>>4184707If your street photo is too good, it isn't a street photo, because its distinguishing characteristics are so far beyond its location that it is something else. If you took a really good portrait in a forest it would always be called a portrait, not forest photography.
>I doubt street photographers and photo journalists do alot of chimping.Journalists? Maybe, some chimp, some hope, but their gear is largely purchased by others and support plans come before specs and looks. I don't consider them typical gearfags.
Now, those who consider street photography a solid genre rather than an arbitrary location based label, which is therefore only significant for photos which have nothing to describe them but the location, can claim some of the most insufferable gearfags on earth as their own. Their gearfagging has spread so far and wide that next to the professional cameras used to print life sized portraits, get tack sharp product shots, and print huge at any aspect ratio, is an endless stream of "street" cameras and other "street" equipment, similarly expensive, marketed exclusively to those hoping to be the next gary wingorand, often from high end brands like leica, or as more expensive incarnations of cheaper cameras. Their gearfagging is so incessant that street photographers have been able to inflate the prices of everything from rusty film boxes to older digital PnS well beyond what they cost new. You wonder why they pursue specific cameras when so many cameras do the exact same thing... and shouldn't you go for one that is easy to replace if it breaks?
When someone says they are a street photographer, I instantly assume they are some breed of gearfag, because if their photography is so barren that it can only be described by the location typically chosen they will inevitably be preoccupied with something outside of the photograph in order to preventi themselves from getting as bored with their photography as everyone else is.
Verification not required.
