What's limiting your photography?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by roman_thorn|1, Dec 12, 2009.

  1. Hi! Just a simple question. Lately I have been ranting about nikons limited range of modern lenses, (primes). I love my D300 but I really need a fast wide prime for it, hmm a 24 1.4 comes to mind. Unfortunately, nikon has no such lens, I can't figure out why? I have considered picking up the 24 2.8 AF D but 2.8 is hardly fast. At 2.8 I would still be forced to use 3200 iso to get atleast 1/160. I also have considered the 35 1.8 but it's just not wide enough, although this may be the way to go until nikon comes out with that 24mm. I could switch to canon, and believe me I have been fighting off the urge. So, is anyone else in this situation? Is nikons dated line up limiting your photography, if not...what is?
     
  2. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Is nikons dated line up limiting your photography, if not...what is?​
    There is one primary factor that is limiting my photography, and that is the person behind the camera.
     
  3. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    The number of hours in a day, days in a week, weeks in a month, months in a year, and years of my life are limiting my photography.
     
  4. Shun sums it up very nicely.
     
  5. Hi! Just a simple answer :)
    Lenses don't limit my photography, vision does. I cannot yet get all of my prints to look as I imagined they would when I made the exposure. Photographers whose cameras I am not fit to load made thousands of enduring images in the days when f3.5 was considered super-fast. And when you may have had one lens at your disposal. Shakespeare wrote almost no poetry outside the sonnet form--was he 'limited'? I rather think not.
    Since you have no portfolio, here or elsewhere, so far as I know, I cannot be certain, but would still posit the following: You are not limited in your work by lenses, but by the (entirely mistaken) belief that more fancy gear will make you a better photographer. You appear to have made 140-odd postings on this site, ALL of which relate to equipment in one way or another. This is perhaps a way to improve basic craft skills, but it will have little effect on anything besides technical details. Now if you are strictly an indoor, no-flash photographer, lens speed is useful but hardly necessary.
    I suggest you post some images for critique. Yes, you will get the inevitable 3/3s, but you will also IME get some useful advice that will go beyond whether or not you have a 'good copy' of a given lens.
     
  6. Here, too. Not equipment, but lack of time and not as much skill and inspiration as I'd like. Although new equipment (including some old Nikon AI lenses I'm using with a G1) are adding some fun! Since Nikon's trend seems to be toward getting out increasingly noise-free high ISO cameras, it seems unlikely that the demand for fast wide angles will be large enough to get them to create one for what is probably a diminishing market.
     
  7. I am not limited by gear. A 35mm and a couple of good lenses, tripod and flash covers it most of the time. I would say that my limitations are mostly because of free time. I have lots of ideas but little time to put them into place.
     
  8. EF24 * 1.6 = 38.4mm, Nikkor 28 * 1.5 = 42mm, the FOV difference is less then 10%.
    There are two 28/1.4 AFD Nikkor in stock at KEH. Don't let a little cash limit your photograhy :)
     
  9. Time, money, talent - limits everything.
     
  10. Try the Sigma 30/1.4 HSM. Close to 28mm, and also closer to a rational amount of $ for a fast, quiet AF-S (HSM) lens that is beautiful wide open, deadly sharp when stopped down even a touch, and reders OoF elements in a lovely way. No, it's not a 24mm. But those 6mm aren't nearly as dramatic as the difference between, say, 16mm and 24mm, or 10mm and 16mm on a DX body.

    Of course, my photography wasn't terribly limited by the lack of that lens before I got it. Though I use it for things I couldn't do well before hand. The actual quality of what I do is far more limited by the fact that I never have enough time to do it as well as I'd like.
     
  11. Switch to canon
     
  12. I was very tempted by a Canon 24/1.4 and a 1d mark3. The pairing had issues with getting correct focus more than 75% of the time. I still keep that combo in the back of my mind though. It is a really nice set up in my eyes. Wider than my 30mm sigma on my d2x by quite a bit considering both the focal length of the lens and the lower crop factor of the Canon camera.
     
  13. Hi Les!
    Equipement or lack of it can limit photography. We also need to live in the present. The bar has been raised and the standards are much higher these day's. Photography had more limitations 50 years ago and people worked within those limitations. I beg for you to find me an example of a fast moving subject in dim light from that time, that is also captured well. I consider myself a very competent photographer Les. I also don't require praise for my work or any kind of reassurance so I don't post much. Yes time and talent are alway's going to be limiters, however these are things I continue to work on and in some way have control over, equipment on the other hand...? Also, if equipement has no bearing on your work, you must be quite happy with you old FM and 50 Ai?
     
  14. Health limits my photography.
    Nikon more than provides all the tools necessary for most photographers. Sounds like you need a speciality lens, Roman. You might consider an after market product like this.
     
  15. Limited time. Do I want to take a day off to go on a vacation or a photo trip? No, vacation and photo trip don't go together for me. But I'm not worried much--can't have everything. So what if I don't have any unique pictures and all I got is golden gate bridge (san francisco was my first and only photo trip)?
     
  16. True, Nikon doesn't have an extensive fast wide angle range at the moment, and none for DX. If you need the speed to stop movement in low light, get an FX camera and use the 24-70/2.8. This is very effective. If you really, really need f/1.4 or f/2, you can then get manual focus 28/2 from Zeiss or Nikon Ai-S, the 35/1.4 Ai-S. If you need it to be autofocus, and wish not to pay $5000 or something for it on E-bay (the 28/1.4) get a Canon 5D Mk II or Leica M9 with their fast wide angle primes.. Of course, with their cameras you're likely to lose quite a bit in high ISO performance, negating the advantage in lens speed. Tough luck.
    I moaned for fast wide angle primes with AF-S for a long time when I was a DX user, and gradually found that the D3 with the 24-70/2.8 is adequate almost always, and when it is not I use the 28/2 Ai-S and 35/2 ZF to go the extra mile. I will still buy any AF-S Nikon wide angle prime between f/2 and f/1.4 that they make as soon as they come out but I've stopped moaning about its absence. I think Nikon takes their time but they'll eventually do what is needed. Early reviews suggest 70-200/2.8 Mk II for example seems to solve its predecessors' problems in terms of FX coverage and flare/ghosting. I am sure the wide angle primes are on the line somewhere.
    I would in your shoes just get a D3s or D700 and acquire the 24-70/2.8 along with a couple of manual focus wide angle primes, f/1.4 or f/2. Works well until Nikon finishes their 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 AF-S designs and lets them out the door. If you need fast wide angles, DX is the wrong type of camera platform to use. Even when Nikon comes out with a new 24/1.4, it's unlikely to be very sharp wide open on DX. On 12MP FX things are different because of the larger pixel spacing (and correspondingly lower spatial frequencies sampled) and this kind of lenses work better on it. Plus you might find you don't actually need faster than f/2.8 that often because of the high SNR of these cameras.
    In answer to the literal question you posted, like others the time I can spend on my photography is by far the most limiting aspect. Gear certainly not; I have way better equipment than is needed to do what I really need to do.
     
  17. Time mainly, is the most limiting factor for me. I just don't make enough time to get out and photograph as I would like to. I feel I have the gear and lenses I need to make good photos, I just don't go out enough and make it happen!
     
  18. Time, is my 1-st limiting factor !. Even when I "go out" to take some pictures for my own, I'm in the hurry ! Talent may be the other one, but is my hobby and my profession and is what I do best.
     
  19. I do believe the lack of certain lenses can limit your photography. For example, I shoot local college football games at night and the lack of a fast Nikon telephoto zoom is a real problem. However, put a Sigma 120-300 F2.8 on a D700, and poof, problem solved. Wind the ISO up to 24,600 on the D700 and F2.8 on the Sigma and enjoy, even with the worse stadium lighting.
     
  20. Time does.
     
  21. pretty good summation above on time and talent!
     
    • Time
      - To take images
      - To improve my technique
      - To come up with new ideas
    • Money
      - To get myself an FX sensor camera
      - ..for more convenient use of wide angle lenses
      - ..with a better viewfinder to use my old MF lenses
    Yeah.. That's about it.
    My old lenses are fine.
     
  22. While I totally agree that the photographer and the time dedicated to taking photographs is what kills creativity, those that keep pushing the myth "no matter what camera you have" are partially mistaken. I challenge all those experienced photographers including Ansell Adams (God rest him is peace) to pick up my P.A.S 2004 Panasonic Lumix and do what I do with my Canon 40D having the 1.8 50mm lens.
     
  23. Strictly lack of time and money enough to let me drive around the US, and afford slide film and pancakes.
    00VEpP-200087584.jpg
     
  24. My gear is much better than I am. All those "old" primes do deliver on the D300, even though I would be very happy to have something like a 16mm DX prime.
    But it still would make my pictures as bad as they are today.
    However, something else in your post triggered something of an aha erlebnis, since it came up in other threads too recently. How much low-light performance do we really want/need/expect?
    If I have my 24 f/2.8 wide open and still need ISO3200 to come up with 1/30th shutter to make the picture... then there is simply not a lot of light, very likely not enough. Odds are the picture will look crap even when I could make it (lack of colour, contrast etc.). And a f/1.4 lens would not miracle-cure that. It is just too dark. So either flash, or forget the picture. Aren't we all (me included) sometimes just expecting too much low light performance? If these would have been film cameras instead of digital, we would have given up already, not?
    (note: nothing personal against anyone of course! Just wondering...)
     
  25. The novice always blames the equipment.
    Apart from that, I am limited by my laziness, that prevents me from getting my fat butt out in the morning at some nice locations
     
  26. A nice lottery win.
     
  27. sbp

    sbp

    There's a photo website, the name of which escapes me - but the tag line is "gear is good, vision is better". If you really think the lack of fast primes from Nikon is the limiting factor in the quality of your photos, Canon has primes at f/1.2, 1.4, 1.8 and 2.0. I use a couple of them on a 1Ds3, but my shots are still crap if i don't pay attention....
     
  28. Me, Myself & I.
     
  29. I'm not a pixel peeper or a gearhead, but there are technicalities that I feel are limiting my ability to take pictures:
    Middle range lenses - with Nikon, you only have the choice between a shipload of f/5.6 zooms or expensive and heavy f/2.8 zooms, with nothing in between. How about a 18-85/4 DX VR? Or 28-85/4 VR? Same with tele zooms: I had to buy a Sigma 50-150/2.8 to get a decent, non-expensive, not ridiculously heavy decent fast tele zoom. And I love it. Is Nikon sleeping?
    Small fast lenses for night street photography - other than the 35/1.8 DX which I'm not very fond of, there's almost nothing in the current lineup. Fast primes? Again, hello Nikon? Not everyone wants to lug a D3 with 14-24-70/2.8 to take pictures at low light.
    Other than that, my biggest limit are the people - I've been threatened too many times just for pointing a camera at the general direction of someone.
     
  30. I find it disturbing to hear how many people are not happy with their photography from a creative standpoint. I'm quite happy with what I can accomplish when I put a little bitt of thought into it. I think if I felt so poorly about my work, I would find something else to do. Fortunately for me that's not a problem. I'm lucky in that, in this life I have found a passion in other things. Cycling, racing, fitness, my dogs, the great out doors, my wife and my good friends.
     
  31. Nerve(for street photography), a mild case of GAS, and the biggest of all(and the previous two are encompassed within this one final reason) - Me
     
  32. sbp

    sbp

    "I find it disturbing to hear how many people are not happy with their photography from a creative standpoint."​
    Errr, maybe all these people are not unhappy with their photography. Maybe they accept the fact that 100% keepers is not a realistic goal. Or maybe they are humble enough to admit that with the quality of gear from virtually any major manufacturer, the person behind the lens is often the limiting factor.
     
  33. mostly time limits my photography...once I'm out there, getting in the zone happens within 1/2 hour or so.
    as for you...Sigma makes a 24mm f/1.8 EX which some complain about edge sharpness wide open. I own their 20mm f/1.8 which some complain about the same thing, but I find it quite exceptable.
     
  34. What's limiting my photography?
    In a nutshell - Personal commitments - home, family, job. Can't get away. I like to do backcountry and ethnographic photography. And if I do get away, no one in the group has patience with me. Equipment limiting? No way - still using D80, an Olympus E420 and my Nikon film cameras with lots of older lenses.
     
  35. "If I have my 24 f/2.8 wide open and still need ISO3200 to come up with 1/30th shutter to make the picture... then there is simply not a lot of light, very likely not enough. Odds are the picture will look crap even when I could make it (lack of colour, contrast etc.). And a f/1.4 lens would not miracle-cure that. It is just too dark. So either flash, or forget the picture."​
    I'm sure that other people have better examples, but here's one I had at hand. The picture below is at 28mm, f/2, 1/8 sec, ISO 1600. That's an exposure that's two (2) stops more generous than the example above of what not-a-lot-of-light looks like. Flash would have completely killed the picture. I didn't feel limited by not having an f/1.4 lens, but I was happy to have f/2.
    "If these would have been film cameras instead of digital, we would have given up already, not?"​
    If I had been using film, with Fuji Pro800 (or whatever NPZ is called now) or Portra 800, I very likely would have tried the same shot at 1/4 or 1/8, hoping for enough overexposure to be able to have some flexibility in color balance. It wouldn't have been as clean as the digital capture, but I think it still could have captured the mood and been as worthy of presentation (or as unworthy -- either way, the picture wouldn't fail because of the film).
    00VErU-200105584.jpg
     
  36. I have not found many limiting factors in hardware and software. I have found the greatest limitation is in the wetware.
     
  37. What's limiting my photography? Right now, the acquistion of a Nikon D700. I need superior
    available light performance and a fast action type of camera.

    Steve, great photo! Most bears aren't that polite.
     
  38. If you need it to be autofocus, and wish not to pay $5000 or something for it on E-bay (the 28/1.4) get a Canon 5D Mk II or Leica M9 with their fast wide angle primes.. Of course, with their cameras you're likely to lose quite a bit in high ISO performance, negating the advantage in lens speed. Tough luck.
    Saw this and had to comment: the idea that the Nikon 12 MP FF sensors are superior to the 5D mkII sensor at high ISO is a myth, the result of pixel level S/N over analysis. Shoot them both and print big. The 5D mkII is as clean but with more detail. The Nikon 12 MP FF bodies are excellent at high ISO, no doubt, but right now the 5D mkII is the best high ISO machine. Nothing can match its detail retention at those ISOs. (Rumor has it that the 1D mkIV is even better, but I've never held one so I don't know.)
    The Leica doesn't fare as well at high ISO from what I've seen, but since I've never personally handled one I can only make an educated guess at it's relative performance.
     
  39. If I have my 24 f/2.8 wide open and still need ISO3200 to come up with 1/30th shutter to make the picture... then there is simply not a lot of light, very likely not enough. Odds are the picture will look crap even when I could make it (lack of colour, contrast etc.). And a f/1.4 lens would not miracle-cure that. It is just too dark. So either flash, or forget the picture.
    Light level and quality are not firmly coupled to each other. It's possible to have very high quality, but very low light or very poor quality, but extremely bright light. When you have poor available light which looks bad on the face of your foreground subject, it is typically due to sharp shadows rather than the fact that there isn't much light. High ISO and fast glass solve the problem of low light levels, and fill flash can be used to reduce the depth of shadows. To get a balanced result between foreground and background, without using a lot of lighting gear, you need to let in almost as much available light as you would when shooting without flash. Maybe go to ISO 1600, flash the foreground, and open up to f/1.4 to get light to the background. If you don't let in available light the result from flash only will indeed typically look like crap especially if you have dark walls and ceilings and completely different from what is seen by the naked eye by people in the event. I think the 1950's direct flash with speed graphic look is kind of cool as a historical artifact but never would I give to people images like that today.
     
  40. +1 to what Shun said first. And for myself, I'd add talent, knowledge, time, ambition...
     
  41. The awful British weather and lack of good locations within reasonable travelling distance.
     
  42. If I was in an area where I could bounce flash it would be okay. Maybe I should have clarified my need for a fast wide Angle prime. Dogs are a passion of mine. Have you tried shooting erratically moving K9's in a dim forest. For me to accomplish such a task I usually depend on my 85 1.8 and auto ISO 1/200s @ f2 pushes iso's up to 3200. Applying noiswear turns out descent results. The need for a wide fast prime is to change perspective, get closer, make things look more dramatic. I have given up on flash in these circumstances. Even a bitt of direct fill causes ugly shadowing in the bush.
     
  43. Re: What's limiting your photography?​
    Time
     
  44. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Alin Daju wrote:
    While I totally agree that the photographer and the time dedicated to taking photographs is what kills creativity, those that keep pushing the myth "no matter what camera you have" are partially mistaken. I challenge all those experienced photographers including Ansell Adams (God rest him is peace) to pick up my P.A.S 2004 Panasonic Lumix and do what I do with my Canon 40D having the 1.8 50mm lens.​
    Alin, I am afraid that you are changing the topic here. The OP's point is that Nikon lacking some 24mm/f1.4 is limiting his photography.
    Are there some "missing" lenses in Nikon's line up? Absolutely. There are also some missing lenses in Canon's line up; probably more in Sony's line up .... But given how extensive Canon and Nikon's systems are today, I find it hard to believe that 1 or 2 additional lenses would have made all that much of a difference.
    Personally, I have a Nikon D700, a D300, not exactly the latest and greatest but recent enough and quite good. On the wide end I have a 10.5mm fisheye; on the long end I have a 500mm/f4 AF-S (no VR) from over a decade ago and a 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR .... All in all, I have more equipment than I can possibly carry around in just about any photo situations I am interested in.
    Therefore, the remaining #1 factor that limits my photography is my time, my money, and most importantly my creativity. Somehow, that is a fact a lot of us have difficulty to admit; instead, people keep on searching for new equipment to improve their photography while the real problem is behind the camera.
    Incidentally, the cameras Ansel Adams used were very primitive ones, especially in today's standards. But Adams was mainly a landscape photographer, not exactly a sports or wildlife specialist.
     
  45. stp

    stp

    I have all the equipment I need (despite wanting more), and I have all the time in the world now that I'm retired. But with retirement comes a reduced income, and it's the lack of money for gas and travel that limits me the most. I'm trying to choose between living in a house and living in a camper (which I did for three months this summer).
     
  46. Almost an easy answer ..... Skill and lack of time left to gain that skill. At 65 living in a small county in Kentucky more than a couple of hours away from a major city there just isn't any outlet for learning except what you do yourself.
    Not the best way to hone your skills but hey, what can you do.
    Equipment is more than I can use at this time, I have a great outfit .... just wish I had a great mentor.
    This is why, especially on Wednesdays that Photo.net is so special to me.
    phil b
    benton, ky
     
  47. Roman - the manner in which you phrased your question invited all sorts of "it's the photographer, not the equipment" type responses. I happen to lean heavily towards the "it's the photographer" philosophy myself. Never the less, sometimes you just need specific equipment to achieve specific results.
    The lack of modern, fast, WA primes is one of the glaring problems in the Nikon line up. It doesn't affect a lot of people, but it's an issue for some.
    Canon simply has the advantage in T/S lenses, WA primes, >1:1 macro, and affordable professional lenses (their f/4L series). They also have more IS and USM lenses. There's nothing in the Nikon lineup that makes me envious except the 14-24, and it's a good bet Canon will release their own this coming year. That's not a knock against Nikon. But Canon has simply the best overall lens line in the industry.
    Having said all of that: the focal length you appear to need in 35mm terms is 35mm. (You're shooting a D300 and want a 24mm, which after crop has the FoV of a 36mm.) It would probably make more sense to add a Nikon FF body and a 35 f/1.8 to your system than to switch to Canon, unless there are other things you want which are only in the Canon system. Another option would be to simply add a Canon setup to your system. Perhaps a used 40D and that 24 f/1.4L?
     
  48. The need for a wide fast prime is to change perspective, get closer, make things look more dramatic.​
    Now that you've explained more about what you want, look at doing what Ilkka suggested. Try a D700 and a 35mm f/2 (available in autofocus). If you can stand manual focus for your applications, you can also try the 35mm f/1.4, 28mm f/2, and 24mm f/2.
     
  49. sbp

    sbp

    The gear vs. shooter debate will never end. However, if you are photographing dogs, you might check out this site, and ask the photographer what he uses for glass.
    http://www.photo.net/photos/UplandLife
    These are by far the best canine photos I have seen. "Portraits" with real character, and amazing action shots.
     
  50. I did not read the entire thread because it is pointless. Nothing limits me in my photography. Yes I am perfectly happy with an FM and a 50 mm prime. If using an equipment limitation as an excuse that is limiting your photography you must be very young or very inexperience. I will dare go one step further to expand on Shun's answer. The limit is not the person behind the camera the limit is the 6" between the person's ears.
    Please don't bother answering me because I do not want to read any more excuses.
    On the practical side simply going to the D700 would have solved your problem.
     
  51. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    To add to John Morris' point. If Roman wants great high ISO results with wide angle, it is a good idea to move to the FX format. The D700 will give you better ISO 3200 results, and if you can wait a while, hopefully Nikon will put the D3S' technology onto a D700-type body, and you'll get another stop of high ISO without spending $5K on a D3S.
    FX will also improve your selection among wide-angle lenses.
    Personally, I am not too crazy about f1.4 lenses, especially for action type work. I have Nikon's 35mm/f1.4 AI-S and have tested the 50mm/f1.4 AF-S. Those lenses are not at their best at f1.4 and since the depth of field is so shallow, it is very easy to become out of focus. IMO, using some lens at f1.4 (or even f2) is unlikely going to give you a lot of good images of some fast-moving dogs under dim light.
     
  52. The only thing that limits you is the belief that something limits you.
     
  53. Ouch! I knew it would go here. Why must people find offence when none was implied and then resort to poor commentary. I'm sorry but an FM and a 50 would not help in anyway to accomplish my task. Like I said, I sure would love that 24 1.4 L, or it's equivalent.
     
  54. I have to go along with another poster and say the British weather. Here in Central England the sun makes an appearance roughly once a month. Ok, that may be an exaggeration, but the last few weeks have been grim to say the least.
    Other limiting factors include health problems and lack of transport.
     
  55. "What's limiting your photography?" My lack of imagination. The easiest question I have ever answered.
     
  56. Agree. Even with a shoebox camera or a pinhole can, I think my own limit is on my mind... not in my gear.
    Certainly some people and specially pros could find limits on their gear. Personally I don`t find a huge limitation on a 24/2.8 in comparison with a 24/1.4... specially if it is simply related to low light shooting capacity; but someone who needs to have certain shots under some special conditions could like to have this lens or, why not, a 24/0.75... it is easy to understand.
    The issue is... how many people need (and is willing to pay for) this kind of gear, to make it worth for a company like Nikon to produce it?
     
  57. Maybe we should ask Canonites?
     
  58. It could be interesting. I think it could be difficult to distinguish between people who have it because really need to shoot f1.4 and/or f2 with a 24mm lens and those who bought it for other reasons (CAS included)... although it doesn`t matter at all if they payed for it.
    Probably only Canon have the right answer. Think that sometimes a product is interesting not only for its performance but also for the good image it gives to the manufacturer...
     
  59. What I find limits my photography is the fact that I'm not really that skilled as a photographer.
     
  60. Time and eyes, vision, talent, call it what you will.
    Also I'm lazy.
     
  61. Steve that is a great shot. The bear seems to be waiting for someone to join him.
    With regard to Roman's post, a D700 would probably afford him the results he is seeking in available light photography. To me it is an unbelievable piece of equipment. The ISO 3200 results are outstanding. Here is a grab shot from my car window with a non-Nikon 50mm F2, shot in "A" mode. I usually leave the lens on F5.6 and for this shot the meta data shows 125th shutter speed.
    The technical level of photographic equipment on the market today allows most photographers to get results we could only dream of forty years ago and as such I don't believe the equipment is a limiting factor.
    00VEys-200179684.jpg
     
  62. for me, it's megapixels. i currently have only got a 12mp camera and the new top of the range cameras have over 20mp. i find that when i zoom right in on my pics on my monitor, they don't look as good as what my mates camera does. he has the canon g10 with more mp's. the new cameras also have better high iso. this will allow me to take more interesting pictures i think, like pictures of my kids sleeping. and i also want a single lens that can cover the whole range. at the moment i have got a 17 -55 lens and a 70-200, and although i haven't needed it yet, i dread the time when i have to take a picture at say 62mm. i know that the slr cameras allow interchangable lenses, but bugger that. i just want something that covers me from 12mm up to about 350mm. also one other thing, and i'm getting picky now, but i would like the 'auto smile' detection that the new canon's have. it's just one less thing that i'd have to worry about. as it is, when i take a photo, i have to press the shutter button to make my camera autofocus and autometer, zoom in or out (depending if my subjects move) and....well that's about it, but that's mroe than enough without having to worry about anything else.
     
  63. Ok let me clarify.
    1) I am not here to offend anyone.
    2) I grew up being told that there is no limit in what I can do and I believe it.
    3) Why would we want to make such a statement that a certain manufacturer does not make a specific item and therefore the lack of that item is limiting our ability? That is a totally absurd statement of you look at it a bit more in depth.
    4) Do we hear that a race care driver is limited by the speed of his/her car?
    5) What the manufacturer DID NOT make is NOT an item in existence. Therefore it is a non-issue. It cannot limit any one for anything.
    6) What happens if we only have a Nikon FM and a 50 mm prime? Is that limiting? No, you work with the limitation.
    7) This world is NOT infinite. We don't have infinite time on earth. Nikon will NOT make an infinite number of lens covering every single focal length and aperture. Neither will Canon nor Leica.
    8) What if there is no digital camera that can give us ISO 3200?
    9) Why isn't the ISO limiting us instead of the lens? Why single out the 24 mm f1.4?
    10) We never had ISO 3200 in film. A 24 mm fast lens is not going to make any difference.
    It sounded so ungrateful to me. Again I am not trying offend anybody. Just because we don't see Nikon making a fast wide angle we complaint. How about instead we appreciate what we have in life. Thank Nikon for creating all those wonderful lenses for us to enjoy so far.
    My glass is always half full instead of half empty. It is all a matter of attitude.
     
  64. As someone has noted before a 24mm f/1.4 is not that easy to use wide open. The DOF tradeoff is something you can use to your advantage artistically, but a fast capture wide open is not that simple. I know it may sound a little patronizing, but I have the feeling you're picking on an incredibly limited application... something that had perhaps manifested because of gear envy.
    I shoot Nikon, Canon and Pentax. They all make stellar cameras. The systems are hard to compare, but the 24/1.4L crowd has been complaining about AF'ing the thing (especially on fullframe), and overall performance. Many Canonites crave Nikon's 14-24/2.8 and 17-35/2.8 lenses.
    Roman: the one lens that you seem to miss so much is the one you do not own (yet). Stop mas@#$bating over gear and bring your own light to the project above.
    p.s.
    I also humbly proclaim that Ansel or HCB armed with a $200 Lumix would've easily outdone my photography, no matter which gear I would've chosen to show up for such an hypothetical duel.
     
  65. karma... bad karma = bad pictures...
    ... good karma = good pictures....
    I control nothing, the act of being in nature presents me the opportunity to record it's majesty if it wants to let me... all I do is press this little button and voila, a photograph is made.
    on the other hand, having unlimted time and countless tens of thousands of dollars may not get me better shots than the point and shoot I use now... who knows?
    if anyone has millions of dollars to donate, I will research this topic further and get back to you ;)
     
  66. What has always fascinated me about art is that we respond to art because of limitations. If your camera captured EXACTLY what your eye saw, exactly as you saw it, I think most people would not be very interested. What we do is take that limitation, a limited point of view, a limited dynamic range, available light, etc., and use that to make ART, to make something different than we saw. We like balck and white because we understand the limitations, that when you take the color away, the viewer has to focus on something else. We admire Monet because of how much atmosphere he cam create without detail. we admire the White Stripes because of how much they can convey with only (most of the time) two instruments.
    What I am saying is that I try not to be concerned about my limitations because there will always be something limiting you. Instead, I just try to use my limitations to my advantage.
    That said, I moved from the D300 to the D700 and it is REVOLUTIONARY. rather than worry about a faster prime, if you are really interested on low light, there is nothing else like it.
     
  67. I was going to say time. It doesn't matter what cameras, lenses, software or what-have-you I have or don't have. The number one thing that limits me is my lack of time to spend taking pictures. Unfortunately, it is by choice, I have chosen to make other things a priority so I guess when you break it down the answer is more accurately me.
     
  68. Hansen. Some of the things you say make no sense. You say "How can something be limiting if it does not exist"...it does, it's just not in the Nikon line up. You also say "working with an FM and a 50 is not limiting if you work within it's limitations"...Huh? That's the most oxymoronic thing I have heard to date. "Stop mas@#$bating over gear and bring your own light to the project above". Not quite sure what that means? Finally, my feeling is that you don't value your photography enough. By the way, just because I want a 1.4 does not mean I want to shoot it @ 1.4. Lenses perform best when stopped down a bitt. That means a 1.4 stopped down to 2.8 will outperform any 2.8 standard. Also modern AF system especially nikon when used properly should be able to nail focus 50% of the time...shoot in sequence.
     
  69. its never equipment. talent and creativity should overcome eqquip,emt issues.
    What limits my pgotography - talent and creativity. More time would be great but being creative with the time you have will have to do.
     
  70. "Stop mas@#$bating over gear and bring your own light to the project above". Not quite sure what that means? Finally, my feeling is that you don't value your photography enough. By the way, just because I want a 1.4 does not mean I want to shoot it @ 1.4. Lenses perform best when stopped down a bitt. That means a 1.4 stopped down to 2.8 will outperform any 2.8 standard. Also modern AF system especially nikon when used properly should be able to nail focus 50% of the time...shoot in sequence.​
    It means exactly as put (I can fill in the extra letters if you wish). If you are NEED f/1.4 to shoot and your target is moving, and ISO 3200 is not enough, then add you own light to the scene. If you're trying to shoot a black moving cat in a dark room, then no ISO or fast lens would help. Even if you were successful, I'm not sure it would turn out to be very interesting.
    I value my photography very much, thank you, but like many others above limitations are seldom imposed by gear. A simple exercise will show you: pick the top 100 photos of all times (or last decade, your pick), and evaluate the gear used. Except for some Hubble shots, none of it is earth shattering... it is ALWAYS the person composing and releasing that shutters that captures the image.
    Regarding the "always shoot 2 f-stops down" syndrome -- that rule of thumb DOES apply, but mostly for lenses that already limit your photography (i.e. Consumer lenses which are below optimal wide open). All f/2.8 pro-zooms are exceptionally well performers, even wide open. Anyone who try to tell you otherwise, either belongs to a competitors marketing team, or has only shot MTF tables all his life.
    If you really need f/1.4, the choice is clear, go Canon-- they have that lens for you. Will it make you happy? I doubt it. Perhaps a 24/1.2L lens will...
     
  71. 1.2...even better..yes please.
     
  72. Roman: Checked out your portfolio. Some good stuff there, especially the dog shots, but nothing that looked as though you needed a faster lens. A lot of the other stuff looked as though it could have been (and probably was) shot from a tripod. Although your work is quite good, I did find it a bit derivative. If I were going to hire someone to photograph my dog, or my wedding, I would not care what gear they had but what they did with it.
    Alin: I challenge all those experienced photographers including Ansell Adams (sic) (God rest him is peace) to pick up my P.A.S 2004 Panasonic Lumix and do what I do with my Canon 40D having the 1.8 50mm lens.
    Ansel being no longer with us, I'm just un-humble enough to be willing to pinch hit for him. (Imagine the manager has used up everyone else in the lineup, including the batboy .) I've got a 2003 Olympus C-5050Z P&S. You've got the Canon and the 50 f1.8. Game on?
     
  73. To the O.P.'s question - no.
     
  74. Steve Levine,
    That photo of the bear is a priceless shot. Where was it taken and what were the circumstances?
    Whatever might be limiting your photography, it's not courage. It doesn't look like you were using a very long lens. ;-)
     
  75. Good one Robert..my thoughts exactly...it looks awful close
     
  76. How can a Nikon non-existing 24 mm f1.4 be limiting if it doesn't existing? I know what you mean by saying that it does exist. Yes I have the Canon 24 f1.4L but you failed to understand the point. If you wanted the Canon 24 mm f1.4L so badly you would have purchase the entire Canon line up. Why stay with Nikon. You are your own limit. Nothing more nothing less.
    If the Nikon FM with a 50 mm prime is the only camera setup I can afford or if that is the only camera available I will work around the limitation. We live in a world full of compromises. If I consider something a limitation there will be limitation. If I don't consider something a limitation there will be NO limitation. There is no oxymoron in limitation. You seem to be very stuck on your high horse and stir the pot. You have done well in stirring the pot. I simply do not like the perspective you have on this world. I do not agree with your view point. I wish people like yourself will open your mind a bit more to see beyond what they are they limiting themselves to.
    You are you very own limitation. If you don't understand that concept then you are more limited than you think you are.
     
  77. I stand with most everyone else here. My limiting factors are all upon myself = time and money, not equipment, much has been done with little more than a hole in a box. I just must decide where to make my balance and strive on. It does not hurt to re-asses from time to time though.
     
  78. Shun was right on the first post, I think Ansel said "the most important part of the camera is the 12 inches behind it." I think I can improve my photos way more with an improvement in composition, lighting and creativity than any hunk of glass or gear.
     
  79. My photography is limited only by my fantasy. My fantasy is unlimted. Cheers!
     
  80. What do I find limiting...... If I find anything limiting it would have to be myself, what I don't have the vision to do or the talent to create.
    So - it's me really.....
     
  81. sbp

    sbp

    At a gallery opening in New York, years ago...
    Earnest Hemingway said to Irving Penn, "I like your photographs, what kind of camera do you use?"
    Penn replied, "I like your novels, what kind of typewriter do you use?"
     
  82. Actually going to the wilderness - time and money. For my photography I would be equally happen if it is my 6yr old D70 or my FM2N or a F/N75 with 2 cheap primes or Ai even cheaper.
     
  83. I limit my photography to what my equipment can do and the money available for gas and travel. I don't care how skilled a photographer is, without a long telephoto of reasonable speed you're not getting the best bird pictures. Sure, you can use a 300/4 for sports, but will you get more shots with a 300/2.8? The only photographers I've known who were not limited by equipment were either rich enough to buy all they need or had photographic interests that didn't require much hardware. I quit photography at one time due to the high cost of Kodachrome and Velvia, now that was more than limiting.
     
  84. Time to shoot and money to get to locations....
    Alvin
     
  85. First, my 24mm f/1.4 on my 5D (will I get booed off this forum?) is probably my favorite lens, so I can understand wanting one. However, I have found that as far as creativity goes I will occasionally challenge myself by picking one of my lenses and go out shooting with just it. The arbitrary limitation can help me break out of my comfort zone with regard to my compositional choices. So, sometimes you can use a limitation to help break your own subconscious limitations. Still, I do like my 24mm f/1.4. :)
     
  86. High ISO Noise and autofocus limits the number of good shots I can get out of bad light / moving people situations. My f/1.4 lens helps somewhat. As many have said what really limits me is time (laziness) and skill (or lack of it).
     
  87. I'm limited by:
    1. Lenses, the two I carry with me all the time and sit above my nose.
    2. Luck, or lack there of. Some photogs are just luckier. How else can you explain that AA could just happen to drive by and snap a gorgeous moonrise, or HCB could capture decisive moments every time he released the shutter?
     
  88. The very real threat of illegal police harrasment under the auspices of 'prevention of terrorism' perpetrated by out-of-control Britsh police officers who are acting in direct contravention of instructions from the most senior police officer in Britain!
     
  89. Alan, that is a good one... I`m not worried about the legality of this arrests but in the power and capacity of these civil servants who order this actions because think that it could be useful for something... every person with a big black camera could be a potential terrorist (small cameras, phones and hidden videcameras, don`t).
    This is really a limitation, and quite frustrating.
     
  90. To take an adage from my autocross instructing: The only adjustments required are on the nut behind the wheel.
    And for me in photography, the limitations is primarily time, in the sense I wish I could devote more time to practice and experimentation in applying basics, tips, tricks, etc., let alone *when* I get a chance to read about them!
    Gosh, retirement is starting to look like I have a productive chance to to that...albeit 10 years away.
     
  91. Equipment wise, I feel I would like to have a nice wide angle about 17mm or so and bright for my Nikon crop bodies, but I want a full lens that could eventually also fit on a D700. Photographically, my limitations are purely a lack of motivation, I have very good equipment and don't really "need" anything. Yes, I want to add a wide lens and a D700 eventually. Money, things are no question difficult right now. I have lost much side work and have very little extra anything coming in, plus I end up short every month, I'm hoping for better times soon. So the motto is "take pictures with what you have and be happy".
     
  92. I've got to join the choir that sings: Available time. And related to that, work that takes nearly all the time and energy I have at the moment. Well, the darkness in here in this time of year is another somewhat limiting factor.
    On the equipment front it probably is lack of good fully functioning i-TTL flashes/strobes. (I just bought fast UWA-lens that I've been wanting for quite some time.) But the main thing limiting my photography too is naturally the organic mass behind the camera (and time would cure that too: time for studying, taking more photos, experimenting, etc. would upgrade the photographer quite nicely).
     
  93. I might be a real minority, but that might be because I can afford a lot of time. I also have all the equipment I need, and have run through all sorts of camera types and methods, but time and equipment have been surprisingly ineffective at solving my own dilemma.
    I am struggling to add greater and greater real meaning to these human interfaces we call photographs. A technically excellent photograph that doesn't speak to me is just an exercise, and I am tired of exercise, and want to reach the deep meaning that comes from some of the fine photographers of our 170 years of the craft.
    Come to think of it, like writing instruments and literature, there is poor correlation between greatness and technical modernity, or even between greatness and equipment in general.
    Not that lenses aren't magnificent and fun, but I've bought all the machines and want to move back to photography.
     
  94. What limits my photography?

    Time, money, age, health, patience, family, traffic, crowds. Did I mention time and money? I try very hard to ignore the health and age problems.

    I've got all the equipment I need and, after 41 years of being involved in photography, I'm pretty set in the skill area (although I keep learning better techniques all the time and try to keep up with all the latest digital developments.)

    As I tell my photography students, it's not the amount nor the price of your equipment. It's knowing how to use the equipment you have. Be brave, have vision and try!
     
  95. jtk

    jtk

    Nothing is limiting my photography, or anybody else's. The last photographs we made were our measure.
     
  96. Battery life.
     
  97. in my case, money to buy a decent portrait lens and lighting setup :(
     
  98. The bears always hang around like that on "pasta" night.
     
  99. Having too much gear. Hard to focus if one has too many options. When I go out, I take one camera, and 2 lenses, though with my Crown Graphic, I only have one lens so far. I have six different cameras, 35mm F100, Digital D700, Mamiya 645AFDII, Bronica GS-1, Crown Graphic 4x5, and Cambo 4x5 monorail. I find it tough deciding which one I want to shoot with, so occasionally I'll take the Crown Graphic and one of the others.
     
  100. I've also switched from Nikon to Canon because of lens 'niggles' but they are just that - niggles. The biggest obstacle by a long shot, to me taking better pictures is..... me. The David Baileys of this world could take pictures with more gravitas using a disposable camera than I can with the perfect high resolution sensor and fast prime in front of it. I would gladly exchange my gear (and more) for that ability.
     
  101. Simply time. With some time and good mood, I have fun by simply going around with a 50 ... even when all I had was an old AIS one.
     
  102. My photography is unlimited.
     
  103. This is a very interesting thread. I agree time is the biggest limiting factor for me. I have a full time day job and lots of pets and animals that need to be taken care of and I try to steal away just 30 minutes or 1 hour if I am lucky each day to go out and take pictures. Unfortunately this restriction of time also restricts my shooting locations to right around my house.
    I am fortunate enough to be living in a very beautiful area right next to two lakes with lots to take pictures of. Camera equipment has never and will never hold me back. However getting additional lenses or upgrading to a full frame camera would make getting some of the shots I want easier, even if I could get them perfectly fine now with just a little bit more patience and effort.
     
  104. My limitations: Time to take the photos, and time to refine them in Lightroom.
     
  105. I agree with the following statement: Because I am one of those's ;
    Sven Felsby , Dec 12, 2009; 02:45 p.m.
    The novice always blames the equipment.
    Apart from that, I am limited by my laziness, that prevents me from getting my fat butt out in the morning at some nice locations
     
  106. What limits my photography? A whole bunch of personality flaws, first and foremost. Also, I hate to say it, but my legs and a slew of other health issues do not allow me to go a bunch of places or do things that might also be helpful to my photography. But if that were the problem alone, it wouldn't stop me from doing it. As far as equipment, that's never been the limiting factor. I love having the nice gear, but never really needed it to do pretty much what ever I want to photography-wise.
     
  107. Limiting my photography?
    The fact that I have absolutely no time for it, so I can't really find out any photographic limits until I get some time to do it!
     
  108. I get tired of hearing that equipment doesn't count, that it's all about the photographer. If that was so we'd all be happy with P&S toys. Your desire, Roman, for better and more varied equipment is what drives this industry, and your voice should be heard. You may not be Nikon's primary audience but you are making your presence known.
     
  109. I would be curious to hear what picture is impossible to do with a p&s and only able to be shot with an expensive DSLR?
    There is a big difference between equipment not counting and equipment just making it easier to get the shots you want.
    I have not run into a wall that my equipment just couldn't do I have however run into situations where my equipment dictates that I take a little bit more time and a little bit more effort to get the shot I want.
    It is good to desire better equipment to make it EASIER to get the pictures you want. Don't think that better equipment will guarantee your ability to get those shots.
     
  110. For me Kyle, it was the ability to get long range nature shots. No P&S ever came close to my 70-300 VR. Now I own a Sigma 150-500mm and it's even better. I wish I could afford a D700 for it's great high ISO ability in low light. No P&S gets close.
     
  111. I haven't read the entire thread, but, here is my two cents...listen to Matt, get the Sigma 30 mm f1.4 HSM...a lovely lens, build and quality, fast and quiet. Then, stop worrying about the equipment and worry about you. Look at the world through new eyes, expand those eyes, see what you have never seen before and then use what you have, your equipment, to share it with the world.
     
  112. What is limiting my photography - my day job.
     
  113. What Richard just said. For me, my only limit to my photography is physics. Someday, I will learn to "feel" the right exposure/composition/balance, but I'll never overcome physics. I want a full DOF at 1:1 or greater with a macro lens so I can photograph all the amazing things I see through the lens, but won't transfer to a memory card. Ain't gonna happen anytime soon, so I'll concentrate on doing the best with what I have. That should keep me busy for the next 20 years or so.
     
  114. "For me Kyle, it was the ability to get long range nature shots. No P&S ever came close to my 70-300 VR. Now I own a Sigma 150-500mm and it's even better. I wish I could afford a D700 for it's great high ISO ability in low light. No P&S gets close." Brian
    I agree with you Brian SLR's make getting those shots easier but they are not impossible with p&s camera's. That was my point. The equipment doesn't stop you from getting the shots you want you just have to approach them differently when you are working with the equipment you have. Rather than busying yourself with hoping for the next best piece of equipment figure out how to squeeze the absolute best out of what you have.
    I remember when I was taking painting classes in college and my teacher would limit us constantly to teach us this lesson. She would tell us to paint a portrait using only two colors and no black or white, or to paint a still life not of the object itself but only of its shadows. Limiting us did not prevent us from making a painting it just forced us to approach it from a different angle to get the effect we desired.
     
  115. Your point is well taken Kyle. I spent a year and thousands of shots with my P&S before graduating to DSLR. Adversity can force you to get the most of what you have. However, poor equipment eventually stifles creativity. A young violinist may not have use for a Stradivarius but eventually the beginner instrument must give way to something better. I think you have the right perspective on this Kyle, I just take issue with those who say equipment doesn't matter.
     
  116. The only thing limiting my photography is time and when I retire next April, I'll have to come up with a better excuse for crappy composition and exposure.
     
  117. There is no 1 single limit factor, but to me the biggest limiting factor is our way of thinking and seeing.
    Each person has his/her way of seeing, thinking, aesthetic values and pre-conceptions of objects that are to be captured at that particular point in time, which we collectively termed as "style". Subconsciously the photographer often explores within his style, but much less often outside it. The reason for the later is because the photographer could not see through the invisible boundary which himself/herself laid down.
    Would the arguement of equipment being the major limiting factor akin to :
    1. the availability of the types of colour, brushes and medium to painters , or
    2. the availability of 4 strings, and the awkward positioning of fingers required at difficult passage for violinists , or
    3. the limitation of English (or all language) to express human emotions and drama for Shakespear ?
     
  118. 50AiS f1.2
    00VFUw-200485584.jpg
     
  119. Hmm... What limits my photography?
    The limited number of hot babes that want to pose for me.
    That plus the D3x and the 24mm PC-E lens that I've been too cheap to buy.
     
  120. You are, for having me read through 120 posts!
     
  121. What's limiting your photography?​
    Me.
     
  122. The alien that promised me an exclusive.
     
  123. Limits? Yes. Mostly from not knowing enough about things I would like to know more about and be better at, photographically speaking.
    For my type of shooting, if I had the chops I would like to have, then my Zorki 3M + Jupiter 50/2 and some Tri-X would probably do me just fine. :)
     
  124. gib

    gib

    what limits my photography, my imagination and dull days
    00VFgg-200563584.jpg
     
  125. What limits my photography? My wife.
    Just kidding. It's my inherent handicap ... colorblindness. I rely on the camera (and gray cards sometimes) very much to give me the proper white balance. Then of course, I don't see contrast in color as easy as most other people. I can learn composition to a degree but I guess I have to live with color casted pictures sometimes.
     
  126. Gear limits your work when you are starting . . . although even then it is inside your head. As others have said, the true limiting factor is almost aways the person pushing the button on the camera.
    I used to tell people that they would be better off having me shoot thier wedding with a pile of disposable cameras instead of my wife with a pile of Hassy's. Now, with digital cameras my wife has actually become a pretty good shooter, but the point still remains.
    You always have to learn to use what you have. Learn to work within it's limitations and take advantage of what it can do. This is true no matter how expensive or cheap what you are working with was.
     
  127. So, 24mm * 1.5 = 36mm. So the thing missing is a 35mm equiv DX fast prime for Nikon? And f2.8 isn't fast enough?
    I suppose for street photography. But enough to change systems?
    Seems like it'd be easier to just go FF.
    Anyway, it seems a minor shortcoming. Certainly if that's your "sweet spot" I can see complaining, but I can't imagine changing systems over it. I am also happy to buy non-Nikon lenses so it's not as much of a problem for me.
    Anyway, I'd be happy with Canon if I had it, but I agree with others - time and what's behind the camera is really what's limiting me.
     
  128. So the thing missing is a 35mm equiv DX fast prime for Nikon? And f2.8 isn't fast enough?​
    For 35mm film (FF), it's been possible to get a good 35mm f/1.4 lens for nearly half a century. So even if 24mm f/2.8 on DX is "fast enough", it's certainly not fast. For 35mm equivalent, even f/2 is just barely fast.
    So, yes, this seems like a gaping hole in the lens line. With the reduced coverage requirements of DX, a 24mm f/2 lens should be available that's similar in size to the new 35mm f/1.8 DX, and just a little more expensive.
     
  129. Thanks to all of you for helping me to feel better about the slug-like progress I am making in developing anything approximating photographic "skills."
     
  130. I think the greatest thing limiting your photography is you. Don't blame your equipment. And I hardly consider f/2.8 slow. Who shoots at f/1.4 anyway? All that aperture gives you is a brighter viewfinder and I am sure you are letting the camera do the focusing for you anyway. Most lenses at f/1.4 are soft and full of flare compared to f/2.8 or f/4.
    And have you ever considered a monopod? I can shoot with a 300mm lens at 1/60 easy and get no blur from camera shake. So many people here get so wrapped around the axle about equipment when it is what the photograper, not all the fancy lenses and equipment, that makes the image.
     
  131. I've got some great cameras....some great lenses...and a modicum of skill. My single most limiting factor to the pursuit of photography is time. I spend my hours in my 'day job' running a small Telecom company, and it doesn't allow a lot of time for my hobbies.
     
  132. It's my lack of talent and ambiton that limits me. That's why I only buy the best quality camera equipment money can buy, to make up for how horrible I am. there's nothing like a bad snapshot with the top of a person's head cut off, taken with a $5000 camera to make me feel better about how terrible my technique is and how uncreative I am.
    Thanks.
     
  133. I didn't realise how limited I was by my gear - falsely believing that I was a talentless hack who spent very little time working on his craft. However I recently bought a Canon 5D MkII and have been amazed at the difference.
    Barely had I left the shop when the word had obviously got out and I received a call on my iPhone 3GS, 32Gb Red cover asking me to shoot the cover of Vogue. Believe me it was tempting and I was on the verge of accepting the commission (negotiations being acceptable) but a guy on the Kings Courtesy VIP bus sitting next to me nudged me in the (beautifully toned) ribs (a bit rude I thought) - it turns out he was from NatGeo and he wanted to put a photo of mine between the yellow frame. I saw a shot in front of me (two rows down), a very striking girl with amazingly piercing eyes, she looked kinda foreign - I had the 5D Mk II and would have nailed the shot no problem. Unfortunately though I had left my 85mm f/1.2 bus stabilised lens at home so the moment passed and she got off.
    Chase Jarvis just wrote an iPhone camera book along the lines of "the best camera is the one you've got with you" (and the best light is available light).
    Gear is Good, Vision is better says David Du Chemin - good book he has out "Within The Frame" - but then he has the 85mm f/1.2 which is why he's published.
     
  134. The real limiter for me is time. I am a married guy, with two kids (one still at home,) and a responsible job. I have to balance things. So, my answer is time is the limiter. Second limiter would be my own ability to see things creatively and using the light to its best advantage. Gear wise, my greatest limiter two years ago was trying to use so-called "prime" lenses. I got rid of them.
    Years ago I went from a Nikon N80 to an F5. My photo quality stayed exactly the same. I then went to an F100. My photo quality stayed exactly the same. This year I began using a pair of cheap kit zooms on my D80, for family vacations etc. Photo quality stayed exactly the same as what my D300 + pro lenses do. I'm starting to think that results depend not on how much money I throw into it, but rather how much thought. Very rarely do I ever feel limited by equipment. I think of other ways to accomplish what I want.
    Kent in SD
     
  135. My equipment is certainly not limiting my photography! Mostly it's me who is limiting my photography. My own shyness limits me more than anything. The only other thing that I could blame is my lack of a car. I can't reach those relatively close Canadian Rockies the way I'd like to. I'm patient. I'll have much more opportunity to do the kind of photography that I most wish to do in due time.
     
  136. same as in golf, the damn equipment !!!! I know I'm better than this, it cannot be me.
     
  137. Better equipment is in some ways a stereotype. I have gotten better photographs with my 15 year old Bronica GS-1 than with my new Nikon D700. Why, because medium format, or shooting film in general, makes me take more time to focus and compose much more carefully than when I shoot digital. It has nothing to do with the lenses, it is a state of mind. I find that when I shoot film, I am much more careful about each shot because unlike digital, you can't just shoot 500 pictures and delete the bad ones. As far as lenses go, I find I can get incredible shots with my cheap Nikon 50mm f/1.8 prime as long as I take the time to shoot properly. Photography has nothing to do with equipment and has everything to do with technique. If you think that switching brands is going to improve your photography, you've got another thing coming. The object of photography is to capture what you envision with what you have. It's very easy to get gear-happy. Believe me, I know. If you limit yourself to a certain camera and a certain lens (or maybe two) for a particular outing, you will find that you will begin to take much better photographs as I have. Learning the limits of your gear and how what you have can work for you is one of the most important fundamentals of photography. I have seen some incredible photographs taken with a $20 Holga. Now, if what you have simply does not work for you, that is another matter. You must be comfortable with your equipment in order to use it properly. If you can not get comfortable with a particular setup, then by all means ditch it and get something you like to shoot with.
     
  138. What's limiting my photography? Thinking too much about equipment, and not getting out and doing more photography!
     
  139. I have a good canon camera. The only limit i had was getting to know how to get a good photographs and especially this coming holiday. I later came acroo this link and it was a huge save:
    http://www.onewayshopping.com/blog/digital-cameras/eight-digital-photograph-tips-for-christmas/
     
  140. For 35mm film (FF), it's been possible to get a good 35mm f/1.4 lens for nearly half a century. So even if 24mm f/2.8 on DX is "fast enough", it's certainly not fast. For 35mm equivalent, even f/2 is just barely fast.​
    However, unlike most of the last 25 years, you can mount your f/2.8 lens on a reasonably-priced DX camera that can produce clean, finely detailed images at ISO 800. f/2.8 at ISO 800 is one stop faster than f/1.4 at ISO 100. So, is the f/2.8 lens really a "limitation" under these circumstances?
     
  141. What's limiting my photography? Spending too much time on Photo.net and not enough doing other things like photography.
    However that said there are times where equipment can put limits on your exposure or composition that prevents you from get the shot to look the way you want. If Nikon doesn't have what you need, try Sigma. They sell a nice 30mm F1.4
     
  142. my job is limiting my photography.
     
  143. To me it's all in the eye and the imagination; some of what I consider my most expressive and/or creative shots came from a 1947 Zeiss Ikonta folder with a f/4.5 fixed focal length Novar. The shutter's slow speeds don't work, and because it's leaves are out of alignment, I have to stop down to at least f/8 to prevent light leakage. Despite that, (and I can't explain it) I feel a strange oneness with this camera, a sort of creative energy, and use it for everything from street to landscapes. I took this handheld, physically holding a red filter in front of the lens with the other hand with ISO 125 film:
    [​IMG]
    Whenever I feel the urge to drop some large change for that M6, I look at and appreciate what I have and what it can do.
    Also, a fussy one-year-old at times puts a large crimp in my photography... when he's not the subject! :)
     
  144. I also would like a fast wide prime. However, the 50mm 1.4 I have is good enough for the pictures I take. Or perhaps... I choose to take pictures for which 50mm is ok.
    My biggest limitation is not Nikon's hardware, but my own incompetence. If I were to choose between new dream hardware or better personal skills, I would definitely choose better skills. Bach wrote his music without any music software and Shakespeare wrote his plays without MS Word. I would rather have the skills of Shakespeare than the latest version of MS Word.
     
  145. The only thing limiting my photography (beyond my own limitations) is the time and opportunity to shoot the things I enjoy. Sure, I could use an extra bit of gear for fun. But, I would trade every bit of new gear made 'till the end of time to have the chance to travel where I'd like to go with the gear I have right now .
    I can wish , can't I?
     
  146. 146 responses, per 15-12-2009, pffff...
    Apparently, you hit a nerve, Roman... :)
    AH
     
  147. whats limiting my photography is the fact i live in ireland and still shoot film,there are very few places you can get 120 colour film developed. there is no where i can get an e6 120 film developed, i have to send it to edinburgh, and the weather can be a limiting factor as well.
     
  148. I'm my biggest obstacle too.
    A poor workman blames his tools.
     
  149. "2) I grew up being told that there is no limit in what I can do and I believe it."
    This assertion is perhaps the most spectacular piece of idiocy I have ever read on a forum of any kind: and that's a very competitive category.
    Interesting though, as it's an increasingly familiar refrain - in pop songs and also in "agony aunt" discussions in the media, for example. The "all must have prizes" syndrome. If life teaches us anything worthwhile, the lesson must surely include the ability to live with one's limitations. This doesn't preclude trying to get better at something.
    On the OP, I find that my own laziness and inertia are a huge limitation. I saw a comment somewhere in which a photographer replied to a question about the value of different photographic equipment by saying that the most valuable item he'd ever bought was an alarm clock; how many mornings of beautiful light, of which there are relatively few in a European winter day, have I missed through laziness? Of course alarm clocks also have "off" buttons, which reduces their effectiveness a bit.
     
  150. Hi Roman,
    I think it's a good question and you may find some good advise in all the replies.
    I actually think nothing is limiting me, just challenging. I sometimes challenge myself by choosing a lens that i wouldn't normally take to the targeted situation. It makes you think differently.
    In your case you may consider to enjoy the walking with your dogs inside the forest and shooting pictures of them outside the forest, or adding some flash, or give panning a shot. Just some thoughts.
    Anyway, enjoy it !
     
  151. Time !
    Other hobbies - golf, football, bringing up 2 young children (possible to combine photog + some of these but not my passion which is landscape)
     
  152. "2) I grew up being told that there is no limit in what I can do and I believe it."
    This assertion is perhaps the most spectacular piece of idiocy I have ever read on a forum of any kind: and that's a very competitive category.​
    There's no need to be so harsh. Everyone has limitations that they CANNOT overcome. If you're 5'2" you're not going to play in the NFL. If you're 6'6" you're not going to be a professional jockey. It's unrealistic to think otherwise.
    That said, I believe that the spirit of the "no limits" idea (quoted above) is that we should not place artificial limits on ourselves. It's very easy to talk yourself out of attempting to reach a goal or let yourself be talked out of your ambitions by heeding the unnecessarily critical comments of others.
    There was a story on NPR today about an 83-year-old woman who just learned to fly an airplane. She could have accepted that she was too old to try something so challenging and adventurous, but she didn't listen to those negative opinions, and now she's just enjoyed the thrill of taking her first solo flight. There are plenty of things that this lady CANNOT do, but thanks to her determination, flying a plane isn't one of them.
     
  153. Sleep..too little of it. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
     
  154. Mr. Glen Flower was possibly the only one that said it, "the best camera is the one you've got with you." I just bought the Canon S90 about 2 weeks ago and I keep that sucker on my side, on my belt with the help of the Lowepro Rezo 30 where-ever I go. I own a Nikon D50 that has taken over 80,000 shots and plenty of lenses and equipment for more serious stuff. But, there have been MANY times that I wish I had a camera with me in order to 'get that shot'. The S90 is possibly the best quality point-and-shoot camera , of it's type, currently. Whether I'm on the way home (while in the car) I've taken some cool looking night-time shots. Or maybe happen to see a nice sunset and I'll even take shots while driving. Including powerlines and automobiles in the shot gives it a very realistic 'like I'm there' look. Don't get stressed-out over having the right equipment. Get a point-and-shoot and keep it with you, wherever you go.
    00VH4c-201443584.JPG
     
  155. What a good response, bravo. Turned out to be an interesting range of opinion.
    Lots of things limit my photography: time, though I am spoilt compared to most; very often, the wrong light and/or weather; fatigue in long treks; lack of belief in my ability to get the shot I see; buses passing through grade 10 country that don't stop.
    But the one you are interested in is equipment. I dislike using cameras that don't deliver the desired look. I think with digital it is more the 'sensor/lens system' characteristics rather than ergonomics or menus, etc. With film they are all lovely to use in their own sweet ways and the range of films is wonderful.
    Another thing that limits me is often the aspect ratio of any camera if it is wrong for the image I want. This feeling led me to Sony as I need to crop and therefore need high resolution to cope with my cropping disorder.
     
  156. Equipment. If it were in my budget a Hasselblad H4 with a 64MP back + 3-4 Lenses. Carl Ziess lense capture the detail and Hasselblad captures the image.
    The Dynamic color ranges of todays cameras suffer. The noise produced by 35MM 16mp camera's is too common.
    After all doesn't a great images start with the ability to capture the moment in it's richest form, color & clarity.
    I think better of knowledge of where I can take a picture in photoshop. When I envision a photograph, I would like to know what tools are availble to take a great pricture and make it an excellent one.
    It one thing to have the tools to accomplish the task but how to use them. I don't believe one will ever know the infinte possibilities when using a tool like photoshop but to have the knowledge of 1/2 - 3/4 of it's ability would be great. This also lead to having time to shoot, work in the darkroom (photoshop) then print the final product.
    Inspiration is all around you. All you have to do is stop and absorb it. Envision what your goals of the image are and what tools are available to achieve those goal.
    00VHT4-201669584.jpg
     
  157. Time, money, talent - limits everything.​
    What else?
     
  158. Roman- your post struck a chord with me. I don't know what type of photography you do, so I'm not sure why you want or need a wide prime- I can only share my thoughts why I think the absence of a fast wide prime limits my ability to deliver unique images. I also will talk about why you might want to stay put with your Nikon system.
    I have been making my living over the past 15 years photographing weddings The context of my thoughts are from this perspective. I recently left Canon, (and their amazing primes including the 24 1.4), for Nikon. There were two extremely important reasons for my decision: 1) Focus accuracy. 2) High quality files under poor lighting, (ie. high ISO). When the Canon 5D 'hit' focus just right, life was good- but when there were focusing issues...... Lets just say that in the privacy of my office late at night while inspecting wedding images on a 24" monitor from a 10-12 hour day only to find my best images of once-in-a-lifetime moments were OOF- I swore like a drunken sailor. To a wedding photographer, nothing is more upsetting than being in the right place, at the right time, at the right angle, with the right lens, with the subject against the right background,....only to have the camera's auto focus hunt and search and miss. A soft, out of focus image is useless and the moment is forever lost. It's crushing. However, to capture a beautiful image of a married couple dancing in dramatic ambient lighting @ f1.4, (or 1.6,1.8), in sharp focus is without comparison. The contrast of a razor-sharp rendered subject, floating in a sea of wonderfully soft out-of-focus shapes and orbs of light is simply gorgeous. The difference between 1.4 and 2.8, in this situation is night and day. A background at f1.4 is impressionistic and at f2.8 it is not. Even the difference between f2.0 and 2.8 is significant.
    The problem with my former setup, (a couple of 5D's and a large assortment of L primes and zooms), is that focus accuracy under low light, (and even decent light), was very, inconsistent. I was missing many great images because of this limitation. I looked closely at Nikon's D700 and the reviews consistently praised focusing accuracy and great high ISO files... just what I needed so I took the plunge, (emotionally and financially), and switched to Nikon and I'm glad I did. Yes, I'm able to produce wonderfully sharp images at 2.8 with my 24-70G much more consistently than I could ever dream of with my 5D and 24-70EF.
    I do miss my 24 1.4. If Nikon comes out with one, I'll be one of the first in line. Roman, I would think about selling your D300 and picking up a used D700 and 35 1.8. The 35mm 1.8 AFS can be used FF on the D700 and will vignette in the corners...... but not too badly. Post processing and a little cropping can solve this issue. Many times when focused at 10' or less with this lens, vignetting is virtually a non-issue. The 35 1.8 is very sharp and inexpensive. This is the best combination I have found for my current dilemma. (it's a great 'street' set-up too). Let's hope that in the not too distant future, Nikon delivers a 24 1.4 AFS, (or something close to it).
    Like other posters have said, the obvious and most notable limitation resides a few inches behind the camera.
     
  159. Equipment is definitely limiting my photography. I need a clean images at ISO ISO 819200 and a full array of f/0.5 lenses to fulfill my true vision as a photographer. Only then will my compositions be perfect and the light sublime.
     

Share This Page