[wombat_trouble]

There definitely is a tendency for hobby photographers to amass gear to the point where it gets in the way of taking photos (and then ditch most of it when they get older and wiser).

That said, yeah - the article is half good advice, half snobbery. There is some merit to learning the technique using a stable toolkit, but you don't need to spend $6,000 on a "status symbol" camera and you certainly don't need to only shoot black-and-white.

[fleddr]

Absolutely gear heads exist. I also agree with the idea that purposeful constraint can be fun. I have a 40 year old manual focus lens myself, just to fool around. Chose your own style and gear, do what you want.

The only thing I object to is to declare a sense of superiority by dunking on somebody with a different approach. Even more so when the "rational" arguments are completely opposite to one's own behavior.

I'm well aware that my response comes across as salty, but the well runs deep. I've been involved in online photo communities since they existed (and also run one myself). This guy ticks all the boxes of a particular stereotype I've come across since the very beginning: a gatekeeper-like imposter artist.

They'll take their "minimalist" camera, go on a walk, and randomly come across a bare tree with a raven sitting on it. They'll take the shot, go home and then try to backdate a deeper meaning. As if there was some grand idea behind it all along. An artistic vision executed. Something cliche like "when winter sets in" or "life has no ups without lows". Next they sign it with "Leo Leica - photography", which suggests a business, but there isn't any.

They'll have "award-winning" on their profile but fail to mention it was the daily random award from freephotocontexts.wordpress.com.

It's all pretense, fakery, copycats.

That's enough salt for today. I can write books full of bullshitting photographers.