equipment envy

<p>I used to play golf a lot. Now having kids I barely let my clubs out. Once I was playing a round with a friend that was an absolute beginner and he had a nice set of clubs. Nothing fancy, but decent though. On our first round out he hit a hole in one.</p>

<p>Was I jealous? Absolutely. Did we both enjoy the moment? Absolutely.</p>

<p>Go out and teach your neigbour. That will be a lot more satisfactory that moaning about your grass being greener than his, while he has the better lawn mower.</p>

<p>I understand this feeling, yet I almost have pity on those who have too much gear.</p>

<p>I have this:<br /> D700<br /> 24/2.8<br /> 50/1.8<br /> 85/1.4<br /> 180/2.8</p>

<p>That seems to be a great combination for my needs. I got my 180/2.8 for cheap ($500) at FM, my 24/2.8 from Adorama, my 85/1.4 new from B&H and my 50/1.8 new from my local store. The only two things I'd really like now are the 24/1.4 and probably the 14-24. A Tamron 28-75 wouldn't come amiss, but it's not a priority. I'm almost exclusively a people photographer, so it enables me to narrow things down a lot. I push my D700 a lot, regularly shooting at 6400 and up. My 180/2.8 is the lens I feel most creative with, and the 24/2.8 is right there as well. I got my D700 about a year ago, and my photography started to get noticeably better right around then, probably from a combination of increasing experience and better gear. I feel very fortunate to have what I do. But, other than the 24/1.4 and maybe the 14-24, nothing really calls out to me. I'm lucky to be able to accomplish just about all I want to do with what I have. </p>

<p>Basically, I think you have to match your gear to your needs. If you don't feel like your gear matches your needs, I can see feeling envious. Otherwise, it seems to be a pointless exercise.</p>

<p>Arthur makes a great point.<br>

But first ask your neighbour to send me that 180mm at half the price plus 1 euro/dollar... Good price :-)</p>

<p>I'm just glad there are a lot of people buying high quality cameras and lenses. We all benefit with more variety and lower prices. If people know how to use those cameras, we get a lot of great images to enjoy. If they don't know how, we get bad images and used equipment on the market.</p>

<p>Photography can be an expensive endeavor, particularly based on what you want to shoot. It's hard to get great bird photos without long and fast lenses which are invariably expensive. Street photography can be cheap. My budget has constrained what I could shoot (like birds), but I've been lucky that photography is such a varied pursuit that I can always find something I want to photograph.</p>

<p>"Still, it is frustrating to see all that stuff in the hands of someone who barely understands it." Errol, I see guys (usually are guys) like this all the time. Look on the bright side, if it weren't for guys like these the camera companies wouldn't keep coming out with better stuff and we wouldn't be able to buy good used equipment as cheap as we do. Viva la rich guys with more money than sense is what I say.</p>

<p>Vince, I disagree with most of what you said. I can honestly say that I've never envied anybody or anything, and I don't judge people by what they own. I believe that American (I can't speak for other countries) culture is not designed to make people happy. It's designed to sell people things they don't need. I don't buy that. I look at envy as self defeating. If one is taught to be envious then one will continue to be envious no matter what one owns and he/she will never be happy.</p>

Funny... I've never been in the exact situation, so when I see a fellow shooter with gear that makes me salivate, I tend to assume he must know something I don't. Like a couple of years ago, when my wife and I went to a Chicago Architectural Foundation walk. I had my F5 with two or three lenses with... (trusty AF-S 24-120, Sigma 12-24 and Nikon AF 80-200) and one of the people with me in the walk had (get this): an F6 with a 24-70 or 28-70, and a D3 with a similar lens. Did I stare? Sure. Did I want to talk to the guy? Of course. Why didn't I do it? He was very much into his shots, along with his girlfriend and two friends. Did I mention he had a beautiful tripod?

 

Again, I assumed he was on assignment, on vacation, rich, doing his thing... Whatever. After a while, I concentrated on the task at hand and enjoyed the afternoon.

 

Lesson learned? Don't worry. He must know something you don't... and he probably wears Nikon straps! :)

<p>I bought a Nikon 180 2.8 ED AIS lens in beat up condition for $135 on ebay a few months ago, and it still produces gorgeous images. Nothing like having some superb Nikon glass. Will be shooting two rolls of Kodachrome next week in the San Juan Islands with my F3HP. Can't wait!!</p>

Dave, now you'll make all of us envious of your Kodachrome!

<p>Francisco - Yeah but how was the girlfriend?<br>

OK sorry.<br>

Dave -- where you getting that Kodachrome processed?<br>

Mark -- it's great you've never envied anyone else's property (and by the way I want to congratulate all of us on using 'envy' predominantly in this discussion, with a good 'covet' here and there; and not 'jealousy', which in a certain sense is envy's opposite -- envy being the desire for something someone else has, jealousy being the desire to hold on to what you have against perceived loss). Most people have felt envy and are doomed to in the culture you describe, which, you're quite right, is designed to make them unhappy (and, even worse, largely terrified) ; I was objecting to the lame tone of the lectures about it: why, don't feel that way. You'll be better off if you feel another way.... That's kind of like telling someone, why, don't be so short. You'll feel much better if you get a little taller. And hey, that's true for most of us, but it's not real helpful. Here's what's more helpful, you could say something like: That does sound frustrating; philistinism at its worst. Wouldn't it be great if someday your money worries were over and you could afford those few quality things that are important to you? I hope that happens for you. Of course economic justice is hard to come by in this world. For now, we can always remember Samuel Beckett's great moral instruction from Waiting for Godot. Near the end of the play, Estragon announces, I can't go on; Vladimir says, That's what you think.</p>

<p>Vince, I understand that one cannot tell someone else how they should feel, and I wouldn't do that. I do think that it's helpful for people to understand why they feel the way do and the negative effects some feelings can have on them. I didn't always feel the way I do now. Reading the Dalai Lama and St. Francis changed the way I looked at things. I'm not advocating becoming a monk, just putting material things in proper perspective in our lives.</p>

"Anthropophagy Department"

 

that made me laugh

<p>Errol - a good friend of mine is still photographing professionally with his D70 and kit lens, and is getting work from weddings, model agencies, published in magazines, etc (so forth/so on). He was originally a Nikon film guy, who trashed a few Fuji bodies, and bought the D70 from a friend that was upgrading to the D200.</p>

<p>He laughs at the guy holding the latest and greatest camera because he's making money "with his camera", not spending money "on his camera".</p>

<p>In fact, amongst our circle of friends, he's been offered "killer deals" on D200s and D300s that were going to be sold for upgrades. He just shakes his head and says his <em><strong>"I'm still making money with my camera, I'll keep it until it stops doing so."</strong></em></p>

<p>This has been an excellent read so far. Errol, I also feel that what you feel at times. I've been doing photography for a long time now, and yes like many of you, I like to keep up with the latest and greatest that I can afford... Well, so far that has been the D200 for that I bought 5 years ago. I have to say, in the last 5 years, I've traveled a lot. I went from the guy who was being admired to the guy who eventually started to admire others' equipment. So really it's nothing unusual.<br>

There will always be people who think that by buying the most expensive gear, they will be able to produce a better picture. To a very limited degree that is correct, but their "improvement" will be limited to how they understand photography as an art and skill. I know many of my friends who have been using point and shoots for years and finally when they found the right reason to upgrade, they went off and bought the latest gear, lenses, etc and they still come back to me and say how is that you can produce such a better, sharper, more contrasty image than mine?!'m sure many of you guys know what I'm talking about.<br>

Anyway, for me, I do love checking out what people have for their gear but experience has thought me that it definitely is how you use the equipment more so than what equipment you have. However, I'd be lying if I told you that I did not wish that I had traded bodies with someone who did not fully know how to use theirs. =) </p>

<p>Envying is bad and people envy for everything, not just photo gears</p>

<p>Mark, St Francis? If St. Francis showed up again they'd have him down at Guantanamo before he could greet his first bird.<br>

Unless you mean Francis Xavier. Nobody knows how to live well, or wants to, as keenly as a Jesuit.</p>

<p>Vince, what I like about the Dalai Lama and St. Fransis is that they remind us that material things alone do not bring us happiness. We live in a culture that is constantly telling us that this or that object will make us happy. We are told to admire people who have more material things than they could ever need. We are told that our status is determined by what we own.</p>

<p> I don't accept any of that. I'm not about to sell everything I own and join a monestery, but I think that it's important to keep things in proper perspective. If we are happy with who we are, material things can add to our happiness. But if we are not happy with who we are, getting more material things will not make us happy.</p>

<p>Vince, I don't think St. Fransis would be sent to Gitmo because he's not Muslim. They'd probably have him committed to a mental health facility.</p>

<p>I quote: "it is frustrating to see all that stuff in the hands of someone who barely understands it."</p>

<p>I was a young man with modest equipment at the Grand Canyon in 1987<br>

Near by was a Japanese tourist with a bag full of every piece of camera equipment I could ever want.<br>

As I was salivating thinking what I could do with all that stuff, the fella lined the entire family up in front of a rail and took THE photo that is used in text books to illustrate really bad compositions.<br>

Ever since then I realized that equipment does not result in great photos. The photographer produces great photos. Even with modest equipment.</p>

<p>Having great/expensive gear helps you become a better photographer because it makes you realize that even expensive cameras can take crappy photos =). It becomes very convenient to blame your gear when you don't have the latest and greatest. Once you get the great gear, you realize you need to practice more =).</p>

<p>I like Charles' argument quite a lot and think it's unassailably true. But we're a little Pollyana-ish about all this. Back in the days of film if someone was shooting with really bad discount film that was old and not that good to start with, you'd have no trouble saying, that's going to hurt your image quality. We know that sensors are the same way. Now to use me as an example: I'm pretty new at this: when I have a camera in my hand, film or digital, and I 'see' a picture, what I'm seeing is a thing or a set of things in some compositional arrangement of shapes and geometrics (imposed by one's inner framing device) that all together intrigue me or please me or amuse me. And sometimes I'm seeing documentary facts which I want to record. What I have not yet to learned to see is light and dark, how the one and the other will affect the photograph -- I cannot yet do what Ansel Adams for instance asserted was the step 1 in the procedure; visual the photograph as a photograph, interpret how the scene is going to behave photographically, and then manipulate that. Since I want to do a lot of work in b&w film I have miles to go.<br>

However, when I'm working in digital I'm working mostly on a Nikon D40x. The sensor is manifestly not up to the level of the D90, the D300, the D300s, or, god help me, the D700. Which is okay, that's livable. But here's something that only an upgrade will solve: I work with a lot of old MF lenses and change lenses more than many folks do. The D40X compared to newer, better cameras, is poorly sealed and has no self-cleaning mechanism for the sensor. So I end up with a lot of spots. I've taken to blasting it out frequently which has helped somewhat but you cannot tell me that it's foolish of me to wish for better. My eyesight is not great and the VF is poor and most of my AF lenses are not AF-S so don't autofocus... Never mind metering the old MF's.... So yeah, if you have a D300s and see a D700 your envy might be a little beyond actual need (although you gotta love that full frame). But that's not always the case. Sometimes, even among those of us who know what the real problems of photography are, equipment and its cost and the attendant inevitable emotions that go with money anxieties in this country are all quite real and can't be waved away with old copies of Jonathan Livingston Seagull.<br>

Mark you're right about St. Francis. Probably IMS gets him and puts him in permanent detention. Meanwhile, if you like St. Francis you'd also like Henry David Thoreau, who's a bit like St. Francis transformed to full-blast American pantheist. These guys, unilke the Dalai Lama, didn't have a staff and a team of publicists to help them. (I like the Dalai Llama but I'm not sure how 'deprived' he actually lives.) These guys were very serious about living simply. It is hardly possible to live even a tenth as simply as Thoreau encourages. Thoreau never had to call his health insurance company; two calls of 90 minutes each and he would be apoplectic and St. Francis would become The Terminator. And they didn't have children either. OR dust on their sensors.</p><div></div>

<p>As others have alluded to, this phenomenon is not unique to photography. In any field, there will always be people who've got a bunch of money, really nice stuff, and have no idea what they're doing.</p>

<p>You see this all the time at classic car shows. You go up to a guy with some amazing car and say, "Wow, I've never seen anyone fit a MEL 462 into a Ford Falcon before. How did you get it to fit?" You get one of two responses: "Uhhhhhhhhh.... it's fast. It's real fast." or "Well, the first problem was fitting the exhaust manifolds, but then I realized..."</p>

<p>Another place I see it is bicycles. You've got the doctor/dentist out riding his $10,000, 15lb Pinarello wearing a full racing kit, and he's huffing and puffing up the hills, grinding the gears, and then when he stops you notice his tires are on backwards. Meanwhile a college student on a 20 year old Huffy wearing sandals flys past him going up the same hill.</p>

<p>I admit I have camera envy all the time. But I would rather have camera envy now and wait to buy the nice gear until I know what I'm doing than be one of those "Uncle Bob" types.</p>

<p>P.S. I wish I had a D300. That's a nice camera.</p>