Gear freak or artist?

[OldBoy]

[QUOTE=pburness;31132]

Originally Posted by OldBoy

No problem even using with a 1.4 or 2x converter.

A Painted Lady Butterfly taken handheld with the Nikon 105mm F2.8 VR macro plus 1.4 converter and SB600 flash at 1/4 power on a D3.

Very nice. I heard (or read) that the framing changes as you focus, is this correct / significant?
I am thinking of getting a Macro lens, Cathus uses and recommends the Tamron 90mm, but I've always bought Nikon (since I traded in my Contax & Zeiss kit.) When I read the article relating to this lens and the 'breathing' as they called it, it put me off.

Phil

Not quite sure what you mean? If you get very close to the subject then the DOF is very small, but by holding yourself steady and get the focus on the point you want, it's not a problem. The only other thing is using a converter means, if you lose focus it can hunt a bit, but that's mainly with flying Dragonflies.

[pburness]

[QUOTE=OldBoy;31134]

Originally Posted by pburness

Not quite sure what you mean? If you get very close to the subject then the DOF is very small, but by holding yourself steady and get the focus on the point you want, it's not a problem. The only other thing is using a converter means, if you lose focus it can hunt a bit, but that's mainly with flying Dragonflies.

From Ken Rockwell -

My biggest concern is that it's very hard to get precise macro framing because the image size changes greatly (breathes) while focusing. You need to use AF-C and move yourself in and out to frame. You can't move yourself and then focus, because the image size changes so much that you can't frame unless you're in focus. This may seem silly, but it's a critical issue for macro use, and a big pain when you focus manually as most macro shooters do. The 70-180mm macro lens is much better for shooting macro all day. Breathing isn't an issue for normal use.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/105vr.htm

Phil

[OldBoy]

Ken Rockwell does come out with some strange statements and isn't taken seriously by a lot of photographers. Even so, I still think his reviews of Nikon lenses is pretty spot on. I haven't come across that problem myself either on a tripod or handheld. He does go on to say that it's as good as the 70-200mm F2.8 VR and well worth the money. I've never been disappointed with any shots taken with this lens and neither will you. The fact that you can use it with the 1.4, 1.7 or 2x converter give a fantastic range from 105mm to 210mm.

[pburness]

Thanks Oldboy, I'll check one out in a camera store.

Merry Christmas

Phil

[simjol]

I've come rather late to this thread but felt compelled to express my point of view. I agree that both are important but I would always place more importance on the person taking the photograph. For comparison think about writers. You can have the latest computer to produce your novel or an old typewriter. Both can produce an award winning novel, the difference is in the writer not the technology. It is the same with musicians. You can have somebody technically perfect on a musical instrument but lacks passion, and somebody with passion but not technically proficient. The latter will invariably produce the most 'pleasing' experience. Technology can aid creativity and has to be embraced, but we mustn't lose sight of our humanity. I enjoy taking photographs as a means of expressing difficult to articulate feelings. What camera or technology I use is irrelevant as long as I feel comfortable with it and it allows me to express myself.

[gerrys]

Inverted snobbery still shines through... :-)

[cosmicma]

Originally Posted by gerrys

Inverted snobbery still shines through... :-)

that statement on it's own means nothing

please explain..

[gerrys]

Just find it rather tiring when the subject comes up the immediate response(from some quarters) is about people trying to buy their way to good photography. If somebody wants to buy more expensive equipment then let them, if somebody doesnt see the need then fine, what on earth does it matter. Might not those that have more expensive equipment be good photographers with an eye as well. Or can good photography only be undertaken by those without. Explaination wasnt really needed... was it

[rbarry]

Originally Posted by gerrys

Just find it rather tiring when the subject comes up the immediate response(from some quarters) is about people trying to buy their way to good photography. If somebody wants to buy more expensive equipment then let them, if somebody doesnt see the need then fine, what on earth does it matter. Might not those that have more expensive equipment be good photographers with an eye as well. Or can good photography only be undertaken by those without. Explaination wasnt really needed... was it

Well yes, I'm glad you did explain as I was unsure what you meant. Now you have, I agree with your opinion.

The majority of recognised professionals in any walk of life will enhance their skills by using the best tools for the job available to them. Those tools are more likely going to be the latest top of the range expensive items; that is just a fact of life. Having expensive kit doesn't make you a professional photographer, but being a professional photographer with the best available equipment will enhance your ability.

A professionally trained photographer with some experience will undoubtedly take a better image with my equipment than I can with my equipment. Their experience will allow them to see beyond what I can, and use the equipment in sympathy for the required result. I still enjoy trying though, and I'm getting better at it, but I'm not going to earn a five or six figure salary doing it.

It hasn't stopped me buying more equipment, and I'm not exactly flushed with money. What you or I can afford is pertinent to you the individual, for what ever reasons, be that income, employment circumstances and other personal, social or hobby related lifestyle interests.

[cosmicma]

Originally Posted by gerrys

Just find it rather tiring when the subject comes up the immediate response(from some quarters) is about people trying to buy their way to good photography. If somebody wants to buy more expensive equipment then let them, if somebody doesnt see the need then fine, what on earth does it matter. Might not those that have more expensive equipment be good photographers with an eye as well. Or can good photography only be undertaken by those without. Explaination wasnt really needed... was it

yup i think your explanation goes a long way too
much better than a single sentence that could be interpreted in a few different ways