OK, yes, the problem is that some cameras and lenses really are just too expensive if you know that you're not going to use it much:
Things like a Hasselblad SWC, or a Rolleiwide, or a Zeiss Hologon (see Mike Elek's description:
http://elekm.net/pages/cameras/contarex_hologon.htm )
or the Foton cameras, or the Linhof 220:
http://arukucamera.net/Linhof220.htmlAnd so whenever you do see one of these rare beasts, you do sigh...
The trick, then, depending on your disposable income, is to go right to the limit of what you can afford:
I did get a Plaubel Makina, and a Nikon 21mm f/4 (early super-wide), an Angenieux 28-70mm f/2.8 for Canon EOS, all of which I do use but not that often -- but more often than I would the more expensive, above-mentioned items -- ha ha.
And to spend real money on things you really do use every day, like the 28mm f/2.0 Summicron, absolutely no regrets, one of Leica's best lenses, or the modern Leicavit for the M6, or a Brightscreen for the Rolleiflex, or a Widelux. All of these are top-shelf, expensive for what they are, but they have real use for me and I use them on assignment, and off, all the time. Your list of must-need items will be different, of course; don't skimp on those.
Finally, every now and then the addiction can be assuaged with a cheap purchase of something you always scorned or didn't think was that cool. A Nikon EM is a good example -- they go for $40 or $50 -- and back in the day real photographers thought that a Nikon without any manual controls was beneath them, useless. But pick one up and you realize that it's Nikon's smallest and lightest SLR, just about, and handles in your hands with far more free-and-easy-ness than even a FM or F3.
Same with the cheaper more modest lenses, sometimes their very cheapness means that they have cool, Holga-like effects of flaring and desirable softness. The Miranda lenses of the 1960s often have this quality. Or even good ones, a Nikon E series 35mm f/2.5 is much smaller and lighter than its elite 35mm f/1.4 big brother.
I know, with this attitude you just keep buying and buying and buying, you're thinking. But remember, there are natural limits. You really won't need to buy another one once you're set.
Rolleiflex, for example, I have two of them, a 2.8D and a 3.5F. I use one all the time, part of my standard kit. They are almost perfect cameras. I spent lots of money on the Brightscreens, on UV filters, on lens hoods, on fixing them when they've had problems. Both cameras are totally modernized and customized to my needs. Why would I need to buy another, or any other TLR? So these days I can look at any TLR and just smile. I already have the ones most suited to what I shoot -- I can load them blindfolded -- shoot them with one hand. I will only get another one if one gets damaged or worn-out beyond repair.
