How many cameras is too many.

Tannin

I have (newest to oldest, all SLRs unless mentioned)

* Canon 5DS
* Canon 5DS R
* Canon G9X II (pocket camera)
* Canon 5D IV
* Canon 7D II
* Canon 5D II #2
* Canon 1D IV

I use them all, though the 5D II seldom. The three 5Ds do most of the heavy lifting.

Why so many?

Well first thing is that I do bird photography. You learn very quickly that it is essential to have your main birding rig available 100% of the time. The moment that you take your 400mm lens off to take a picture of a landscape or a wildflower, you can absolutely positively guarantee that some mega-rarity will pop up and sit there in perfect light laughing at you. So two cameras is a nevessity. At first this was a pair of Coolpix 4500s (one for digiscoping), then a 4500 and a Canon A95 for the scope, then a 20D and a 4500, and finally a pair of 20Ds

Then we get to the second reason. in 2005 or so, when my main camera was a then state-of-the-art 20D, I used to have a lot of trouble with dust on the sensor. (This was before the days of self-cleaning sensors, which came in a few years later with the 40D.) I did and still do a lot of outback trips and dust is a big issue. Changing lenses in the field used to be a serious business!

And the third reason: I replaced my cheap little 18-55 general purpose lens with a far better 24-105/4. On crop cameras, however, that 24mm wide end was not nearly wide enough for many landscapes. So it was back to lens changes and dust on the sensors. Yuk!

Then the rot set in. I bought a new Canon 400D for a friend of mine (coz I had my regular dealer and got a good discount from him) and naturally tried it out for a couple of weeks until I drove it over to his place a few hundred kilometres away. I stuck the 10-22 on it and it was *so* nice not having to change lenses in the dusty outback! 

So I bought a 450D to go with the two 20Ds. Sold that, got a 40D, and from there the die was cast.

In short, I got used to the luxury of having and using multiple cameras back when there was a very good reason to do it that way, and now that technology has moved on and the reasons are less pressing, I haven't changed my ways. It's just plain nicer this way and I do things the nice way (unless I am space or weight constrained, such as when travelling by air).

I habitually travel with four cameras (5 if you count the G9X pocket camera in the glove box), one on each of the main birding lens (600/4, used to be a 500/4), second birding lens which doubles on landscapes (100-400), general-purpose lens (24-105) and wide angle (16-35, or sometimes the 10-17 fish). On foot, I mostly take two, sometimes three, occasionally only one.  Mostly, I use the three 5Ds and either the 7D II or the 1D IV.

Sometimes - not often - a camera fails mid-trip. If you are out in the back blocks of Western Australia or the wrong side of Birdsville, you can't just pop into a shop and buy another one. So you need spares on-hand. (I also have spare lenses - I once did an entire Lake Eyre Basin trip including aerial photography minus my one and only general-purpose lens, a 24-104. I managed quite happily with the 35mm and 60mm macro lenses filling the gap between the 10-22 and the 100-400. Making that task easier (and the mental arithmetic more difficult!) was the fact that I was using three different crop factors at the time - 5D II (full frame), 1D IV (1.3), 7D & 50D (both 1,6) so you could juggle the combinations around to get the focal length you wanted. 

But to address the OP's point more directly (that's you @Devil#20) - with old cameras do you sell or keep?  I do a bit of both. Of the cameras listed above, I could sensibly sell the 5D II, but I'd be lucky to get a couple of hundred dollars for it, say 10% of the $2000-odd it cost me. Why bother?

But I have disposed of quite a few: 

* Canon EOS R (mirrorless) (sold)
* Canon 7D (sold to family member)
* Canon 1D III (stolen)
* Canon 5D II #1 (stolen)
* Canon 50D (sold to family member)
* Canon 40D (sold to family member)
* Canon 40D (shutter blew up)
* Canon 450D (sold to family member)
* Canon 20D (sold)
* Canon 20D (did a zillion miles, wore out 2 shutters. I still have it as a keepsake)
* Canon Powershot A95 (pocket camera) (sold)
* Nikon Coolpix 4500 #2 (pocket camera) (blew up)
* Nikon Coolpix 4500 #1 (pocket camera) (not sure if this still works or not. I still have it somewhere)

The EOS R was a genuine piece of shit, despite some great aspects, on balance the worst Canon camera I have ever owned  and after 18 months I sold it for $1800, having paid $3500 for it. Such is life. 

Most of the others I sold to family members at attractive prices. They got a well-used but very competent camera - much better than anything they could buy new for the same money - and I got a few dollars and the knowledge that my camera had gone to a good home. That's a win-win.

And one or two blew up and were not worth repairing. Special mention to the 20D that happily did many more shutter actuations than Canon speced it for, finally blew the shutter, then did almost as many on the new shutter before expiring. 

TLDR: I have lots of cameras. My car is 20 years old, I buy second-hand clothes from op shops, but I have nice cameras. And guitars, of course.
 

Axe_meister

Perfect number is of course n+1

boogieman

I’ve always sold or traded in my digital stuff, otherwise I just couldn’t have afforded to upgrade to new gear. Currently I’ve got a Canon 5d3 plus various lenses and a Sony RX100 IV. 

With film cameras, I’ve sold on all the decent stuff but kept some cheaper or obsolete gear just because they look so cool. I’ve probably got a dozen or so, a mix of 1930s bellows cameras, couple of Kodak Vest Pockets, a Box Brownie, couple of Polaroids, a Zenit E, some 1960s cheapies. 

robgilmo

Do people actually use cameras? I think with phones being what they are most people wont need a camera, my old Oppo had 4 lenses on it!

Wazmeister

I do believe that you cannot have too many of anything...

Tannin

robgilmo said:

Do people actually use cameras? I think with phones being what they are most people wont need a camera, my old Oppo had 4 lenses on it!

Only if you want to take real pictures. 

boogieman

Tannin said:

robgilmo said:

Do people actually use cameras? I think with phones being what they are most people wont need a camera, my old Oppo had 4 lenses on it!

Only if you want to take real pictures. 

Honestly, phone cameras are so good these days that you really don’t need a “proper” one, unless you’re doing things like birding/wildlife, printing out bigger size shots or shooting in very low light. I’ve got good quality cameras but do most of my day to day shots with a phone and tweak them with Snapseed, if needed. 

Whitecat

There's a saying amongst photo enthusiasts and pros that says you buy glass, but "rent" bodies.

At the moment I have 3 Panasonic S5 bodies (two of them with Atomos Ninja V recorders), a crapload of native Panasonic lenses, a Fujifilm X100VI and a Ricoh GRIIIx. Do I still shoot most things on my phone? Yes, yes I do.

I do sometimes work in pro video though - if I didn't, I probably wouldn't have the amount of Panasonic gear I have.

dazzajl

The best camera is the one you have with you and even the poorest of cameras take real photos. Pixels and dynamic range might be great tools when you have them but they’re not what share emotions or capture memories 

Tannin

People often say "phone cameras are so good these days ..... " and frankly, they have no  more idea than people who say "takeaway is so good there is no point in cooking a meal". Phone cameras - yes, even the best ones ever made to date - are grossly inferior in usability, practicality and flexibility to even my little pocket G9X, the one we call "the toy camera". 

Does this mean you can't take a reasonable picture with a telephone? Of course not. For easy tasks, any tool will do if it's handy. But people who think phone cameras are "just  as good" only say that because they don't understand cameras. There is a huge difference.

Whitecat

Tannin said:

People often say "phone cameras are so good these days ..... " and frankly, they have no  more idea than people who say "takeaway is so good there is no point in cooking a meal". Phone cameras - yes, even the best ones ever made to date - are grossly inferior in usability, practicality and flexibility to even my little pocket G9X, the one we call "the toy camera". 

Does this mean you can't take a reasonable picture with a telephone? Of course not. For easy tasks, any tool will do if it's handy. But people who think phone cameras are "just  as good" only say that because they don't understand cameras. There is a huge difference.

The thing is, most people *don't care*. The phone *is* ostensibly "as good", for their purposes. Most pics are shared on social/via messenger apps and that's it. A decent phone cam + a good app for a little bit of correction is more than enough for the vast majority of people. And there's so much "assistance" tech now in phone cameras that they actually *can* take a better pic with a phone than they could with a much more technical "proper" camera. You still get a wis, because it's fundamentally true, but it also doesn't matter in the least.

(Many of those very same people might not know how to cook, btw, so the takeaway *is* superior. )

boogieman

Tannin said:

People often say "phone cameras are so good these days ..... " and frankly, they have no  more idea than people who say "takeaway is so good there is no point in cooking a meal". Phone cameras - yes, even the best ones ever made to date - are grossly inferior in usability, practicality and flexibility to even my little pocket G9X, the one we call "the toy camera". 

Does this mean you can't take a reasonable picture with a telephone? Of course not. For easy tasks, any tool will do if it's handy. But people who think phone cameras are "just  as good" only say that because they don't understand cameras. There is a huge difference.

If you’re looking at photography from a purely technical angle, then yes, a good camera will usually beat a phone, but I don’t buy the idea that people know nothing about cameras just because they chose to use their phone to take shots. You don’t always need technical perfection to take a really pleasing shot.

I also don’t understand your point about usability…. a mobile phone is the most usable camera I own. It’s just point, shoot and WYSIWYG via the screen. The shot can be easily tweaked afterwards too. What could be more usable than that? 

As for comparing it to food, sure I like a gourmet meal as much as the next guy, but sometimes a kebab or a maccy D’s just hits the spot. 

dazzajl

Phones are the best cameras now, that’s just the facts as they are. 99.9% of the photographs made every day don’t need more than a decent phone can offer. These cameras catch more memories, connect more people, bring more joy and document more of our lives than any ‘real’ cameras ever will again. 

An ever shrinking number of us like to have something more and a tiny portion of those need more. And the only reason that camera manufacturers are even developing products for us still is because they’re really video machines. 

idiotwindow

Tannin said:

People often say "phone cameras are so good these days ..... " and frankly, they have no  more idea than people who.....  Phone cameras - yes, even the best ones ever made to date - are grossly inferior in usability, practicality and flexibility to even my little pocket G9X, the one we call "the toy camera". 

I think you have simply demonstrated your own ignorance. I'm a stickler for high quality, 'proper', lenses and for full manual control (so much so I shot my last event job using a Hasselblad when I didn't need anything like the quality or inconvenience) but I recognise that I'm swimming against the tide and know that you can do some fantastic things (both stills and video) with the latest phone technology. As for usability, for years I have insisted on using a Leica for the clean visual rangefinder interface and simple manual controls but, in truth, there is nothing quicker and easier to use than a modern phone.

Going back to the OP's original question, like with guitars, most enthusiasts have too many. I've been guilty of it myself in the past but I can do most of what I need to do with only a small handful of lenses and an even smaller number of bodies. If I need something unusual I'd rather rent it for a few days and save myself (over the long term) a lot of money.

robgilmo

I wonder how many people bought a phone last year and based their choice on the phones camera compared to those who actually bought a camera? My point being a large proportion of the worlds population have invested in phone tech, thats a lot of investment, thats why phone (and phone camera) tech has progressed in leaps and bounds over the last decade or so, sure a more specialised camera will be more useable to the right person but I am pretty sure even David Baily whips his phone out to take a photo of his dogs from time to time.
Some people use their phone for much more than point and shoot though with surprisingly good results. I think as we invest in this tech and continue to want phone cams that can do more technical tasks we are going to see this tech advance quite quickly.

These Astro Photos Were All Shot with Smartphones | PetaPixel

FelineGuitars

I have a whole bunch of Sony alpha and Minolta lenses and a couple of camera bodies that no longer get any love from where I switched up to Nikon.

However I have been lucky that my Nikon D800E that I have had for over 10 years is still considered a great sensor (at 36Mp) and not fallen behind by much . Having really good glass is a must for me though and I have never regretted buying good lenses

Shark_Eyes

On digital I'm doing very well. Just a canon 40D and a 350D body that I cannot give away.

However on analogue, I'm much worse, probably around 80 film cameras, mostly 35mm but some medium format and a fair few Polaroids.

I think all were bought second hand and I don't think I paid more than £5 each for the majority of them, they all work though, and I've run at least one pack of film through every one.

I do miss the days of finding camera gear in charity shops, I used to pick up Polaroid 600 cameras for a pound and take them to parties and then give them away when they only had a few shots left.

ThePrettyDamned

Image quality reached good enough in almost all scenarios at least a decade ago, so I'd suggest you keep the cameras you like a flog the rest.

I have an Olympus em1 mark iii and am thinking of trading it in - I just don't need a camera that good. But it is so good... And it's the most comfy camera to hold that's not a Panasonic g9. 

I mostly use the pen epl-7, which is much cooler and still has 16 MP which is big enough to print... Well, ginormous - billboards easily. Af is a bit slow but I don't mind.

I also have an ancient Sony dslr with a ccd sensor. This is where image quality often wasn't good enough. Still managed these, using minolta a mount lenses from the 1980s.



If fujifilm could somehow lower prices on used kit I'd trade all in for a xpro 3, 18mm lens, 27mm lens and 90mm lens. But I'd miss the epl7 and 12-40mm zoom, and the tiny Panasonic 20mm...

I suppose the point is, cameras are cool and you don't need to justify ownership. Old dslrs are cool. I reckon they'll go up in value at some point. Modern mirror less cameras are cool and push the boundaries of what photography is. It's all good! 

hywelg

I'm not a photographer but I wish I had kept my Canon A1 (film) and 50mm f1.4. I doubt I would use it much but it was so nicely made. Then I still own my dad's old Bolex 8mm 3 lens cine camera (silent). So beautifully made that I just cannot part with it even though it will never get used again. I have inherited my dad's predilection for buying quality gear when one has the money to do so.

Devil#20

Tannin said:

I have (newest to oldest, all SLRs unless mentioned)

* Canon 5DS
* Canon 5DS R
* Canon G9X II (pocket camera)
* Canon 5D IV
* Canon 7D II
* Canon 5D II #2
* Canon 1D IV



But to address the OP's point more directly (that's you @Devil#20) - with old cameras do you sell or keep?  I do a bit of both. Of the cameras listed above, I could sensibly sell the 5D II, but I'd be lucky to get a couple of hundred dollars for it, say 10% of the $2000-odd it cost me. Why bother?

 

Having read yours and Raymond's posts I realise it's not so weird having so many cameras. I think your philosophy regarding why bother selling them for peanuts when they cost thousands originally is a fair point. Some are just really nicely engineered and nice to use even if they have been superceded by a menu driven camera (which is a backward step). Anyway, since my OP I have given away 3 of them (or at least they have said they want them) and decided to keep just the following DSLR's. D7100, D7200, D750. I do have my mirrorless D7 II but only the one Z lens thus far but and FTZ adaptor and a shed load of top notch full frame Nikon lenses. The DSLR's are more than capable and some of the best DSLR's Nikon made so happy to keep them. The D7100 will be my take everywhere 'car' camera. I'll keep the Olympus OM1 (which my Dad bought me) and the Canon A1 film cameras though but I'll never use them again I don't think). 4 digital cameras is enough without being too many. 

There's another thing. Your best camera is the least useful in some ways. I don't like taking it away on holiday is case it goes AWOL (been there) and so I always take next best one. In my case that would be the D7200. The Z7 is the best camera but the D750 has way more available lenses without needing and adaptor. Hence the D7200 is the one I would take away with me unless I felt the camera would be safe.