In the end, if the thing is hobby, then why on Earth not forget about the latest and greatest equipment, about spending your kids’ inheritance (or your next car!) on some exotica that won’t make you any better a photographer but certainly much the poorer?
Does it make sense to pay through the nose to have the sharpest picture of something dull? The best thing you can do for yourself is to relax and realise that it’s just a game, some fun, an alternative to watching tv. I wouldn’t be at all surprised that you might discover something better in your work simply by cutting yourself free of gadgetry syndrome, learning how best to use what you have. With the realisation might come some ultimate pleasure rather than angst about what you’d really, really need to buy to make you a better snapper.
Rob C
Now the above is a comment, Rob, that needs deconstructing.
You seem to be saying, if one's interest in photography is merely a hobby, then it should be of lower priority than the quality of one's car and/or one's children's inheritance.
I can certainly think of circumstances where one's children's inheritance should be of greater concern than the technical quality of one's cameras. For example, if one's children were disadvantaged, suffering from some incurable malady, whether physical or psychological, one might feel an obligation to leave them as much wealth as possible for their futute security.
Alternatively, if they had got themselves into some serious financial difficulty as a result of unwise investments, one might want to help them out immediately by either lending or giving them the $50,000 that one was contemplating spending on the latest MFDB system.
However, when it comes to one's preferences for the sophistication of material possessions and equipment in general, one should always choose what gives one the most satisfaction for the money.
For example, which would allow for the greater satisfaction?
(1) A new car costing $60,000, but no new camera equipment; or
(2) A new car costing only $30,000 with the other $30,000 being spent on the latestest DSLR, an upgraded lens, the latest edition of Photoshop, a new computer with at least 32 GB of RAM, and perhaps a large-format professional printer.
I, personally, would definitely opt for scenario #2 because I believe I would get greater satisfaction from the significantly improved capabilities of the camera/computer/printer hardware and software combination, than I would from the increased comfort and luxury of a more expensive car.
My reasoning is that a luxury car does not get one to one's destination more quickly or more safely. The choice for me is a no-brainer. However, if I were also to engage in the hobby of car racing, I would have a difficult decision, unless money were no object.
As Alain Briot has pointed out in his numerous essays on this site, the whole of the composition is important. If there's a distracting object in the lower left corner of the composition, then clone it out. I'll add that the whole of the composition also includes such qualities as degrees of sharpness, noise, smoothness of mid-tones etc. If these qualities are not pleasing to the person processing the image, whether that person is hobbyist or professional, the solution may not always be to improve one's technique, but to buy better equipment.
If one gets satisfaction from producing sharp images of birds and wildlife, one needs a good telephoto lens. One would be kidding oneself if one thought that one could get satisfactory results just by improving one's technique, such as quietly sneaking up on the bird whilst wearing a camouflage, and even climbing the tree with phone camera in hand.
