>>4305619gearfaggotry isn't something you can buy and sell, gearfaggotry isn't a line drawn in dollars, and gearfaggotry isn't a status you earn because you have a nicer camera than someone else. you might be financially irresponsible, rich, a scrooge, or addicted to retail therapy, but you're not over the line yet. you are not yet gearfag just because you have gear. you are definitely a fag, but not yet a gearfag.
it's a way of life, it's a way of looking at photography, from the results to the process - all through the lens of gear. making excuses based on gear. passing judgement based on gear. it doesn't stop at the camera, it doesn't stop at film vs digital, ccd vs cmos, or full frame vs mft. gearfaggotry runs deep. deeper than "i will finally take those photos once I get my leica". the tripod, the head, the flash, the modifiers, the reflectors, the scrims, the fucking STANDS, the screen, the printer, the paper, the frame, the glass. the gearfag is exacting. the gearfag is never satisfied. the gearfag has spent a lot of time thinking about all of these, arguing about the best - the gearfag sees all of these things, all this gear, as so inexorably intertwined with photography that photography is mostly just about what you used to make the photo. and it need not be expensive, the gearfag may very well decide that expensive things make photography worse. it's just about the gear. when the gearfag is presented with a photo they want a closer look at the exif before they even look at the fucking picture so they can make sure they're allowed to like it. and if you used flash, they will ask you which flash you used. so they can say "oh, doesn't the color temperature vary up to 400k? you shot on that trash? no wonder your colors are FUCKED".
that is what it means to be gearfag.
just by asking what to buy so you can not be a gearfag, as if a purchase can make you more authentic photographer, you put a toe over the gearfag line. retract it. Now!
