I just wanted to congratulate you on a great article. As I read it from top to bottom I found myself nodding and saying aha, yep, couldn't agree more, etc etc. As you recall, I probably epitomize the take it all guy when I can but actually I also 100% agree with the sentiment that less gear, and in particular when traveling, frees you up to be more creative. I know, I know, that probably sounds ironic from me but it is true. If I fly I generally travel these days with just my Alpa and a couple of lenses and/or a fixed lens camera (RX1 or X100s).
As I’ve aged, I’ve learned a couple of basic truths about photography. One is that when it comes to gear, less can be more; less forces me to create images with what I have with me, and that spurs my personal creativity.
Another is that most lenses are better than most images I take with them. In other words, what counts most is image content, not line-pairs per millimeter or test score points on somebody’s gear performance scale.
Agreed - unless it's a pebble without artistic merit I'd actually probably say that ALL lenses are good enough or better than most of the images we take with them most of the time.
I'd add also that it's important to shoot what you see at the time that you see it too. Your image #3 at the Salton Sea yacht club pool is a case in point because you can't shoot that image again. Aside from one off boarder opportunity, that location is now gone forever and restored as a visitor center and lost almost every ounce of it's original character. Likewise almost everything around that place including the old hotel and docks etc etc. This happens all the time. Likewise, scenes can be gone literally seconds/minutes later with the weather and certainly overnight for more static subjects - I think that most of us, certainly I can personally, can attest to missing plenty of those opportunities.My final point is this: it isn’t so important what you shoot with, as it is to how you shoot with what you have.