What's limiting your photography?

[sbp]

<p>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.<br>

http://www.photo.net/photos/UplandLife <br>

These are by far the best canine photos I have seen. "Portraits" with real character, and amazing action shots. </p>

[seismiccwave]

<p>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.<br /> Please don't bother answering me because I do not want to read any more excuses.<br>

On the practical side simply going to the D700 would have solved your problem.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>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.</p>

<p>FX will also improve your selection among wide-angle lenses.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>The only thing that limits you is the belief that something limits you.</p>

[roman_thorn1]

<p>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. </p>

[mark_anderson34]

<p>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.<br>

Other limiting factors include health problems and lack of transport.</p>

[tholte]

<p>"What's limiting your photography?" My lack of imagination. The easiest question I have ever answered. </p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Agree. Even with a shoebox camera or a pinhole can, I think my own limit is on my mind... not in my gear.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

[roman_thorn1]

<p>Maybe we should ask Canonites?</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>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 (<em>CAS</em> included)... although it doesn`t matter at all if they payed for it.</p>

<p>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...</p>

[pete_su]

<p>What I find limits my photography is the fact that I'm not really that skilled as a photographer.</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>Time and eyes, vision, talent, call it what you will.<br>

Also I'm lazy.</p>

[rjm photo]

<p>Steve that is a great shot. The bear seems to be waiting for someone to join him.<br>

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.<br>

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.</p><div></div>

[ty_mickan]

<p>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.</p>

[seismiccwave]

<p>Ok let me clarify. <br>

1) I am not here to offend anyone. <br>

2) I grew up being told that there is no limit in what I can do and I believe it.<br>

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. <br>

4) Do we hear that a race care driver is limited by the speed of his/her car?<br>

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.<br>

6) What happens if we only have a Nikon FM and a 50 mm prime? Is that limiting? No, you work with the limitation.<br>

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.<br>

8) What if there is no digital camera that can give us ISO 3200? <br>

9) Why isn't the ISO limiting us instead of the lens? Why single out the 24 mm f1.4? <br>

10) We never had ISO 3200 in film. A 24 mm fast lens is not going to make any difference.<br>

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. <br>

My glass is always half full instead of half empty. It is all a matter of attitude.</p>

[petrana_batik]

<p>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.<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

p.s.<br /> 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.</p>

[Leonard-just-Leonard]

<p>karma... bad karma = bad pictures...</p>

<p> ... good karma = good pictures....</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>if anyone has millions of dollars to donate, I will research this topic further and get back to you ;)</p>

<p> </p>

[billfoster]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[kevin_dixey2]

<p>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.</p>

[roman_thorn1]

<p>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.</p>

[joseph_leotta]

<p>its never equipment. talent and creativity should overcome eqquip,emt issues.<br>

What limits my pgotography - talent and creativity. More time would be great but being creative with the time you have will have to do.</p>

[petrana_batik]

<blockquote>

<p>"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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

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...</p>

<p> </p>

[roman_thorn1]

<p>1.2...even better..yes please.</p>

[wogears]

<p><strong>Roman:</strong> 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.</p>

<p><strong>Alin: </strong> <em>I challenge all those experienced photographers including Ansell Adams </em>(sic)<em> (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.</em></p>

<p>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?</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>To the O.P.'s question - no.</p>