Bottom line : don't buy a whole lot of stuff and expect that more stuff will lead to more learning or more enjoyment. In fact, it often leads to less enjoyment. Perhaps more learning, but often the wrong kind of learning.
And, if you know photography already, you are probably aware that the better quality tools are generally the most expensive. A good point to make would be that one is wiser spending a load of cash on a very nice body and lens, and not that same quantity on a cruddy body and a pile of cruddy lenses. That doesn't mean spend tons of cash, but only choose the best value in terms of quality, not quantity. I have come to understand that having bunches of lenses is not as useful as having one lens and knowing how to use it for a bunch of uses. You will be best served with a single body/lens combination of high quality that you can master, become totally comfortable with, carry with you easily, etc. And one that you can count on functioning well for its entire term in your possession. That is a big one. Don't trade reliability for cost savings.
Now, quantity/quality/cost thing is not totally black and white. Used equipment, for instance, is cheaper but usually the same quality. Or better sometimes. The Leica M3 is one good example of a used body that is better quality that its newest incarnation (arguably). And costs less. And Leica, while holding the #1 position in terms of quality and exotic-ness, does not have that much over Voigtlander and Canon and Nikon for image quality, though the classic Leicas (M3, M6, MP) are legendary for their body quality for a good reason. The argument for quality over quanity applies more easily to Zorki/Leica or Vivitar/Nikon. Obvious reliability/quality of construction differences.
