History records that some of the great photographers had a fairly minimalist approach to gear, operating with a single camera and only a handful of lenses. Your classic Leica M + 35mm + 50mm and so forth. History also tends to look kindly on this approach, lauding the photographer's as masters of the tools they chose. On the other hand, history looks not as kindly on the photographer who utilise a large variety of gear. They are often classed as gear freaks who spend their lives chasing better equipment rather then better technique. While there may be some truth to the assumptions above, I tend to take a more balanced view that either approach has it's merits and doesn't define the skill of the photographer. Approach number one, that of the "purist". Does it free you or actually limit you. To paraphrase somewhat, "does every image look like a nail when all you are carrying is a hammer?" Approach number two, the "gear freak". Rather than someone who looks for equipment to replace talent, are they merely choosing the right tool for the right job, or showing that the equipment they use is immaterial to the image produced, i.e. "give me any camera and I'll use it to make an image." I guess that the scenario isn't only black and white, and that most would fit somewhere between the two extremes. Judging by the number of lenses I have tried on my m4/3 cams, I think it is safe to say that I lean very much to the side of approach number two :smile:.