leftj Loc: Texas

So, if everybody did what you do there would not be any camera manufacturers left today.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

You answered your own question. "For me, this is all the gear I need."
For me as a wildlife photographer, I need longer lenses. My go to are the 200-600 and 600 f4.

starlifter Loc: Towson, MD

I agree with potica69 100 percent. I finally got my D850 and I have 4 lenses from 15-30 to 150 to 600, 2 speed lights and several tripods and other various filters etc. No GAS attacks or other maladies. If I had the $15,000 or so laying around to make the change to go mirrorless I might consider it. The cost might a consideration to make that change but I just don't feel the need.

Canisdirus

I'll be having fried eggs and muffins for breakfast...

insman1132 Loc: Southwest Florida

Only you knows what is best for you. Well done.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Toasted sour dough, butter, and super sweet Honey Crisp apple pieces. Oh too, coffee, black.

BebuLamar

But his camera will eventually breaks sometime in the future where he would have to buy another equivalent.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Since next to no one within the UHH community ever owns pro-grade equipment to the actual failure point of the equipment, no on really ever knows whether the people or the equipment lasts longer.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Cellphones are for snappers and snaps.
Cameras are for Photographers and Photography.
Both have their place, but let's not confuse the issue - there are those who have become cellphone snappers having failed in photography. I hope that, with their phones, they have reached their potential, obtaining self satisfaction at a lower level of achievement. Like "golfers" playing crazy golf.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I went digital in 1999 with a P&S. Had some fun with it and took a lot more photos than I used to when I used film. 1.2 Mbytes was enough that if I shot a photo of a piece of paper with writing on it, I could read the writing as long as it was larger than 10 point.

A friend had a D70 and I thought it was pretty cool and had a much faster response than the P&S. By that time the D200 was out so I got one. Then I collected an array of lenses for it.

The D200 wasn't all that great in low light so I moved up to a D3. It disappeared from my truck one day so I took the insurance and bought a D4. Then since I was working I got GAS and got a D5. Then a D800.

I was shooting events for PR for volunteer organizations so it was useful having multiple bodies. I can't say it improved my photos other than reducing noisy low-light shots. It did nothing for my composition or color sense.

Having retired, I am now in a position where I don't need to update my cameras or lenses. Mirrorless doesn't appeal to me because what I have works for me. My photos are now 90% family shots. Mirror noise is something my family is used to. And the technical details of the cameras I have are sufficient for me to do what I want to do.

BebuLamar

Well in my case the chances are the equipment would last longer normally. If they don't I would consider that I bought the few that dies early.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

mrjcall Loc: Woodfin, NC

I tend to agree that constant new gear does not constantly make you a better photographer. What would make your images better is upgraded post processing software. Are you keeping on top of the latest available? Highly recommend you look at ON1 Photo Raw Max for a do it all software that is far ahead of most of its competitors (yes, including Adobe LR).

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

My photo club had a speaker once who was a pro. He came to talk about something or other that had nothing to do with the amount of gear a pro has. But he had laid out a couple of tables full of dozens of lenses and accessories on display. Perhaps it was his way of convincing us that he was a great photographer.