What's limiting your photography?

Wouter Willemse · December 12, 2009

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...)

sven_felsby · December 12, 2009

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

philipward · December 12, 2009

A nice lottery win.

sbp · December 12, 2009

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....

enrique_r. · December 12, 2009

Me, Myself & I.

alex_iwonttell · December 12, 2009

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.

roman_thorn1 · December 12, 2009

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.

sd_woods · December 12, 2009

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

sbp · December 12, 2009

"I find it disturbing to hear how many people are not happy with their photography from a creative standpoint."

</blockquote>

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.

thomas_sullivan · December 12, 2009

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.

lahuasteca · December 12, 2009

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.

john_morris4 · December 12, 2009

"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."

</blockquote>

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?"

</blockquote>

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).<div></div>

fullmetalphotograper · December 12, 2009

I have not found many limiting factors in hardware and software. I have found the greatest limitation is in the wetware.

charleseagan · December 12, 2009

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.

danielleetaylor · December 12, 2009

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.

ilkka_nissila · December 12, 2009

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.

jimmckinnon · December 12, 2009

+1 to what Shun said first. And for myself, I'd add talent, knowledge, time, ambition...

mark liddell · December 12, 2009

The awful British weather and lack of good locations within reasonable travelling distance.

roman_thorn1 · December 12, 2009

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.