"Need", of course, is a funny word. In absolute terms, I don't "need" any camera. A better way of putting this is asking how many cameras (and what kind) one requires to do the work–personal or for-hire–in a satisfactory manner. I could "get by" with one camera for a certain amount of what I do, but I know that would be inadequate...and not simply because I like having a number of cameras around the place (which I do, but not overrunning the joint).
Example: My Hexar setup (two bodies, three lenses, two flash units and a few well-chosen accessories) is the core of my no-BS working system, mainly for my own personal work but also used for those occasional working gigs that come by. Beyond this, there's the Olympus OM-2n that spends most of its time atop a tripod, with the Sigma 21-35 zoom and Vari-Magni finder attached, serving as an ersatz mini-view camera of sorts: rather less-vital to me, but when I need it for a certain kind of shot, it's there, and it works. Then there's both the Konica Auto S3 and Ricoh GR-1, both of which I regard as "serious throw-in-the-shoulder-bag" cameras when photography isn't the first and last matter of the day. Then there are the just-for-the-hell-of-it numbers, like the Konica Lexio 70 p/s, Konica POP, and Holga 135. Need 'em? Hardly. But they cost either nothing (Holga was a gift from a friend in Hong Kong) or stupid-cheap (the cost, to me, of the Lexio and POP combined wouldn't buy a ten-roll brick of XP2). These are futzing-around cameras for moments when I feel the threat of getting too linear in my creative thinking, and decide to load up one of these with something at random and go commando (only figuratively speaking, of course...especially now, given how cold it's been). Finally, there are the two digital cameras: the little Casio EX-850 that's been getting very little action these last few months (and which I bought principally for utilitarian stuff like snapping items to put on eBay/Craigslist and such), and the Olympus C-8080 which I have on long-term loan from galfriend's oldest son; that does get a bit of regular use, and has been the single best argument against my getting a dSLR. it does about 95% of anything I might conceivably want to do with a digital camera, and does it reasonably well, the low ISO service ceiling notwithstanding.
Not counting the two Polaroids (Dad's 95 which is essentially a keepsake, and Mom's Spectra, which is essentially a paperweight, and not a pretty one at that...anybody want it?) that's ten cameras, which, in a way, is a whopping number of cameras to me. But, here's how it teases out: the Hexar system if the only part that has serious money tied up in it, as I bought every piece of it brand-new a bunch of years back. The OM-2 was a gift from a friend whose weakening eyesight was getting in the way of its use, and for whom I helped pick out an AF successor (Canon Elan 7). Everything else was bought used relatively cheaply (yes, including the GR-1). If I had something just taking up space that I spent silly money on, yes, I'd brood about it. But I don't, and all this stuff doesn't take up a lot of space, so why should I be worried about "need?" they're all useful in some way, and that's all that's required.
If you've got an expensive something-or-other just sitting around, and the money could be put to better/more-necessary use (especially now), then you sell it. If you use it enough that it would be at least something of a hardship, then you need to think about just how much of a hardship it would really be to live without it, then make an appropriate decision.
But I think we need to heavily qualify the word "need" when it comes to this stuff, especially in a non-professional context.
- Barrett
