« Simplify | Main | Book Review: Street Photography Now »

September 23, 2011

Comments

I'm with you. In fact I'm invested in a dying camera line (Olympus 4/3 dslr) and I still don't care.

God bless you.

I'm so GASsy it isn't even funny anymore. Why get better when you can get bankrupt? :)

Seriously though, I'm on the GAS wagon, but every time I open that RSS reader I teeter on the edge. You know you've got it bad when you see the headline and immediately start mentally considering the potential divorce avoiding excuses.

I love hearing about new gear, but rarely buy it quickly. Maybe that makes me a slow GASser; probably not a DGADist. What's the term for a photographer interested in new gear, but happy with old gear? INGHOG?

I'm in the same camp as Scott, interested in leading-edge technology but a believer in buying and using trailing-edge technology.

Like Scott I am also following what new gear appears and how technology develops, but I do not buy many things. It always comes down to the question whether I really need a particular item... the answer is usually NO.

Well, up until yesterday, I was a blase DGAD, but the new Nikon system is hitting some of my sweet spots ... fortunately I have weaned myself from cutting edge ... so it has a few years to work out the kinks ... so to speak, but the intense negative nattering about this intro, before any real world tests ...... hmmpphh! PFUI. I think I'll go back to sleep.

Well, I never! I just bought an Oly E-P3 because my various Nikon DSLRs were too big and heavy. Even my wife's D40 was too big and heavy although you can't really notice it while carrying. I assure you that this purchase was of artistic necessity and had nothing to do with mere gear lust. So was the additional purchase of the Panasonic 20mm 1.7. And the cute little leather half case as well as leatherette body covering.

For the first month it got my mind off the distracting picture takin' stuff to thinking of my camera all the time: Where the &%@#* is that buried in the menu and why?

Now I am used to it. Thinking of an adapter so I can mount Leica lenses after I buy them.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have 3 Nikons and 7 lenses plus a Leica point and shoot. One more body and a couple more lenses that I really need and I'm done.... Oh! Okay, I probably should round out my systems with a rangefinder 4/3 body and a complete set of those lenses, especially the pancakes, then I'm really done....and I really mean it this time! Unless I turn professional, then, of course I will need to upgrade everything.

I'm single by the way, but I got a great shot of her walking out the door.

Well said Gordon! I'm bored as hell, and I just don't give a damn! ...I'm also convinced of some other crazy idea; that the longer you keep using the same equipment, the better you become at understanding it. Call me old-fashioned.

I prefer the DGAD attitude in most things, but there are a few dream technologies that break through my defenses and infect me with a bad case of GAS. Mostly these have to do with computer portability and longer battery life, not cameras.

Digital cameras, modern autofocus lenses and digital-related gear such as scanners are tools, pure and simple. I would have to be considerably more perverted than I am to lust after them. They just leave me cold. REAL cameras, on the other hand, do get my juices going. A Rolleiflex 2.8F, a Leica M3, the original Contax RTS with a 50mm Zeiss, a Pentax MX with 40mm f2.8, the lovely Minolta XE-1 (or XE-7) with a 50mm f1.5 MC Rokkor, to name but a few. Brass and glass: you just can't beat it. Off for a cold shower now...

When my used dslr started to malfunction in an expensive-to-fix way, I started to save up to buy a discounted refurbished camera as a replacement. One of my lenses was a hand-me-down from my father's film slr, two more were bought used. I enjoy the differences between a telephoto and a wide-angle, but the appeal of a 17-200 or whatever that super-zoom is is lost on me. That's mainly because I can't afford to be a GASser. I am frugal. My wife and I have other plans for our budgetary surplus and I am happy with that. I haven't ever sold a photo or earned anything from photography, so it's tough for me to rationalize thousands of dollars for the hobby. Especially with a couple basic lenses and a slightly old camera still seem totally capable of making lovely photos on those days when my stars line up properly and I can manage to use my tools effectively.

DGAD for me!

I was suffering from GAS and traded up my Canon 20D for a 5D when it first came out. I convinced the guy at Best Buy that my hot shoe was broken and that the entire camera needed to be replaced under the service plan. They were more than happy to let me pay the difference for the upgrade and somehow I was able to convince my wife that it was necessary. At the very tail end of suffering from GAS I convinced my wife that I needed a Canon 50mm f/1.2L USM to take better pics of our first child which was on the way.

Not long after that my GAS transitioned into DGAD right before the Canon 5D MkII came out when I realized that there was no possible way that I could convince my wife I needed one. Even after it became so popular for its video capabilities I still knew I didn't have a chance. At this point I don't know a single thing about what Canon has planned to replace the 5D MkII or what new lenses and flash units are out. I just DGAD because I couldn't afford it anyway and I find myself reaching for my Canon S90 most of the time. Has Canon come out with a new version of the S90? I don't really know and I DGAD either.

Bruce,

I've owned almost every one of the cameras you've listed or a variation of it. My current collection of sentimental favorites includes... No, on second thought, I think I'll save this topic for another post. I suspect that there are multitudes of photographers who have recovered from GAS yet still can't find the will to let go of all the unneeded (yet delightful) equipment they've acquired.

I just came down with DGAD myself and the reason seems to be in the stunning adequacy of the current gear offerings. I still use a Pentax 645n but sold 3 of my 5 lenses since I simply didn't use them. I also recently upgraded the micro 4/3 from a G1 to a G3 body. That said the camera I take everywhere is a fuji S200. The superzoom and funky exr modes seem to allow me to do what I want to do. The image quality is far beyond the Kodachromes I was shooting the the 80s. (Blasphemy!) Some of that is the gear, some of that is my learning curve. Frankly I'm enjoying the loss of gear anxiety.

I guess my one bit of GAS is that I am sometimes interested in acquiring an old lens (c. 1940s or maybe earlier) and somehow adapting it to my current camera. I think digital's preciseness (tack-sharp focus, great contrast, great saturation) sometimes feels too clinical for me. There's a softer look in old photos that I think might in part be due to the differences in characteristics of the lenses.

Christian,

Be careful. You tell yourself you're buying only one old, inexpensive lens. Then you discover the lubricants have dried out and the lens needs to be refurbished. Then you discover the adapter you need costs as much as the lens itself. Then you discover that once the magical lens is mounted on your digital camera the photos still look tack-sharp and "digital." At that point the thought occurs to you that perhaps it was the enlarging lens that was responsible for the look you want.

Need I continue?

Gordon - a fair warning! Thankfully the budget is what it is and rationalizing on my part wont easily change that.

I am rethinking my underlying purpose anyway. Blake Andrews (B) ran a little mini contest on his site recently where the viewer was tasked with identifying a photograph's photographer, title, year, and then the album that re-used the image. There are examples that have the look I am thinking of (in-focus but not tack-sharp) such as a piece by Bellocq and another by Mariette Lachaud; on the other hand Weeki Wachee Spring, FL by Toni Frissell was taken in 1947 and is plenty sharp! So perhaps the difference is more technique than equipment, even when comparing photos close to 100 years apart!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Tip Jar

Thank you!

Tip Jar