Bill Clark
Veteran
Of course, I own too many cameras.
I need to exercise them every so often.
Gives me something to do.
I need to exercise them every so often.
Gives me something to do.
Do you own too many cameras?
- Thread starter DownUnder
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 92
- Views 4K
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
'Natch!
Ten chars: 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-0
Ten chars: 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-0
Yokosuka Mike
Abstract Clarity
I own 9 cameras.
Over the last year I did a big purging sell-off of cameras and lenses.
Nine cameras may seem like a small amount to some people here but for me it’s still one camera too many.
All the best,
Mike
Over the last year I did a big purging sell-off of cameras and lenses.
Nine cameras may seem like a small amount to some people here but for me it’s still one camera too many.
All the best,
Mike
aizan
Veteran
At any given stretch of time, I only need two or three out of my whole collection of about 35 cameras. I've got plenty of space to store it all, so that's not a problem. It would be a headache to continually sell and buy cameras as the need arises, and with the current film camera bubble it's financially impractical.
My real problem is finding local photographers I know and trust in order to lend things out that I'm not using.
My real problem is finding local photographers I know and trust in order to lend things out that I'm not using.
Corran
Well-known
In my office I have a 20' long, floor-to-ceiling set of shelves that I built specifically to house most of my camera stuff. I've got probably 25+ 35mm cameras of various types and vintage (and condition), a dozen or so 120 cameras, another dozen 4x5 cameras, as well as a handful of larger cameras.
They are all used, some more than others - at least the working ones. Lenses? I have too many to count.
Do I have too many cameras? No, because I like to keep things fresh and use different cameras for different reasons, and while some of these might be a bit superfluous, no two cameras are alike (I don't generally keep duplicates).
Since I'm passionate about photography, I couldn't give up many, if any of them, just as a passionate woodworker has a ton of tools, some more commonly used than others. Also, I think we've all read many instances of those who regretted selling a camera and then it costing a ton more when they wanted to buy it again. I don't have that problem! 😀
They are all used, some more than others - at least the working ones. Lenses? I have too many to count.
Do I have too many cameras? No, because I like to keep things fresh and use different cameras for different reasons, and while some of these might be a bit superfluous, no two cameras are alike (I don't generally keep duplicates).
Since I'm passionate about photography, I couldn't give up many, if any of them, just as a passionate woodworker has a ton of tools, some more commonly used than others. Also, I think we've all read many instances of those who regretted selling a camera and then it costing a ton more when they wanted to buy it again. I don't have that problem! 😀
Tom R
Established
I have three camera bodies, an M8.2, and two M4-P's, to accommodate three lenses, 28, 35 & 50 mm (all Leitz lenses). Sounds about right.
chris91387
Well-known
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
You’re a funny guy.
Disappointed_Horse
Well-known
It's impossible to own too many cameras because the correct number of cameras to own is always n + 1, with n being the number of cameras you currently own. (This formula applies to all hobby equipment.)
Let's see, in film cameras I currently own two Nikon FEs and four manual focus Nikkor lenses, two Pentax M42 bodies and five Pentax M42 lenses, a K1000 with one lens, and a couple of 35mm point-and-shouts. In digital, I've got a couple of old Nikon DSLRs (a D40 and a D7000). I shoot all of the 35mm SLRs regularly and usually have at least two loaded with film at any given time. I shoot the DSLRs only occasionally when I want or need a picture to post online quickly; I almost never take them out of the house because they are too bulky and heavy and I don't enjoy using them that much; however, I have zoom lenses and a macro lens for them that I occasionally find useful. I hardly ever bother with the point-and-shoots—my iPhone covers my compact camera needs very well.
I could use one or two more Nikkor lenses, and if money was no object I'd buy a couple of FM2ns or FM3As to have newer and more long term reliable bodies. I'm pretty well set otherwise. I'd love to have a Leica, but for the kind of shooting I do I'm not sure if a Leica would be much better than what I've got now. I could think of a few other 35mms that might be fun to try and play with—Canon QL17 G3, Lomo LC-A, Olympus 35RC (a camera I had before and regret selling), Olympus PEN S, Pentax KX, Pentax MX, and Pentax SV. None of these are terribly expensive. I'd buy any of these if I came across a great deal, but I'm not going out of my way to look for them because I have pretty much everything I need.
Having just read Fred Lyon's San Francisco Noir, I've got the hots for a Rolleiflex, but realistically they cost too much for me as a hobbyist photographer.
While I don't really feel much need to reduce the number of cameras I own, I could get by quite nicely with just one of my 35mm SLRs, 3–4 lenses, and my iPhone.
Let's see, in film cameras I currently own two Nikon FEs and four manual focus Nikkor lenses, two Pentax M42 bodies and five Pentax M42 lenses, a K1000 with one lens, and a couple of 35mm point-and-shouts. In digital, I've got a couple of old Nikon DSLRs (a D40 and a D7000). I shoot all of the 35mm SLRs regularly and usually have at least two loaded with film at any given time. I shoot the DSLRs only occasionally when I want or need a picture to post online quickly; I almost never take them out of the house because they are too bulky and heavy and I don't enjoy using them that much; however, I have zoom lenses and a macro lens for them that I occasionally find useful. I hardly ever bother with the point-and-shoots—my iPhone covers my compact camera needs very well.
I could use one or two more Nikkor lenses, and if money was no object I'd buy a couple of FM2ns or FM3As to have newer and more long term reliable bodies. I'm pretty well set otherwise. I'd love to have a Leica, but for the kind of shooting I do I'm not sure if a Leica would be much better than what I've got now. I could think of a few other 35mms that might be fun to try and play with—Canon QL17 G3, Lomo LC-A, Olympus 35RC (a camera I had before and regret selling), Olympus PEN S, Pentax KX, Pentax MX, and Pentax SV. None of these are terribly expensive. I'd buy any of these if I came across a great deal, but I'm not going out of my way to look for them because I have pretty much everything I need.
Having just read Fred Lyon's San Francisco Noir, I've got the hots for a Rolleiflex, but realistically they cost too much for me as a hobbyist photographer.
While I don't really feel much need to reduce the number of cameras I own, I could get by quite nicely with just one of my 35mm SLRs, 3–4 lenses, and my iPhone.
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
Since I began working the overnight shift over 15 years ago
I have become more a camera collector than photographer.
So in my case one camera is too many - and ten is not enough! 😉
Chris
I have become more a camera collector than photographer.
So in my case one camera is too many - and ten is not enough! 😉
Chris
markjwyatt
Well-known
Never just one SLR (or other camera). If the one goes bad, the 3-4 lenses become useless, so at least two bodies. And what if a key lens goes bad (less likely than a body)? And if only one body has a working meter? Maybe a hand held meter also (and if that goes bad? ...maybe a couple). This is referred to as the GAS multiplicative factor (GMF or GasMF). 🙂
Malcolm M
Well-known
Too many cameras? Sorry, but this concept does not compute.
mpaniagua
Newby photographer
Only if you ask my wife 😛
Disappointed_Horse
Well-known
I'm with you brother. As they say in the military, two is one and one is none. That's why, you'll notice, I said I have two FEs, two M42 Pentax bodies, two 35mm point-and-shoots, and two Nikon APS-C DSLRs. Come to think of it, I have two 50mm lens in both F-mount and M42.
I bought my K1000 as sort of a backup for my FEs when I want/need a light meter. (I use my M42 cameras meterless; the meter in my Spotmatic doesn't work and my SL does not have a meter.) I wound up using my K1000 for the past couple of weeks as one of my FEs—the one I usually keep loaded with color film—jammed up on me. I was very glad to have the K1000 as I had a weekend trip planned for my daughter's birthday.
steveyork
Well-known
I've used a lot of different camera systems over the last two decades. Tend to have multiples of the same. I feel comfortable with seven in the house, one for each day of the week, but using photographers math --ha, ha -- that means you can have 9-10 w/o running afoul of the rules. Definitely need more then a few, because they always seem to break or need service at the most inopportune times. Also, I'm a big fan of variety, and different cameras, lenses, film, developer ect., can really give that, though (for me) traveling is the best form of "variety." Basically, if it's used regularly (and honestly), then you don't have too many. But if it sits around for me for more then a year unused .... although I have a few that aren't used but I keep for sentimental reasons, because used a lot in the past. Last couple years, I've mainly been shooting the M2 and have several.
Travis L.
Registered Userino
Is 200 too many?
Disappointed_Horse
Well-known
hap
Well-known
"But for now, just to be able to take them out of the cabinet and play with them gives me so much satisfaction..."
My work requires reading medical images all day long and sitting in front of screens, mostly at home. Interludes include, refrigerator, afternoon run, occasional stretching out, and last but best....is playing with my cameras.!!
seany65
Well-known
Perhaps an interesting twist to the question would be:
"Do you have more cameras than your photographical talent can justify?"
Unfortunately, my answer is yes. I have 9, from 110 to 35mm and 120 6x6 and 6x9. I'd also have 6x4.5 if the 6x4.5 mask in the viewfinder on my welta weltax worked properly.
"Do you have more cameras than your photographical talent can justify?"
Unfortunately, my answer is yes. I have 9, from 110 to 35mm and 120 6x6 and 6x9. I'd also have 6x4.5 if the 6x4.5 mask in the viewfinder on my welta weltax worked properly.
DownUnder
Vamoosed (for a while)
Me too. This has hit home particularly hard.
Many decades after I picked up my first ever camera (a Yashica D TLR I bought new for C$35, for the record), I came to the bitter realisation that 95% of my photography could be done with a rangefinder (I don't want to say the magic word, L---a, but it's a strong contender) and a 35mm lens. The other 5% would be more than adequately taken care of with a 90mm.
Which makes me wonder, what for my several shelves of expensive gear and all the time I spend on dust-spit-polish?
The jury stays out on this for now. It's just too dismaying to think about...
