Acquiring new gear: Growing as a photographer, or just a "Gearhead"?

[Cletus]

I started to get into this on someone else's post about "Which one lens..." , but I really do think this might be a relevant question - and that I know has been addressed in the past - BUT:

LFF user 'mdm' made mention in that thread about having only the bare minimum of equipment to make a photograph; that the real joy in photography lies, not in the collection of cameras, lenses and kit you have, but in releasing the shutter and seeing your print, still wet under the light for the first time (I'm paraphrasing here)...

I personally, fundamentally, agree with this notion, but I also love my cameras and no matter how much I try to keep my gear acquisitions in check, there seems to always be something else I need. There was a time when I was perfectly satisfied with nothing more than (literally) a Nikon FE2 with a 50/1.4 and just enough darkroom stuff to make a print. I was making the best photos, at that time, then I ever had before and that's after downscaling a HUGE Nikon F100 setup with MANY lenses and other paraphernalia. I didn't think I'd ever need to buy anything else except materials, ever.

Then one day a great deal on a Hasselblad fell in my lap. And I had to get more stuff to support the larger format. And I soon felt like I'd 'grown' as a photographer. Eventually I decided I needed to move up to large format 4x5 to make the photographs I wanted to make. And more stuff was needed, improvements to the darkroom, lenses, meters, etc..

Now I'm shooting 8x10 and just acquired a UV source to start alt process printing. More stuff! I've spent more on cameras and gear in this last year than I think I have in the previous 5 years combined. I have a LOT of gear and I STILL have a long laundry list of stuff I 'need'!

And I don't consider myself a Gearhead. With all these moves up in format and darkroom improvements and just, general buying of more STUFF, I still believe (and tell myself...and my spouse) that it's all only because I'm growing as a photographer and not at all because I might just have the worst, ongoing bout of GAS in the history of my photography career!

Maybe I need a reality check? Maybe I do just want new cameras and new lenses and more stuff, just for the love of GEAR! I freely admit, I do love my cameras and my lenses and my Gitzo tripod. The equipment is for sure part of the appeal of photography for me. But I will still say it's the WORK that keeps me in it. It really is the look of a perfect print, still wet under the light for the first time in the darkroom. I HAVE to make photographs to stay sane, I feel like sometimes. I HAVE to point a camera at something that moves me and make a picture of it. Even of no one else ever sees that picture.

What about you? How much do you really think you need that shiny new Gold Dot Dagor to fulfill your vision?

[Darin Boville]

I seem to be on a curve. For many years I had a Hasselblad kit and a rangefinder, that was it. A few lenses. That was it. Then digital hit. Digital itself was enticing. All that film gear was suddenly cheap. Plus everything was a bit unmoored by the impact of the new technologies.

Some people became vey interested in the craft of film photography, and more of these people seemed to appear the more digital gained ground. Others went all digital and never looked back. Others, like me, sort of expanded their gear arsenal and now are shrinking it again. It's a sort of curve. Hopefully gear-stability is in my future because messing with the gear stuff is, for me, distracting and lowers my productivity.

--Darin

[Cletus]

Darin - thank you, that's an interesting insight about the impact of digital and the way some people became even more adamant about, or interested in, film as a result. I guess I would more or less fall into the category.

Many people have made remarks about being able to finally get that film camera they'd always dreamed of, back in the day when the cost was way beyond the means of any 'amateur' photographer. That's actually what happened to me with my first Hasselblad. I wasn't really looking for one at the time, but had always dreamed of owning a camera like that when the deal of the century suddenly appeared before me.

Nowadays I also think a lot about "minimizing" my kit, but I can't seem to rid myself of the constant need for that one more focal length, or that more suitable tripod head, it just never stops. And to me it's all in the service of improving my work - not necessarily in the "Magic Bullet" sense, but them that might just be denial talking, I don't know!

I still feel like, when there's something on the top of my list, like a lens, it's because I really do feel like its something I need, for something specific, not so much because because I just think I'll make better pictures if only I had.... Know what I mean?

[C. D. Keth]

I have two main rules governing my acquisition of gear.

1. In the course of shooting, I must work around not having something at least 3 times before I even get to think about buying it. For example, I had a 150mm and a 210mm for 4x5 before I bought a 90mm. I worked around that for quite a while before I decided I really would benefit from a wider focal length, which brings me to...

2. New acquisitions must add something to my work that I couldn't do before. That 90mm was not something I could imitate or emulate. The only way to have a photo look wide is to use a wide lens. A failing example would be that I kind of want a geared head, but my 3-way head is doing fine so I keep on with the head I already have.

This obviously won't work with some issues like wanting to dip my toe into another format, but it will keep me from having a cabinet full of lenses I rarely use or a rotating stock of stuff that I just "couldn't pass up."

[rdenney]

Some people develop a style and a vision early on and that suits their objectives. Others search for their particular vision and maybe never find it, even if they produce fine work along the way. Still others find the hobby of messing with camera equipment to be as satisfying and enjoyable as is making photographs. The only thing wrong with any of these is when those in different groups think they are somehow better because of it.

Example: Warren Deck, who was the tuba player for the New York Philharmonic for about 30 years until just a few years ago, was known to change instruments fairly frequently, and to make changes to the instruments he kept even more frequently. He finally found the combination that matched that sound in his head, and was also reasonably playable. That happened many years after he demonstrated that he was a world-class performer by winning the New York job. There are those who might call him a gear-head, and he might even agree with them (I don't know and to my knowledge he's never said). But nobody could complain that it undermined his artistry.

There have also been many who found early on the instrument that fit their voice, and they played that instrument throughout their careers. But they still dabbled with a range of other instruments just for fun. Doing so didn't undermine their art, either.

And then there are guys like me who have lots of instruments. We don't explore the potential of even the worst of them, but nobody has taken any hurt because of our acquisitiveness.

Rick "who has generally bought photographic equipment to provide a particular desired capability, even when that capability wasn't often exploited" Denney

[redrockcoulee]

For some people a single camera is sufficient whereas others need to upgrade their gear constantly. I believe that most of us fall somewhere in between. Six years ago I got to use a Hasselblad system as the place I worked had gone all digital and IMHO it is THE camera for me, I enjoy using it more than any other I have ever owned. I did go through several 4X5 camera until I found one I liked however in my defence the one before the one I have now had seen better days otherwise I would probably still be using it.

I do not see some one with multiple formats a gearhead. Those that are often changing systems are those I consider chasing the magic bullet and those who are always upgrading their gear to the latest and greatest are gearheads. Although I have 35mm , digital DSLR, medium format and large format I am on my third 35mm film camera (the first one was bought in 1974) and the third was originally a second camera so that I could have one with colour and the other black and white. In medium format I traded a bicycle for a Rolleichord in the late 70s and bought my Hasselblad three or four years ago. In large format I still have the first one I bought and in total own four however two are going to be for sale in the next year or so plus I do share them with my wife. In digital I have used Nikons since 2006 and in the spring of 2011 I bought my first DSLR a Pentax K-r.

So I have mutilifple formats but have not really bought that many camera over the years and not one of them has ever been both the latest and greatest. Except perhaps the Holgas and Dianas I have bought for my wife For the next year's purchases I seem to have a bit of a list but unlike previous years this list is affordable almost all are lens caps or hoods other then a remote for the K-r. If you are buying or researching new products rather than shooting you are a gear head. If you do more shooting and printing then buying or looking to buy then you are not.

The best way I find to make sure that I am not looking for more lenses to buy is ensuring my bag is not that big I do not think you have a problem (at this time)

[Frank Petronio]

One of the appealing things about photography is that, even back in the early 1980s when things were "expensive", you can put together an outfit, however humble, that is capable of producing world-class work, as good as any top professional's work. Back then I used to think that I could - in potential - turn out a print every bit as good as an Ansel Adams print - in my plywood sink and Visqueen-walled, unplumbed, darkroom. It would just be harder is all ;-p

People consisting make images with Holgas and Lomos and other crappy cameras that are amazing works of art. I mean 99.9999% of the time they don't. But they possibly can. And that is pretty cool.

Personally I think it's healthy to explore different cameras and not get too attached to them. If you fall in love with or think that some inanimate object has magical powers... well that is pretty dumb. It's quite liberating to swap that Leica for a Canonet and not miss a beat. Or a Technika for a Crown Graphic. It also means you're a confident, competent, and debt-free photographer.

I do have a chuckle over the photographers who drop megabucks on every fast Canikon zoom or go whole hawg into new Leicas or giant Ebonys. It's revealing to shop for used digital cameras and find plenty of upgraders selling the last generation pro models with only a few thousand clicks on them. But I hope they keep on buying, it's good for the industry and economy, and I like their used prices.

The best camera is a paid-off credit card.

[Darren H]

The best camera is a paid-off credit card.

well said!

[Jim Jones]

I have much more camera equipment than just a few years ago, and take fewer good photos than any time in decades. The limited photographic arsenal forced upon Edward Weston by economics may have been a blessing.

[Corran]

I think anyone who says that they can do everything with one camera and one lens is delusional.

I also think anyone who thinks they need every lens ever created is the same.

There is a balance.

Personally I buy cameras/lenses/whatever based 1) on how much I'll use it and 2) how much value it'll hold. For example, when I got my 58mm XL lens I wasn't too worried about the cost because I got it at about 50% the general used price. So if I HAD to have that money, tomorrow, I could sell it for what I put into it instantly basically. And as we all know lenses generally hold their value. On the flip side, my D800E was expensive and I won't get anywhere near what I paid for it if I ever sell it. But it'll be a workhorse camera for commercial work. So there you go.