Should I continue to spend on gear?

Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by j_e|8, Mar 4, 2017.

  1. Someone started a thread a long time about about what your favorite time in your development as a photographer was. Mine was about 1 year into the whole thing when I had one film body, 28-80mm & 80-200mm lenses and a Bogen tripod that was actually a pain to carry around.

    No one is immune to the lure of more gear but, with only a couple "upgrades" (20mm prime and then 17-35mm zoom), I was perfectly set up with much less.

    Former member Eric Sande
  2. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Administrator Staff Member

    There is an old saying, rather hackneyed, "He who dies with the most toys wins." If you can afford more stuff (I don't believe it has to be new) and it gives pleasure, why not! I have several hobbies, all of which require lots of "stuff". One set appreciates in value, the others not much, but the kids are interested in a couple of the hobbies. Just another inheritance. "Apres moi...."
  3. I try to keep it around $300 a year. Mostly film and chemcals. I probably spend more then that on coffee.
  4. Buy what you want or stick with what you really need, I know that 1DX-2 will greatly improve my photography, but my wife have different opinion and usually she is right:)
  5. In my opinion, you shouldn't spend too much, as you said "it's a hobby" you should spend within the limit of decency. Or as someone said above, you should set a fixed price per year you would want to spend on your hobby. I did that too on my personal hobby and it actually helped a bit. The first year was a bit hard not to spend more but after some time, you will be able to control it a bit.
  6. Why don't you instead go to a local program or school and take a couple of photo classes, with other photographers and a teacher? You might really fire up your enthusiasm for taking photos.
  7. Some people buy a couple of lunch boxes to carry their lunch to work. Others buy many lunch boxes to form a large collection but never carry a lunch in them.

    If you like to collect gear and then not use it, that's fine--if it gives you pleasure. Just be sure you're not spending too much money on gear to the detriment of you and you family.

    If you want to move in another direction, you might consider concentrating on photography by choosing one of the cameras you already have (and its lenses and accessories). Then try to see how far you can go with that set of equipment--like you might do if you were unable to ever have any other equipment.
  8. A good photographer can get by with just one camera and a 50mm or equivalent lens.
  9. Just 2 cents.

    You said the following:

    I've recently got back into photography with mirrorless olympus and panasonic bodies. I think I've used or owned all the GF and E-pl models released form 2013-2016. I've also had all the mki OMD's and now I have an E-m1 and 2 "pro" lenses in the 12-40 and 40-150 2.8.

    Given that you are asking I assume you are not a collector or who just enjoys having new stuff. FWIW, at my camera club I know people who have gone from dSLR to mirrorless and they prefer that. Some of them don't have that many gear even with their former system. One fella went to Myanmar a few times and ran a exhibition in town, had some interest with the Myanmar Embassy the the local govt tourism body as well the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He and many others I know just have 1 or 2 bodies and 2 or 3 zoom lenses. Most of them choose zooms because it does the job and it is convenient and they don't need to buy primes, or macro, or a lighter lens for occasions and any stuff like that.

    I personally just have 3 zooms and 2 primes. A no. of them are the older ones and bought used. Never have I been told they weren't as good at my camera club meeting. I even used a Nikon D70 6MP once this year and no one spoke a word. For me I rather go to places be it a national park, a local fashion show or sport match, street market etc ....
    Last edited: May 9, 2017
  10. "He who dies with the most toys wins."

    Surely this was originally intended to be ironic? It was meant to suggest that "money does not buy you happiness": another hackneyed phrase.
  11. I read this recently. Sorry, don't remember who said it . . .

Share This Page