I don't think I could list all the cameras I have used since the early 'eighties when I started taking photographs seriously. The "why" of any choice was usually driven by a perceived increase in "image quality" a term which is difficult to define. In the last ten years, I often take with me the largest film or sensor that I can practically carry, with the limit being what is physically comfortable given the situation in which I find myself. Two weeks ago, I went to a friend's wedding and took two m-4/3 cameras only as I knew I was going to be on my feet a lot. And I was glad of it.
My first camera was a Pentax K-1000, but its choice was based on what I could afford at the time. My parents had sent me out to buy a camera for my younger sister who was going to be editor of her high school year book. I bought her a Nikon FG20 and 50/1.8 lens. . . and somehow convinced myself that my parents were going to buy one for me too and were just using my market-research expertise to figure out which to buy. Young fool! 😉 No camera for me. So I had to buy my own and scraped together every penny I could. I upgraded within the line to an LX several years later because it had an auto-exposure mode, mirror lock up and interchangeable finders.
I was using that camera when working for a newspaper in a country that had no Pentax distributor when . . . arrg . . . the film rewind knob fell off somewhere. I could use the film rewind knob of a Nikon FM2 to pop the camera open (same knob thread pitch), but the specs for how deep it sat were off by just enough that I couldn't rewind my film without finding a dark closet somewhere. Deplorable. There was a Nikon dealership in that country, though, so when I returned to the States on a visit I switched over to Nikon so that I could get repairs and parts when I needed them.
I stuck with Nikon after that for SLR stuff . . . acquiring lenses over the years, and made the transition to digital with Nikon DSLRs. Along the way though, I also got my hands on a Minox "spy" camera, an Olympus half-frame, a brace of Leica M3's, a Mamiya C330, a Crown Graphic 4x5, a Zone IV 4x5, a Wisner 5x7, a Deardorff 8x10, the odd Hassleblad . . . you see where this is going, right? I would describe those purchases as driven by the sense that the photographic qualities I was looking for were juuuuuust around the corner and squarely within the technical capabilities of the next camera, whatever it was.
After a time, the relentless onset of the digital revolution meant that more and more pro gear (or pro-adjacent gear) was showing up used: it was a virtual tsunami of Hasselblads and Mamiyas being sold with sets of lenses for pennies on the dollar. Catnip to a gear-head. So purchases during this period were driven by having always wanted to try a certain camera and finally getting the chance to do so without going broke.
I still have a lot of that stuff. In fact I was talking with my wife about selling some of it the other day. The problem, if you can call it that, is that it is worth very little in today's market and the pleasure of having it -- even if it isn't used very often -- outweighs the cash I'd get on sale in most cases.
So: why? Different answers at different times:
A) first because I bought what I could;
B) second because I the vagaries of international distribution systems failed me;
C) third because of perceived image quality gains'
D) fourth, because of availability of former objects of desire at now-reasonable cost;
E) and finally because an aching back or feet mean that the phrase "the highest image quality I can manage" now fits into a middle-aged rubric of "oy, my aching back."
