There is a lot of advice on what gear you should buy in 2022. But, if you look beyond the marketing of companies, is there gear that you probably don’t need in 2022? The answer is, yes, there is a lot of gear you don’t need. Here are my top picks on what you should not get.
Before you read this list in full, be aware and acknowledge the fact that it is simply my recommendation to the vast majority of photographers. There are times when a photographer will need all of these bits of gear, but let’s face it, most of us don’t.
Filters
The stupidest purchase you can make is a UV filter. It does sound very harsh, and I will admit to making this mistake myself. While there is a case for protecting your front element with one of these, I don’t think it adds anything. What a filter does is simply introduce yet another layer of glass and yet another possibility for decreasing your image quality. Lenses are already complex enough, and everything but the best optical quality will result in sub-par images. By adding a filter, you simply negate all the engineering of your lens. Cheap filters can also cause unwanted lens flare among other nasty artifacts. 
For the people who put a UV filter to protect lenses, I would like to say that a lens hood does a much better job and protection. I always have a lens hood on in case I bang my lens against something.
UV filters used to be helpful in the days of film when the UV light would decrease image quality. The same can be said about other filters, such as graduated filters.
Again, in the days of film, you did not have the luxury of being able to edit images to precise detail and “recover” detail from a vastly under/overexposed image. Nowadays you can use Lightroom or Capture One for this purpose. There are certain filters such as variable ND that are helpful in some applications, but those also need to be tip-top quality to ensure the best possible image quality at the end.
Rig/Cage Case
A rig case is useless unless you do video. I would struggle to find a useful application for one in photography. Perhaps if you need to mount several things at once, such as a flash trigger, Speedlite, and something else. But otherwise, there is no need to spend your money on metal bits and pieces that make your camera look “more pro.” Besides adding extra weight, it won’t do anything. Save the money, and invest in something that will help you take better pictures. 
Light Meter
I would like to make the case that you don’t need a light meter in the modern photographic environment. Measuring light is as easy as taking a digital frame and seeing what things look like. If you want to get extremely precise, you can even go as far as to measure the color levels of individual pixels in Capture One or any other software of your choice. But it does not make sense to own a light meter these days. Even if you shoot film, there is still a strong possibility that you own a digital camera. Even in that case you can still take a test frame on digital, a so-called Polaroid, if you will, cross-check, and then proceed with shooting on film. I’ve done this a lot of times, and it works like a charm. Believe me, you lose a lot more by using a light meter. First of all, it means having a slower workflow since you have to fire the flashes, walk to the set, and calculate the flash power afterward. It takes away the speed and intuition of being able to set light by eye, not by a predefined rule of having the right exposure. There have been many times where I overexposed or underexposed an image and got the desired result that the client, as well as myself, was happy with. If everyone would expose only to what the light meter told, most of the pictures would look the same. An analogy would be if everyone cooked a dish with the same ingredients or painted by numbers. Using a light meter will not only make you slower but also restrict your creativity. The amount of light in the picture is your decision, not the light meter's. 
Lensball
A Lensball will be a purchase you shall regret. Not only is it an overpriced glass ball, but it is also by far the stupidest photography accessory to exist. What a Lensball does is create one single look that all photographers know. There is arguably nothing creative about a Lensball, that is, if a Lensball can even be considered a creative tool. There is not much more to say about this product than a waste of money on something that screams “lack of creativity” and “amateur hour.” 
Camera Skin
This is the pinnacle of ridiculous purchases. A team of designers has worked to make your camera black, invisible while also making the logo stand out. Moreover, nothing has ever shouted “amateur hour” to me more than having a camera or lens skin. Not only does it not protect your camera, but it also attracts attention to it, which is something you shouldn't want. Unwanted attention to your camera and other expensive gear will make the change of theft a lot higher. If you want a camera skin, consider bashing your precious one around for a few years, covering it in tape, and using it as a tool. I promise you, you will be able to tell that it’s your camera by simply looking at where the scratches are. 
If you’re a professional, you likely own two of the same camera; in that case having a camera skin is even more useless, because you simply need to put a sticker with “1” and “2” on the camera. I can see a filter, light meter, and even a rig case being useful in rare select cases, but there isn’t a situation where a camera skin or a Lensball is beneficial. Save the money, and get some good photography education instead.
Yes, be a step ahead, it shows you are on their team. When this type of work is fine tuned, no one wants to change a good process and upset people above. When doing this type of work, I take a lot of notes and phone photos of various details that I archive with that job so I can duplicate the specific set up even years later no matter if my process has changed for what ever reason.
I used to do a lot of carpet shots when Lees had a a commercial division 20 years ago. They moved that division to another brand when the company filed for chapter11.
100% agree on everything except the skin - but not for what you'd think. The skin keeps the camera a little quieter when Im banging it around while working.
It's redonk that the skin exposes the logo and model. I hate it so much.
I absolutely don't agree with the light meter. Sure you don't need one as we can see the result immediately on our screens but using a light meter is saving me time every time. I also use it outdoors. Mone has the Godox transmitter build in.
It still remains something very handy in the digital world. You can even measure HSS nowadays.
My clients are happy I don't have to make test shots first.
While I don't use a handheld meter very often I find it invaluable when working with strobes. To be able to measure incident light and each light individuality to me is a musty. Yes you can use the camera and keep changing either the exposure or the power of the light but it is much quicker to use the meter especially when using multiple lights. Maybe it's a hangover from being brought up in the film days, but I find it easier!
Absolutely! I completely understand why people would use it, I just think it doesn't make sense anymore.
I love the idea of a protective skin but it feels all gooshy and weird on the camera so I don't use it. (I got it free with the camera.) As for my UV filter, I keep and use it for bad weather situations.
This single post may doom the camera industry.
This single comment may doom the camera industry.
another clickbait article like we love to see here :)
How you measure multiple flashs and why you would choose try and error instead of measure is beyond me :)
This is just a random list of some random stuff
I encourage you to check out my work at https://illyaovchar.com. Not a single one was done using a light meter.
Am I missing something? The title says 6 but only 5 items are listed.
# 6 is the article.
Light meters work as a collective good, for example many off camera flash makers lack the capability to determine the flash output in watt seconds for most of their products, and instead will give a guide number. A reviewer with a light meter can help to compare output in a way that people will have some idea of the effective output.
Sorry I love the Light Meter but you are spot on with the rest
every single item has its use except for the dumb lensball. It might not be for you, but it has its use for others.
Eg. if you shoot cars and there's a possibility that you're close enough to get Peebles thrown around from the wheels of a car, I'd like to see you ditch that protecting filter for the sake of a bit more clarity in the image. hell no. it's a cheap investment to protect your lens and sometimes it can make all the difference!
Hahah I love this article. don't forget the prisms!
Haha!!! Yes, absolutely. That will be #6 that's missing.
Somewhat of a fail. Camera cages are a valuable asset. It has saved my little Sony a6000 a couple of times. Cheap insurance. And a light meter is standard, valuable equipment for any working professional photographer. I use mine a lot.
Clearly this article could have been written with less condescending language. Almost all cameras are becoming more videocentric so cages are becoming more useful. People regularly sell used cameras and we know scratches degrade value. So anything that decrease chances of scratched and dents may have value (filters, cages, camera skins) I still see many good photographers use light meters.
In the old days I contacted Canon and found out replacing the front element of many lenses wasn't much more than the cost of a high end protective filter. Over the years those costs increased and I started using the highest quality filters and was more comfortable cleaning the glass with my shirt. Plus I'm in the Phoenix area and the UV here and in the mountains is excessive. I use my hand meter less but looking at an lcd screen in bight light can be difficult. Hand meters need to be recalibrated for digital cameras.
Do you realize every normal color digital camera already has a fairly strong UV filter, along with an IR cutoff filter, in the optical stack directly in front of the sensor? There is zero benefit in terms of using a UV filter with a digital camera to reduce the influence of UV light on the images captured. None of the UV light entering the camera reaches the sensor even when you don't have a filter on the lens.
You need to re-title this article to the "1 article you will regret reading in 2022"
Thank you for your input!
The author did this so he can get more comments....no doubt about it! And I like reading the comments.
I mostly agree with all of them. I also don't use UV filters most of the time. There are, however, absolutely legitimate reasons to use a UV filter. To protect your lens where a lens hood would be useless. A sandstorm would be a great example.
There are niche use cases for all products, that's why there is a market for them in the first place.
Absolutely correct on the UV filter, Protection? That's what a lens cap is for. Another photo website once did a story on A) what it takes to damage the front lens (a lot) and B. how much damage it takes on a lens before it effects your picture (a lot).
UV filters are useful for some events such as ones where fog machines may be used, as well as locations such as aquariums where for some water shows, the additives to the water will leave a lot of residue on glass.
While front elements can be fairly durable they are also harder to clean than a filter, especially when you want the lens element to be cleaned to factory fresh levels where strong angled light shows no signs of residue on the lens.
Beyond that for journalism, there are certain environments such as riots where residue from things like teargas, or pepper spray which will also contain UV reactive chemicals that are designed to be extremely difficult to remove. On a lens, it can be extremely difficult to remove even from glass, especially since you can't just wash it with soap and water, but you can do that with a filter.
I've shot plenty of shows using fog machines, sometimes standing or kneeling directly next to them at side stage or at the back of the stage. I've never had any difficulty removing the residue they leave using only a couple of drops of lens cleaner on a clean microfiber lens cloth. If only it were as easy to get it out of the ridges on rubber zoom and focus rings!
In fact, the most difficult thing I've ever cleaned is a Hoya HMC filter. Filters also scratch a lot easier than lens elements do. At least than the pre-fluorite coated lens elements.
Perhaps it is Uncle Roger's most often referenced blog entry.
Most of this was advice given with extreme tunnel vision. I don’t use it so you shouldn’t is the basic summary. I can kind of see the point with the lens ball and the argument against cages makes sense. The argument against light meters invalidates itself and the analogy of people cooking food with the same ingredients would be more accurate as people cooking food and guessing at the time and temperature. Sure some people will die of food poisoning but why not guess instead of getting and learning to use the right tools. Camera skins are a waste if you are trying to be pretentious and very helpful if you are trying to protect the investment in expensive camera gear. The better argument against them is that the minute they get in the way of a single control they are hurting more than they help.
I swear everyone that writes an article is an expert, don't use a light meter ? Do you shoot studio photography? It's okay we'll just chimp our way through this lighting set up, the camera will figure it out SMH
When you shoot studio photography, do you use the exact reading from the meter or do you adjust and fine tune the exposure by chimping?
When I did a lot of studio work I would use the meter, fine tune the exposure with Polaroid/Chimping before shooting the transparency film, then I would bracket exposure, and would have film tests run before running all the film. The meter does not know everything.
I have a few meters and use them a few times a year, usually I can guesstimate an exposure very accurately without a meter. But I am old and have been using the same gear forever.
This article is a troll.
Nothing useful plus a few spoonfulls of negativity.
I use a completely manual Fujifilm GW690, for film photography and find my light meter indispensable, especially for night photography.
Everyone is free to have an opinion. That said, knowing a little bit about device reliability and trade-in values I find the take on camera skin to be naive and I could give a hoot on the author’s opinion on what amateur hour looks like to him. Not really seeing the point of the article.
Just wait until you take that skin off and discover the bits of grit that got under it and were ground against the camera's finish every time the camera was handled enough to flex the skin. It's like putting a burlap cloth on a piece of fine furniture to "protect" it when moving across the country only to discover at the other end the vibration of the truck has used the burlap cloth to sand the finish right off.
Haven’t found this to be a problem thus far, even with multiple trips to the beach, a few safaris and a couple of gorilla treks. To each his own.
A LOT of people missed the point of the article and more importantly can not understand that this is an article written from an author and their opinions. It’s not the Bible! This pandemic has made people lose their minds!
I often shoot in inclement weather,and I prefer to clean my B+W filter as opposed to the lens element.