If money was no object, would you still buy the best? Or just stick with you have?

In the late 1990’s I sold my house (mortgage all paid) I had very nice sum in the bank. Visited Harrods London, Camera Department, purchased a Leica R6.2 plus various lenses, a Contax G1 camera with a few lenses, a Fuji P&S and finally a lovely French leather camera bag. I felt a million dollars..

It's always bothered me that people look at camera lines, usually by price, in terms of good, better and best. The best possible camera for me is often in the middle, pricewise, because it best matches my needs. The high end might be too large, too heavy or produce giant images that strain my storage and processing capabilities. So, if money were no object, I'd own close to what I already own.

digital_vintage said:

richj20 said:

I'm happy with what I have.

Click to expand...

Those are some epic cams you have in your sig sheet. I wish they would bring back the gx line.

Click to expand...

They are fine cameras. I photographed this little guy on my fence earlier today.


Native to California



--

Like Gato, I'm happy with what I have.

Although I'd like a shorter medium length prime, or zoom with a 70mm position medium length.

If I had lots of photo money, and better health, and some one to look after the dogs, I'd spend some money on travel.

I'd like to go back to London, Paris and Monaco, and go for the first time to Venice, Prague and assorted other parts of the UK and EU.

BAK

digital_vintage said:

Would you get a Canon R1 w/ full set of RF lenses and Leica Q3 with all the accesories?

Assume that you already have a closet full of camera bodies and lenses.

Or would you just stick with learning with what you have and avoid getting on the GAS upgrade treadmill even though you have liquidity of several million bucks?

Click to expand...

I would go one step past satisfaction to confirm.

My most pressing need is for more walls to put pictures on.

If money were no object my camera collection would include a Phase One IQ4, a Sony A9iii, Arri or Red, several film cameras, and whatever else caught my fancy.

I would also have a substantial collection of cars.

SelrahCharleS said:

If money were no object my camera collection would include a Phase One IQ4, a Sony A9iii, Arri or Red, several film cameras, and whatever else caught my fancy.

I would also have a substantial collection of cars.

Click to expand...

Maybe a few shekels to the local food bank!

LeicaEye said:

SelrahCharleS said:

If money were no object my camera collection would include a Phase One IQ4, a Sony A9iii, Arri or Red, several film cameras, and whatever else caught my fancy.

I would also have a substantial collection of cars.

Click to expand...

Maybe a few shekels to the local food bank!

Click to expand...

Not to derail the conversation, but I love giving my local animal rescue groups as much funding as I can than indulging in myself too much.

Money-no-object I'd fund them beyond what they need across the world. My personal setup (a6600 or a6700 with a few great lenses) is all the gear I'll probably ever need so I wouldn't change that. For client work, I'd probably add an A1ii to my A7RV setup and get a few specialized lenses, but all of what I make doing photography as a side job goes towards cat rescues.

DMKAlex said:

digital_vintage said:

Would you get a Canon R1 w/ full set of RF lenses and Leica Q3 with all the accesories?

Assume that you already have a closet full of camera bodies and lenses.

Or would you just stick with learning with what you have and avoid getting on the GAS upgrade treadmill even though you have liquidity of several million bucks?

Click to expand...

I really don't understand your question. Assuming you're a photographer, not someone who hangs an expensive toy around you neck just to show off, you already have something that you're comfortable with and it fits your style. Why would money be an issue?

You're throwing around models and brands that you're not using and you're envy of because of the price. How do you know it is better or that it fits your style?

Click to expand...

Life is full of situations where we purchase a cheaper item to fit our budget (eg an airline ticket or a car) where we’d rather have the more expensive one.

jj

SelrahCharleS said:

If money were no object my camera collection would include a Phase One IQ4, a Sony A9iii, Arri or Red, several film cameras, and whatever else caught my fancy.

I would also have a substantial collection of cars.

Click to expand...

I am all for the rich life, but also think sometimes our collections ending owning us. I respect those rich folks who have this wabisabi lifestyle of just owning a couple great specimens of what they need and mastering them. Not suggesting this in the only way to nirvana.

I used to think that R3 + 24-70mm f2.8 was my ultimate combo (I'm not a professional) - I would buy it if money were no object. But after using the R6II + 24-70mm f2.8, I find that the setup is too large for me to move freely, and shoot in the streets without drawing attention. It is also very large for travel and to bring to family events. R3 would be even larger. Now I like smaller camera setups more, though undecided on what to buy.

digital_vintage said:

Or would you just stick with learning with what you have and avoid getting on the GAS upgrade treadmill even though you have liquidity of several million bucks?

Click to expand...

Making the best of what I've got is boring & sounds like it may require more work than I am willing to do.

I'd buy a few cinema cameras and anamorphic lenses & a bunch of lighting gear to satisfy Gear Lust, then buy some slaves to help me cart the stuff around and help me make that feature films and documentaries I still want to do (knowing full well I can do much more than I am currently doing with my existing gear).

So, it's primarily the cinema cameras and lenses that interest me, plus those slaves and fake friends I'd buy off in order to make my vision a reality.

I'd buy all the high-end gear for sure, but it wouldn't get a lot of use. I imagine a lot of people have the money in the bank, but can't justify spending it on depreciating assets that won't see a lot of use.

My money no object list

Nikon Z9, 58mm f0.95, 600mm f4 TC

Hasselblad X2D, 45mm f3.5

Sony A1 II (x2), 12-24mm f2.8, 24-70mm f2.8 II, 28-70mm f2.0, 50-150mm f2.0

Canon R5 II, 100-300mm f2.8, 1200mm f8

DJI Inspire 3

I can alreayd afford all the cameras that I want. Like sure, I'd love to have a Z8 paired with a Z6III with a full lineup of Z glass.

Thing is, my lowly Z6 is already able to chew through everything I do. With ease. I don't need more than what this camera is giving me, and the lenses that I have provide the same experience : good optical performance and cover all that I do very well.

So yeah I have the money to get a much higher end camera kit. I just don't think it's worth my money when I'll be such a huge bottleneck to the performance of those cameras.

On the other hand, if I want to have a camera in particular, I don't really hold myself back. That's how I bought an X-Pro2 even though value wise it's a terrible decision.

digital_vintage said:

Assume that you already have a closet full of camera bodies and lenses.

Click to expand...

No such assumption needed.

digital_vintage said:

Or would you just stick with learning with what you have and avoid getting on the GAS upgrade treadmill even though you have liquidity of several million bucks?

Click to expand...

I would probably buy some Nikon Z mount lenses to skip the hassle of using an adapter, but my current gear is better at what it does than I am. Besides, I enjoy playing with "yestertech."

jjbinx said:

DMKAlex said:

digital_vintage said:

Would you get a Canon R1 w/ full set of RF lenses and Leica Q3 with all the accesories?

Assume that you already have a closet full of camera bodies and lenses.

Or would you just stick with learning with what you have and avoid getting on the GAS upgrade treadmill even though you have liquidity of several million bucks?

Click to expand...

I really don't understand your question. Assuming you're a photographer, not someone who hangs an expensive toy around you neck just to show off, you already have something that you're comfortable with and it fits your style. Why would money be an issue?

You're throwing around models and brands that you're not using and you're envy of because of the price. How do you know it is better or that it fits your style?

Click to expand...

Life is full of situations where we purchase a cheaper item to fit our budget (eg an airline ticket or a car) where we’d rather have the more expensive one.

jj

Click to expand...

I have no issue with buying a better one. But getting the most expensive one just because money is not an issue don't make much sense with me.

In car term, I am drive a nice car with handling and performance and I enjoy driving it. A Bentley or Rolls certainly doesn't fit my style even they are a lot more expensive than my BMW. Instead, I may opt for a M5 for more horse.

But, that's me!

As at least one poster has sagely sated, there is a big difference between being able to afford something and money is no object.

I have been able to afford what I want. That is becoming more past tense as inflation eats up my retirement checks. The State of CA seems to pride itself on how costly it is to live here. But we are too old to move and love where we live.

I am where I want to be with my photographic gear, and have been since 2017 when I bought my last camera. I am not interested in newer gear unless I am convinced I will see a difference in my prints on he walls. 'Convinced' makes that a high bar. For my type of photography (scenery, somewhat flexibly defined), and the circumstances under which I do it, my gear is ideal - for me.

Looking at my prints keeps me well grounded.

If money were no object though, that opens up vastly more opportunities. But then priorities would first be served. For me that would mean a car collection to rival Jay Leno's. but samller to match my preferences. Then more travel, much more.

I am having a difficult time envisioning what photographic gear I might then want under such economic circumstances. Whatever I am going to use to take pictures I have to carry, and I have always preferred to travel light. This goes back to my film days when I was doing a lot of SAR work and efficient, minimal gear was a necessity. Old habits live on.

So let me get started with a Jaguar XKSS, a Morgan Plus 8 and a '57 fuel injection race-spec Corvette, then we'll go from there....

digital_vintage said:

Would you get a Canon R1 w/ full set of RF lenses and Leica Q3 with all the accesories?

Assume that you already have a closet full of camera bodies and lenses.

Or would you just stick with learning with what you have and avoid getting on the GAS upgrade treadmill even though you have liquidity of several million bucks?

Click to expand...

If money were no object (in a reasonable sense rather than an "I'd go for world domination" sense) I'd probably not buy cameras and lenses, but rather the things that make photographic life better and easier.

A good set of pelicases, a couple of apple displays and the macintosh to drive them, a well thought out storage system that was expandable for the medium future.

Those things would make a much much bigger difference to the image i would take over the course of a few years rather than a camera and lenses (which are much much more transient and can be rented if not owned and needed)

RetCapt said:

As at least one poster has sagely sated, there is a big difference between being able to afford something and money is no object.

I have been able to afford what I want. That is becoming more past tense as inflation eats up my retirement checks. The State of CA seems to pride itself on how costly it is to live here. But we are too old to move and love where we live.

I am where I want to be with my photographic gear, and have been since 2017 when I bought my last camera. I am not interested in newer gear unless I am convinced I will see a difference in my prints on he walls. 'Convinced' makes that a high bar. For my type of photography (scenery, somewhat flexibly defined), and the circumstances under which I do it, my gear is ideal - for me.

Looking at my prints keeps me well grounded.

If money were no object though, that opens up vastly more opportunities. But then priorities would first be served. For me that would mean a car collection to rival Jay Leno's. but samller to match my preferences. Then more travel, much more.

Click to expand...

+1. Traveling more is always a good idea!

RetCapt said:

I am having a difficult time envisioning what photographic gear I might then want under such economic circumstances. Whatever I am going to use to take pictures I have to carry, and I have always preferred to travel light. This goes back to my film days when I was doing a lot of SAR work and efficient, minimal gear was a necessity. Old habits live on.

So let me get started with a Jaguar XKSS, a Morgan Plus 8 and a '57 fuel injection race-spec Corvette, then we'll go from there....

Click to expand...