What do folks think about the relative order of investing in classes/conferences/trips vs. equipment? For instance, consider Arthur's upcoming IPT Florida trip in February. It's $2899 for 6 days, and sounds like a lot of fun. However, after accounting for airfare, hotel, car rentals, meals etc. (not to mention a week's worth of vacation time) we're talking about enough money for a 400mm f/4 DO lens or a 1D Mark IV. An international trip would more than cover an 800mm f/5.6 lens. Closer to home I could take one of several Photoshop classes I've been looking at, or buy the 300mm f/4 lens I want for flying insects this summer.
These are all useful things, and I'm lucky enough that I can probably afford them over the next five or so years, but not all at once. The question is which to go for first. I.e. do I invest in equipment before technique or vice versa?
Renting big lenses/cameras just to take classes feels like a waste of money compared to buying them. On the other hand, putting off lens/camera purchases for a year or two means there may well be better options for less money (at least for the bodies; new lenses seem to be better for more money).
My gut says go with the equipment first. What I shoot with now (50D, 400mm f/5.6) doesn't meet what Artie et al implicitly think of as the minimum requirements for most work. And I do see that when I rent bigger lenses, I get better results so I'm not technique limited, whereas there are definitely shots I can't get because I just don't have the reach/speed/IS/megapixels. Also, free time is a concern (i.e. I'm not retired) and new equipment is the quickest way to upgrade my photos. Of course, I do have a lot left to learn, and I'm certain that an IPT or equivalent would teach me much; but would it be so much that it's worth putting off a big lens or a 1D body for a year?