. I settled on one camera and one lens, and that satisfied me for ten years, until the camera died. (Today I only carry one or two bodies with lenses mounted, and I don't spend a lot of time trying to decide what to carry that day.)
Then I discovered cameras on ebay. An awful lot of those bodies were bought simply to satisfy my curiosity about them. Most are gone now, though I still have 30 or so bodies I use in some sort of haphazard rotation.
I have a Canon FD system for sentimental reasons, and is likely my most complete kit.
The EOS system is for when I want autofocus. The EOS M for when I want digital.
The N80 and one zoom is a great little camera, and is probably a candidate for the donation bin.
The Contax system scratches an itch I've had for 20+ years.
I have a few medium format bodies that, while I haven't used them in a while, I still value and intend to use.
I have a large assortment of Minolta gear that will probably get the axe in the new year, except for a pair of XD11.
If I had to keep only one system, it'd be a very tough choice.
When I first got started in photography I had an F1X bag stuffed full of crap I wasn't using. It took me a couple of years to figure out I wasn't doing my back or shoulders any favors, and promptly sold the lot. I settled on one camera and one lens, and that satisfied me for ten years, until the camera died. (Today I only carry one or two bodies with lenses mounted, and I don't spend a lot of time trying to decide what to carry that day.)
Then I discovered cameras on ebay. An awful lot of those bodies were bought simply to satisfy my curiosity about them. Most are gone now, though I still have 30 or so bodies I use in some sort of haphazard rotation.
I have a Canon FD system for sentimental reasons, and is likely my most complete kit.
The EOS system is for when I want autofocus. The EOS M for when I want digital.
The N80 and one zoom is a great little camera, and is probably a candidate for the donation bin.
The Contax system scratches an itch I've had for 20+ years.
I have a few medium format bodies that, while I haven't used them in a while, I still value and intend to use.
I have a large assortment of Minolta gear that will probably get the axe in the new year, except for a pair of XD11.
If I had to keep only one system, it'd be a very tough choice.
I keep to the Canon FD and Mamiya T.L.R. system it simplifies things and I know that all the lenses and accessories work correctly with all the cameras, I cleared out all the other cameras and lenses the last time I moved house more than twenty five years ago and have never regretted it
It's important not to confuse the acquisition of gear, with the practice of photography. Buying cameras, even fancy ones, is easy. Just put more work hours in or go without other stuff. The pursuit of photography, especially high quality, original work, is extremely demanding. The camera won't make that pursuit any easier.
A professor I had at Ohio University who decided in the early 1970s that everyone in Photo 101 had to use a Diana -- this was WAY before Lomography.
I still have mine. I think it cost a buck back then.
Anyway, he had a great idea to put everyone on the same footing and the results showed who had an eye for the image and who did not.
I have plenty of old cameras that I never use now, but I figure I'm just rescuing them. I'm a sucker for pound hounds too.
I still have mine. I think it cost a buck back then.
Anyway, he had a great idea to put everyone on the same footing and the results showed who had an eye for the image and who did not.
I have plenty of old cameras that I never use now, but I figure I'm just rescuing them. I'm a sucker for pound hounds too.
That happens even when different and high end gear is used by some and not others. I hope no one still believes that expensive gear equates to great photography. That resides in the eye of the photographer who only needs gear adequate enough to realize his vision.
I agree entirely blockend anyone with money can buy equipment but that makes them photographic equipment owners, not photographers. any more than me owning 20 guitars would make me a guitarist.
That's correct, but I don't think anyone is saying otherwise.
There are people who are strictly artists who care only about the final image and don't care at all about the equipment used to get there.
There are people who are strictly collectors who care only about buying and owning photographic equipment (or watches, fountain pens, cars, stamps, etc.)
There are people who are in between these extremes. I enjoy my final images. I enjoy the process to get them. I enjoy owning interesting camera gear, some of which i use, and some of which I don't or rarely use.
Do what makes YOU happy, and don't worry that others are doing something different. Live and let live.
Attachments
Bravo, Frank!
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |