Gear lust or GAS

Cheers for the replies.. :thumbs:

Paulstw wrote in post #17134776
If Canon would stop making cameras specific to certain tasks then GAS wouldn't be a problem. It's when you have a 1D3 for wildlife and then fall out with the photogs and then move to landscapes and buy a 5D3 and then get invited to shoot pro sports and feel the need to change cause you get told your 5D3 and new lenses won't cut it. That's when GAS is a royal pain in the a$$.

That's right they do make a do it all, its called the 1Dx. How silly of me. Now where's that £4500 I left lying around. *pats pockets*

yup.. i'd convinced myself a while ago i needed a mkIII as i only had a really crappy noisy, 'crops are just for amateurs' (be a pro buy full frame) 7D etc etc.. but then then why not the 1DX, yes it's expensive but then it's all i'd need.. oh but then i'd need a general zoom as i couldn't use my 15-85 EFs.. so i'd need the 24-70 mkII.... hang on... this is getting silly etc etc..

I didn't buy anything in the end.. i took a step back.. thought about it.. and seeing the images and range of gear used to shoot the images in the gallery (i honestly couldn't tell the difference between the 1DX and 5D mkII or 7D prints).. i'm cured.. at least for now anyway

I agree, just goes to show one that the camera is only half the battle.

I think we all have a bit of gear lust in us, but I also tend to think we all realize it after a bit as well.

Mike,

I would love to have a full frame camera but I did what you did. I added up how much I would have to spend to duplicate what I have now. The final price was staggering. Unless something dramatic happens to our finances, I'm happy with my crop cameras. I'll add another long lens at some point, probably the Sigma 120-300 Sport with the corresponding teleconverters. This will take two years of dedicated saving for me at our current household income.

SixDeeFan wrote in post #17134015
I wonder who might qualify on this forum?

I've heard there are a few gear heads here

gnome chompski wrote in post #17133596
In my own personal experience, the following is accurate:
99.9% of the time its gear lust/GAS.
99.9% of the time my current "non-pro" gear will get the job done just fine
99.9% of the time its the photographer, not the gear, that makes or breaks the image.

This is true for myself...
99.9% of the time it's me, not the gear, that breaks the image.

tagnal wrote in post #17136210
This is true for myself...
99.9% of the time it's me, not the gear, that breaks the image.

Guilty as charged.

MikeBurtonPhillipson wrote in post #17132950
Something that struck me was the varied gear used.. ok mostly Nikon and Canon, but also the age of the gear ... from 400D, 20D, 7D, MkII to 1D's and of course 1DX (a few mkIII's)...

All images were printed up to A2 (or larger) I specifically remember two of the prints which were particularly stunning - one shot with a Canon 550 and the other a 20D..

Just thought i'd share... if you get chance to see the gallery as it goes on tour i'd highly recommend it

And this was not expected? A photo is the photographer not the camera. If you are buying gear to take better photos then you are a fool.

I admit to suffering from GAS, but that's because I would rather spend my hard earned money on cameras and lenses than something boring like 4K TVs and hookers.

Mike, I am glad you post your findings. I have found your observation to be very accurate. Yes, a new camera may have many advantages over older cameras. But, if one has good technique and knowledge of lighting, those oldies can still perform at a high level. The only thing that matters to me is how the final print will look.

Gear lust can come from strange sources too. When I did my first wedding it was with a 7D. A guest was chatting to me about photography and asked what camera I was using. I politely said a Canon 7D. No other answer. He launched into a debate with me about why I wasn't using a FF camera. After all I was photographing his sister in laws wedding and it had to be of the highest quality.

He said that at least I should have came with a 5D mark II. I politely said that once I'm charging more for my weddings, I'll happily turn up with the best of gear, however, had it not been for your sister in laws original photographer dumping out on the deal three weeks ago I wouldn't be standing here. "I didn't know that mate sorry" However, i lusted after a 5D mark II for ages after that thinking that's what I needed.

my tip how to recognize a person with severe GAS on forums and similar sites: long gear list link with super-detailed information in description, no gallery/portfolio link to see actual photos ...

I know many great photographers using older dslr´s, i have used 1Ds MKII for a while, IQ is still comparable to any DSLR in most situations, but i always hate button layout, display, lack of MFA and AUTOISO. It was amazing for landscape photography, but for sports, it was difficult for me to quickly change exposure, but sensor based IQ was never limiting factor, 600D, 70D, 1DmkII, 5DmkIII, all are very similar in IQ department to me, it´s all about lenses and PP today and good focusing, composition, lighting, precious moments.

People should care less about IQ, especially these who use heavy PP anyway... It´s really sad to see people shooting with 5dmkIII and super-expensive and sharp lenses, when every picture looks like from instagram

Paulstw wrote in post #17141699
Gear lust can come from strange sources too. When I did my first wedding it was with a 7D. A guest was chatting to me about photography and asked what camera I was using. I politely said a Canon 7D. No other answer. He launched into a debate with me about why I wasn't using a FF camera. After all I was photographing his sister in laws wedding and it had to be of the highest quality.

He said that at least I should have came with a 5D mark II. I politely said that once I'm charging more for my weddings, I'll happily turn up with the best of gear, however, had it not been for your sister in laws original photographer dumping out on the deal three weeks ago I wouldn't be standing here. "I didn't know that mate sorry" However, i lusted after a 5D mark II for ages after that thinking that's what I needed.

This is unfortunately true, the worst position probably have starting photographers without rich well-built portfolio, because they can´t prove they are able to shoot top quality with mid-range dslr.
Buying expensive camera is starting to be as important as in high businness enviroment owning expensive cars and other accessories, people buy expensive cars just for good representation, which really matters. Clients can decide only on very basic factors like if the photographer has very expensive equipment, he probably know what he is doing, etc...

Interesting article on Petapixel:

http://petapixel.com …ally-need-shoot-like-pro/

I once read a statement that has stayed with me; Don't remember who wrote it. I am certainly no 'Master", but it does help to retain these thoughts.

"Amateurs worry about gear,
Professionals worry about skills,
Masters worry about light"


The flower included was shot with a 40D and a 'kit' lens (28 - 135 f3.5). I don't think I could have done better with FF. If I would have, someone please explain. I will eventually get a FF, because I just want one in my lifetime.
Thanks

http://trailguy.smugmu​g.com …/0/X2/ASIATIC-LILY-X2.jpg

trailguy wrote in post #17148955
I once read a statement that has stayed with me; Don't remember who wrote it. I am certainly no 'Master", but it does help to retain these thoughts.

"Amateurs worry about gear,
Professionals worry about skills,
Masters worry about light"

I worry the most about gear and light.
Does that make me an amateur master? No I think it just makes me a nerd.

It would be a little sharper if one cared to zoom into 100%, at typical viewing distances no difference.

This pretty much reflects my attitude towards gear. To most of people who view your photo the gear won't make any difference, but you still know the difference is there and need to be able to sleep at night.