Wanting gear that I don't need

<p>I have all of the gear that I need, but when interesting new products come along, I still hear that voice in my head. "Ooh, that would be nice to have! I could use that when I go to Destination X or when I'm out doing Activity Y." I'm trying to figure out whether this makes any sense.</p>

<p><em><strong>What I Own Already</strong></em></p>

<p>I own three full-frame DSLRs, two current models plus a backup from the previous generation. I use eight current-generation lenses with these bodies. This is a very capable system, and I don't really need any more gear with the possible exception of lighting. (I have a couple of solid tripods already.) A long telephoto such as Nikon's new 80-400 would be cool, but do I need it? No. Do I want to carry more stuff? Absolutely not!</p>

<p>I own a very nice 4x5 camera with an assortment of lenses. I don't shoot 4x5 very often, but I might want to do another film project someday, so I think I'll hold onto my large format gear. For now.</p>

<p>My telephone takes pictures, but I would rate the image quality as "for emergency use only," as when witnessing a crime in action. Not that that happens very often. The guy would probably run away before I figured out where the camera app was, because I don't use it very often.</p>

<p>I own some other film gear that I have absolutely no use for (Nikon F100, Pentax 67II, assorted auto and manual focus lenses). This stuff is taking up closet space, and I need to break down and get rid of it.</p>

<p><em><strong>What I Don't Have and Really Don't Need</strong></em><br>

<br />I do NOT own a crop frame camera. I've owned them in the past, but I sold them. I don't shoot bird or sports, so I don't see an advantage to owning a crop body.<br>

<br />I don't own any micro 4/3 gear or any compact cameras. I'm sure that they've made great advancements, but I tend not to trust small sensors. I've never been impressed with the quality.</p>

<p><strong><em>The Temptations</em></strong></p>

<p>Sony has introduced some very nice cameras in the last few months. The <strong>a7r</strong> looks phenomenal on paper. A lightweight 36MP full frame body: who wouldn't want one? Luckily, my enthusiasm dimmed when I discovered that there aren't many lenses available for it yet. Adapters seem to introduce a number of complications. Even if Sony sells lots of a7r bodies in the next year, what's the chance that they'll build a tilt shift lens for it? Probably zero. So it makes sense for me to stick with my slightly bulkier DSLRs.</p>

<p>That said, I still WANT a <strong>Sony a7r</strong>. I don't know why. I just do. It's completely irrational.</p>

<p>A lot of people like the new <strong>Olympus OM-D E-M1</strong>. As mentioned above, I don't care for small-sensor cameras. I don't even like the name of this camera. It looks like a cipher, like you have to solve a puzzle before you know what it means. And yet, people rave about the thing. I can't figure out what's so amazing about it or how it would have any clear advantage over the very nice cameras that I own already. But that voice... that voice says, "Yeah, but it would be really nice to have one!"</p>

<p>Why, Voice? Why? Why do you want me to spend thousands of dollars on cameras and lenses that I don't need? Why?</p>

<p><em><strong>The Big Kahuna</strong></em></p>

<p>As stated, I have a preference for full frame cameras. As you might have guessed, I'm a bit of a resolution hog, as well. I think that everyone with even a passing interest in cameras is curious to see what Canon is planning to offer in the way of a high-resolution body. Someday. Maybe.</p>

<p>So I don't feel too guilty when I stop by the Canon rumor sites once or twice a week. I already own some nice Canon lenses. Some of my best work to date has been done on Canon gear. I'm familiar with their layout. My TS-E24 II is waiting for a new playmate, one that would like to go on some really run adventures. </p>

<p>I think that I can resist the temptation to enter into Olympus-land very easy. OM-D E-M1 NOT-4ME.</p>

<p>The Sony will be a little trickier. If they release some great lenses for the thing by next summer, I'll admit that it could be tempting. Even though it won't do anything that my D800E doesn't do already, it still seems like a nice option for lightweight travel.</p>

<p>But if Canon unleashes a new <strong>Megapixel Monster</strong>, all bets are off. I'm putting my name on the waiting list. And maybe that little voice will be happy. Finally.</p>

 

<p>I have a fairly complete collection of Exakta cameras and lenses.<br /> My current project is restoring a Minolta XG7.<br /> I have a film Canon to use with the lenses that go with my 350D.<br /> A 2 1/4 3 1/4 Century Graflic with a RH10 film back.<br /> I get around to use most of them once in a while when I have the time.<br /> My problem is that every once in while a something comes up that I can not refuse.</p>

<p>I think probably most of use have stuff we really don't need to take great shots. I been pretty good lately. Been almost a year since I bought new stuff.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I still hear that voice in my head</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dan, in my experience it can be very dangerous to ignore the voices...</p>

<p>I really don't need the new Lomography Petzval portrait lens but all that beautiful brass is calling my name. The photographic portraits from the old, original Petzval lenses look fantastic so I'm waiting to see what the images from the new, redesigned Petzval looks like. It's definitely one of those lenses that I don't really need and will use it very seldom once I do get it. The verdict is still out. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>A lot of people like the new <strong>Olympus OM-D E-M1</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong><br /></strong>Yes, misguided lot that we microcephalic-4/3rders are. I got the E-M1 and love it for lots of reasons you would never dig...Trust me, it does the job well.. Sony makes a good product line. If you have convinced yourself that you want a 35mm size picture then go for it. That is less than your 4X5 or my 6X6 too... If you have the cash whom do you answer to? A gent in another forum owns a Leica M9. You know I have never seen one in my days in tourist country. Never ever....someone lusts for them I suppose. Street photography a la Bresson or Eisenstadt. Status by association. Or just elite indulgence, no matter if someone has the loot I say.<br /> Well, I suppose you could give some loot i to Medecin Sans Frontiers or Save the Children or Animal Rescue. But you already covered your donations last year, so don't fret. Most of us have more gear than we ever will productively use. So now you have my warrant to go buy one and the next generation or even the Leica S. My neighbor bought a deluxe truck he will hardly use. So? " Gerry, you can't take it with you." Happiness can be found (briefly alas) in a piece of beautiful machinery. Like buying Sears Craftsman instead of no name or bottom fishing tools. Believe!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't shoot bird or sports, so I don't see an advantage to owning a crop body.<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>What's the advantage of using a "crop body" for shooting birds or sports?</p>

<p>I do not understand the why some of you bad mouth the crop frame cameras.</p>

<p>When I was shooting professional, 35mm (full frame)was used and when I had a job that requires close quarters and quality was not paramont and sports assignments.</p>

<p>4 X 5 format was used for quality.</p>

<p>2 1/4 was used as a comprise.</p>

<p>You use what you have to get what you want.</p>

<p>After all PhotoShop cures a lot of errors.</p>

<p>I wish I had PhotoShop when I was shooting.</p>

<p>Darkroom work was a real pain.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I'm trying to figure out whether this makes any sense."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dan, I don't think any emotional affinity toward inanimate objects is logical so there's not much point in trying to make sense of it, unless you're indulging above your means or if the acquisitions are adversely affecting personal relationships. <br>

<br>

Otherwise, why not? We only live once. :-) </p>

<p>If you don't need it, Dan, why do you want it? I acquire equipment that I believe I need, but can easily forgo that which I don't.</p>

<p>A need can be ill-founded even if initially perceived as very useful. This happened with the acquisition of a used Nikonos camera and a few lenses that I bought to use in thunderstorms and severe snowstorms to explore the type of image I could find in those situations. Winter isn't over yet but my purchase may not be profitable and I will end up selling the kit. The only other case I can remember (but I'm sure there is at least another one in my ten or twenty years of active photography) is buying a used Minolta Autocord to make use of its multiple exposure facility in a project related to a 400th anniversary of a city founding and the creation of imagined landscapes perceived as possibly being seen by the founder. One or two rolls, project over and it is idle.</p>

<p>Little by little, the things I don't need are either being sold or given away. The simpler my kit the better. The less attention to gear the better. It is a distraction that has little to do with good photography. There are some specific things that I cannot do without and some I keep and use despite the automatic photography fashions, like that of keeping and using some very good manual operation cameras, single focal length optics of high quality, a well equipped and used darkroom, Photoshop, and a good if not most recent digital camera for my lenses.</p>

<p>If I look at what small advantage I might get by upgrading my equipment and then consider all that goes into planning and making better images and prints, the advantage of exploring and improving the latter process always trumps any incremental gear improvement, even that of wanted additions. I believe it always will.</p>

<p>My needs and my non-needs, then if considered, would become only some sort of "academic interest".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you don't need it, Dan, why do you want it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My question exactly.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The simpler my kit the better. The less attention to gear the better.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree entirely. I rarely carry more than one body and three lenses. I decide what I'm likely to need for the day, and then I leave the rest at home.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What's the advantage of using a "crop body" for shooting birds or sports?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Higher pixel density in the center of the image circle. Less negative space around the edges of the frame at a given focal length.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>All things are full of weariness; a man cannot utter it; the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.</em><br>

<em>What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.</em><br>

Ecclesiastes 1:8 and 1:9</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you're ready to read the whole Book.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What's the advantage of using a "crop body" for shooting birds or sports?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Reach. The "crop factor" as it's called.</p>

<p>(And before anyone tries to tell me it doesn't exist, don't bother - I know the arguments both ways - and the simple fact is this: the subject matter <em>is </em>bigger in the frame with crop compared to FF, other things being equal). </p>

<p>All too recognisable, Dan... but it seems I finally managed to shut those voices up. The last one nagging me every now and then wants a Fuji X100s. The last one before that kept on asking for medium format gear, but after seeing what a decent scanner would add to the total picture, it went away mocking. There is the eternal Leica whisper too, but my bankaccount keeps that one dormant enough.</p>

<p>In the end, balancing between rationalising needs vigorously, and sometimes giving in and buying something nice, shiny and more or less useful keeps things OK. But I'm trying to stick to one system, because I know the lens-madness I can get....</p>

Fortunately, I've never experienced Leica envy. Rangefinders don't interest me.

 

At one point, I let my mind wander into the fantasy realm of medium format digital systems. I stopped thinking about that

when I realized, one day, that a cutting edge system with sensor, body, and an assortment of lenses would have a price

tag roughly equivalent to the combined price of all of the cars that I have ever owned. Not quite realistic. And then the

D800E came along, and I found a degree of contentment.

<p>I have all manner of expensive, professional gear sitting in camera bags. I still take better photos with a $5 flea market 35mm p&s and some expired film.</p>

<p>I suppose it depends on 1) your creative process, and 2) your bank account. If 1) requires that you periodically buy new gear, and 2) you can afford it, then go for the Sony.</p>

<p>Over the years, I've drifted into Jody's (above) camp. I've discovered I just don't need expensive gear to take interesting photos. Being a practical Midwesterner, I just hate putting tons of money into modern gear that quickly loses value. I have been slimming down my Nikon line up and am about to cut it to the bone this year. I'm after lighter weight, less money tied up, and more versatility. That said, my favorite camera system to use right now is my Leica and four lenses. It's a very small camera bag, takes great shots, is a lot of fun to use, and seems to quickly put strangers at ease so I can take their photo. There's a reason Leicas have been so popular for the last 70 years. They truly are special. I also have developed a taste for exotic lenses made before the Civil War, but that's another story! For me, having the ability to make photos that look different from everyone elses' and cutting down weight & bulk have become the priority. Great photos come from the mind, not the gear.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>And maybe that little voice will be happy.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I doubt it, Dan. It never seems to be enough, the promise of the new if forever seductive. As someone who has suffered from GAS in an acute way, I can state it never really dissipates. Ones imagination conjures all the great things that a specific device can provide, the promise of greatness is within reach if only I had that particular camera, lens, plug-in, etc. It always lurks in our minds but it can be managed.</p>

<p>What is required, I have found, is a change of photographic philosophy. The change from thinking that a specific material thing is really the lynch pin to better image making, to an understanding that true photographic success comes from within us. The acceptance that the limitations of my work are not caused by my <em>tools</em> limitations but by <em>my</em> limitations-my compassion, my creativity, my discipline, my wisdom.</p>

<p>Compared to buying something, self introspection is far more difficult. I made the lucky discovery that using the most advanced digital cameras, the finest optics made little difference to the essential quality of my images, the qualities that make your images stop people, that move people, that communicate effectively. The images I make with old, simple "obsolete" film gear look, for the life of me, no better, in any important way, than when using my state-of-the-art gear. Using a simple camera with a simple lens exposed my limitations more than I wanted to admit. But I had to face it. </p>

<p>We all need adequate tools to do work, limited only by the thickness of our wallets, but when we realize that it is not they that limit us, we temper the desire for more and more stuff and seek deeper answers to elevate our work. </p>

<p> </p>

That's a great shot, Kent!

<p>Dan, thanks for the clarification. I got hung up on the semantics.</p>

<p>We are bred consumers; Mankind has always had needs for food or objects, so I guess it is not wholly unnatural or bad. It is hard to avoid the desire for something better, different or exotic, until one realizes that the incremental change on acquisition in relation to the quality of our activity as photographers is comparatively unimportant. The artist-painter is lucky in one way. Yes, he can acquire better oils or watercolor pigments, or better substrates on which to plot his creation, but at first sight I think he has less material/mechanism encumberments to deal with. We have to think more about what and why we photograph than the equipment to do so. It may be harder in a way, but ultimately more useful to us.</p>

<p>A corollary of the discussion might be that of why do many of us have such fascinations for like new or mint used equipment, when used but not abused and perfectly functional less new appearing equipment will do the job as well? </p>

<p>Dan said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I own three full-frame DSLRs . . .</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I also own three FX bodies, and I certainly can't justify another one. But a shiny new Nikon D<em>f</em> would go <em>great</em> with my "new" pre-Ai 43-86mm Nikkor I just picked up off of Ebay.</p>

<p>Michael said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Otherwise, why not? We only live once.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed!<br /> <br /> Dan said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I do NOT own a crop frame camera.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, I have a pile of DX gear that I basically haven't touched since I bought my first full-frame body a couple years ago. I won't be investing in anything smaller than FX-format from now on--the difference in the noise floor is too significant. Like you, it seems, a small, compact, <em>full-frame</em> body is what I crave now. Yes, the Sony full-frame ILCs are intriguing, but as usual, Sony's lens offerings are lacking what most would prefer to see in such a line-up. I suppose I could "get by" using my old Nikon D7000, and a Voigtlander pancake, or even dig up my old FM2, and use that as a compact "full-frame" body. See? I <em>need</em> a new Nikon D<em>f</em>!</p>

<p>Dan said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Even if Sony sells lots of a7r bodies in the next year, what's the chance that they'll build a tilt shift lens for it? Probably zero . . . So it makes sense for me to stick with my slightly bulkier DSLRs.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly. Like, negative a billion, less than zero, would be my bet.</p>

<p>Buy more lenses. Just buy lenses. Oh, and cheap little electronic toys are cool too, but spend the real money on lenses. Lenses sell better and they last longer (do not wear out so quickly and are not considered obsolete so fast). You didn't tell us what lenses you have. If you don't have the TS 17mm f4 L then make that the first lens you "want" to get. If you don't have the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G then make THAT the first lens you want to get (if you already have the Canon TS 17mm lens). Other than those, do you have a good 180mm macro for that D800? How about the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS S? Those are investments that will not drop in value so quickly as new cameras. They are also nice and fun to play with, of course. You also might consider getting a Tokina 10-17mm fisheye in Nikon mount. (You can crop to a square or various ratios if using it on a full-frame body - nice!)</p>

<p>This is all only if you have plenty of money to spend, because frankly you don't need anything. You already have a good camera and good lenses (presumably). What more could you need to make good photos?</p>

<p>If you don't have a lot of money to spend, or you don't want to spend a lot, then try some adapters and extension tubes to mess around with shooting close macro stuff. They're very cheap ($50 goes a long way). Try a male-male threaded adapter to mount one lens backward on another to start. Then maybe try a reversing mount to mount a lens backward right on the camera. You could get an old 28mm f2.8 AIS from KEH. I find that old used lenses have a really nice feel, and they're interesting to play with, while being very cheap.</p>

<p><em>what's the chance that they'll build a tilt shift lens for it? Probably zero . . . </em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Dissenting opinion: I think you will see T/S lenses for mirrorless cameras, if mirrorless replaces SLRs and takes over the pro/'enthusiast' market. But I agree a dedicated T/S lens won't come along for a few years.</p>

<p>If you need movements, you can always use a Canon TS or Nikon PC lens on a Sony via an adapter, can't you? Or am I missing something?</p>

<p>Scott said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>How about the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yessssss . . . how about that lens! I <em>want</em> it!</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>What more could you need to make good photos?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, it's not about making good photos . . . it's about getting more <em>stuff</em>!</p>