The Most Dangerous Thread Ever!

Lounge
41

GAS is of course as others have mentioned a common psychological deficiency fuelled in no small part by various media, forums etc. It’s a way of channeling our daydreaming into yachts and large houses for various people.

I think it’s easy to overlook though how the daydreaming/consumerism is just so much easier than actually developing artistry or getting off the couch. The lives “we” live are also such that work or unemployment take so much time that it’s hard to find the time and energy for the difficult things. Hours here and there we can take to post on forums, read articles and watch videos. All things that fuel GAS.

I have more lenses than I need. Mostly vintage ones that came with another lens I actually use and apsc glass that sees no time as I have FF.

I’m the least consumer oriented person I know, bar a few primitivists, and photography is my only even remotely gear focussed interest. I can definitely say though that I spend the most time looking at gear when I have little energy or otherwise feeling down.

2 Likes
42

L-o-n-g and interesting reading for all of us who yearn for a Leica:

3 Likes
43

I recently had an epiphany: I was in a public park, during a photography meetup, and slowly getting bored. So my mind wandered to the Z6 I’d been eyeing for a few weeks. In this situation, would the Z6 improve anything? I think, it definitely would: it would create a complication, would add an element of challenge to an otherwise boring situation. In other words, GAS is an expression of boredom for me.

The truth is, the Z6 would not materially improve any of my pictures. There is not a single picture the Z6 would afford beyond what my X-T3 does today. But, playing with a new, fancy camera, would definitely be interesting! In a mechanical-toy sense, but not photographically.

Of course it doesn’t help that media unceasingly builds associations between new camera gear and exotic locations and adventures. I yearn for those adventures, during my nine-to-five and busy family life. But I realize that the appeal is in the experiences, not the gear.

There is, however, another aspect as well: I spent several years trying out all kinds of photography gear. How else would you determine what sort of gear you like? It’s a very personal choice, and not one easily discerned from third parties. So I bought and sold a ludicrous number of bodies and lenses, and I learned a lot from that. Was that GAS? Perhaps so, but it was also educational. And no small amount of fun.

7 Likes
44

With so much stimulation from every direction, at least in my experience I’m struggling more and more to be bored. Whilst I understand humans were always like this, it seems like with so many things readily available, it’s been getting worse in a way and of course, those kinds of thoughts prop up.

I wouldn’t categorize it as GAS since you kept rotating the gear and ended up with a specific kit after you found out what you enjoy, plus all the real and not unhealthy benefits you gained. After all, sometimes when we dislike our tools we don’t feel the pull to use them, so it’s better to have something we like even if it means buying and selling stuff.

3 Likes
45

You are perfectly right with your analysis. I think it is a function of consumerism and late stage capitalism.

I don’t suffer from real GAS, “good enough” is a word for me (and I will not buy the 35mm Z because I have and love the not so good but “good enough” X100V. I will not buy the Anteater Lens unless I really get into Macro. Then I’ll think again. But of course I read all the specs…

This thread was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek, and I hope nobody here has a real case of GAS.

4 Likes
46

There is another aspect of GAS: photographers keep seducing other photographers to buy new gear even though deep down they know that they’re disappointed with their new gear. They just dont admit it not even to themselves.

5 Likes
47

I think I have a stronger case of SAS: Subject Absence Syndrome :smiley:

Everything I want to shoot (well, a majority of it at least) exists only hundreds if not a thousand+ miles from where I live. Being away from home for 70%+ of my time to do ‘remote’ photography would be an untenable, not to mention expensive, proposition.

I recently bought a used Canon EF 70-200L f/4 USM zoom (the original non-IS, non-weather-sealed version) for a little under $400 USD. That’s about as “big” as my GAS gets. The last lens I bought was the one it replaced: a Canon EF 70-300 IS USM, bought new in 2009, IIRC.

Can I afford to buy gear? Yes. I’m not made of money but I could purchase stuff. However I can’t really justify it. All the gear in the world won’t create subject matter. Then again, maybe with AI … (only joking).

I include training, workshops, etc. in this logic as well, at least to a degree. All the software / technique / practicing in the world won’t really have any beneficial impact as long as the images are substandard. It’s kind of like a music student forever playing nothing but scales.

If there’s no chance an expenditure will improve my photography, why make it? Yes, it’s enjoyable while it happens but even travel doesn’t help that much since I’m “there” for only a too-short period of time, with no real prior experience, no possibility to intelligently scout, research, observe, etc. – All of which are required for good landscape photography. What’s the chance a truly good photograph will come of it? Not much.

Of course, that’s being said as I plan a trip ~800 miles away to southwest Texas in late July, specifically for photography. :upside_down_face: Maybe I’m a little GASsy after all, not to mention maybe a bit inconsistent.

4 Likes
48

Compulsively buying things you can’t afford, won’t use, and don’t need is not good, though I’d question whether “mental illness” is a good way to describe it. Most of us here will admit to a bit of GAS here and there, but if it’s doing nobody any harm it’s fine. A lot of the time the line between “normal” and “unhealthy” is just a matter of the impact it has on your life. A multi-millionaire who has warehouses full of classic cars is just enjoying their good fortune and I’m not sure anyone would seriously argue they were ill.

Personally, I can afford the things that I buy and sometimes I don’t use them enough to justify the cost, but is that a problem? There’s a healthy second hand market that wouldn’t exist without a certain amount of overspending on kit, and I’m sure my GAS is helped by other people’s GAS and vice versa.

4 Likes
49

Good point. Sunk cost fallacy is very real. They spent the money on it so it must be good, right? To an extent, this is surely helpful. Often it’s probably better to make something work, instead of throwing the towel. It’s a fine line between “this doesn’t work” and “I can’t make this work”. But there’s also a difference between sticking to your decisions, and recommending them to others. Though a mature way of dealing with that requires humility and honesty, which is tough. We want to be the hero of our story, not just a regular, flawed human.

3 Likes
50

There is still nothing on the market that i would trade my five years old Panasonic gx9 + Panasonic Leica 15mm f1.7 + m.Zuiko 60mm f2.8 macro for.
So thats easy.

3 Likes
51

Photography gear has its own impossible trinity: gear can be cheap, flexible, or superb quality, but never all three at the same time.

Take, for example, lenses. Prime lenses usually offer the best quality in a given system, but they are very inflexible compared to zooms. You can get pro zooms, but then you have to pay a lot for them.

The way out of this is facing the fact that you won’t be able to capture all the scenes you encounter. Instead of being able to photograph nearly everything, it may be better to aim for good photos of some scenes.

I found that my spiritual home is the 40–50mm equivalent primes. That’s where I take my best photos, capturing people from a bit of a distance, or smaller details of buildings or landscapes instead of aiming for the whole. I only mount wider angles if I am indoors in smallish rooms, and my shots with a tele lens usually turn out to be uninspired.

I think we live in a golden age of photography: one can have superb micro 4/3 or APS-C cameras with decent prime without breaking the bank. Actually taking photos is the most important thing. I think GAS becomes problematic when more time is devoted to thinking about purchasing new gear than actually using it.

3 Likes
52

Prime lenses are a counter example. They are neither cheap nor flexible, as soon as you are outside the “standard” range.

53

On the anti-GAS theme, I recently read "the Meaning in the Making by Sean Tucker.

He’s a Youtuber as well, but although I haven’t watched much of his stuff I found his book very good.
There’s not a singe photograph in it (to my initial surprise) but just a very honest (I thought) look at his own past and his thoughts on why artists want to create stuff… I’m no good at giving an overview, but suffice to say I found it a great read. Would definitely be of benefit to GAS sufferers I’d say. :wink:

5 Likes
54

I’ve got a lot of cameras but most of them are pretty old, I dig in the eWaste bin at work a lot and have zero shame. Most recently rescuing a working 486DX2/66. Going to use it to make a BBS using period accurate hardware for the office this summer as a fun project. It’s like a weirder version of recycling.

At some point I’d like to do some videos about some of the early DSLRs as I feel like we moved past them quickly and it was one of those times when each generation was a quantum leap over the other. Kind of like an online virtual museum. Most of the sample photos and reviews we have from these things are 15-20+ years old. It’s interesting to see how far you can push the RAWs from these old cameras with modern software vs what we had back then.

Comparing my D2Xs to my D3s is like night and day vs comparing my D3s to my D850. Things really slowed down post 2010 unless you did a lot of video work. I scored the D2Xs (only 5,000 clicks on the shutter, barely used, AF is a little spotty though) in a box with a bunch of old Nikon batteries I got for my D3s.

As for new cameras I might pick up the X-T5 or X-H2 eventually as my Fuji system is more or less my working kit these days. The video features might push me more into the X-H2. If you do work with your camera keeping it at least semi-updated is just part of how things go. Clients expect higher resolution files, ask you to do video, etc. Although I will say resolution specifications have really dropped off the last 7-8 years. I remember around the turn of the last decade some places were kinda picky about what you had before they’d hire you. I was still shooting Nikon DX at the time (D200/D300) and missed a few publications because they asserted they had to have full-frame of 5D MK II or greater in quality. I guess because now because everyone just consumes on a tiny screen and the old DPI peepers from the print days have retired it matters far less.

5 Likes
55

No danger here for me. I have experienced GAS before, but never acted on it, mostly because I am generally content even when things are grim and I am poorer than everyone. Nowadays, I don’t even get a hint of it due to a proper diet and exercise regiment of enjoying priceless things (both meanings).

As for the lot of you, talking about it is part of the battle. If it disrupts your life, then it is as @betazoid put it. If it doesn’t, then cut back and consume in moderation. Most importantly, don’t shame others. It won’t work or help. Best thing to do is to be generous with your time and money. Then you won’t have the time to salivate over what could be if you got your next asset. :stuck_out_tongue:

4 Likes
56

Cool…! Before my time though :sweat_smile:
Ever come across Look Mum No Computer on youtube? He’s most recently setting up an “iMac orchestra”… a little crazy but fantastic use of old hardware and software I think.

1 Like
57

Barney Britton posted a long-term retrospective review of the D3s on DPReview a few months ago:

I find these retrospective reviews enlightening for GAS. Back in 2010, I would have been convinced that owning a D3s would make a world of difference to my photography. But now its specs are laughable compared to MILCs from even 5 years ago.

The first DSLR I owned was a Nikon D70s. I worked during the summer as a research assistant and saved up for it. It was my dream camera and I used it for years lovingly. But its specs are now a joke (6 megapixels, etc). And of course it didn’t make me a better photographer at all — that is still an ongoing journey that mainly consists of thinking while taking photos and processing.

Most of the camera bodies people lust after now will have a similar fate. Lenses of course are more timeproof.

4 Likes
58

I remember buying a math copro for my Packard-Bell 386SX (4MB RAM, 116MB HD). I had bought a star-charting astronomical program and boy was it ever slow without the coprocessor. Even with it, it wasn’t fast but at least usable by the standards of the day.

I later had to replace the hard drive, so I bought a brand spanking new 110 MB Conner from JDR Microdevices for $400+ … How times have changed!

3 Likes
59

There was a video channel on YouTube by a camera shop in Hong Kong. Mosly hosted by Kay W.

They had a series of videos, where they gave very good photographers very bad toy cameras (Barbie I recall) - and they got terrific images.

4 Likes
60

Heh! There were no personal computers of any sort until I was well more than 30 years old.

In the late-70s/early 80s, my GAS was for tennis sticks, strings, etc. I owned four or five. My cameras were a Canon AE-1, then a Nikon FA (not GAS, I got it only after the Canon was stolen when I was traveling).

PS - Oh, wait. I had big-time GAS for hi-fi stereo equipment: amps, speakers, turntables, phono cartridges, etc. But in this area, spending more money did make big differences.

4 Likes