I started out shooting fish with nikon d70s and kit lens. Thanks to Bobby Phillips, aka PhishphorPhun, I discovered that using overhead flash was the way to go. I bought a speedlight. With the added lighting, I quickly realized my kit lens wasn't going to cut it, because I could see the difference between my photos and others on the web using the same technique.
My pics had improved dramatically, but being the competitive sob I was, I wanted better and picked up a used 60mm f/2.8 AD, a very sharp lens some fish shooters were using. It was like another step up in picture quality.
Then I was intrigued with macro, so I picked up a used 105mm f/2.8 AD. It was another WOW moment.
Then the D300 came out. It was a beast. I could afford it. I bought it. All the while, my knowledge improved as did my thirst for photography. I wanted to start shooting outdoors. That's when it became apparent that good glass was required.
It also became apparent that my D300 was not the ISO performer it was marketed as. I needed better ISO performance in order to get faster shutter speeds in dim lighting. So when the D700 came out, I was all over it. I was seriously considering jumping to the Canon 5d, until I realized Nikon's autofocus system was miles ahead, so I stuck with Nikon.
I could have made due with what I had in glass, but the truth is that pro glass is much better and a better investment due to it's better resale value.
Did I need to spend that kind of money in order to get really good fish pictures? No. Did I need to spend that kind of money to enjoy photography? No. I spent that money because I could afford to. Could I achieve the same results without spending what I did in the end? In terms of aquatic photography, yes. In terms of bird in flight shooting, not even close.
So to end my long diatribe, I will say that lighting is as important as any other part of the toolkit, because it gives you infinite more options. People who get into photography come to recognize that one part of their toolkit is always weak. Some decide they are not happy with their results and so will improve the weakest part of their kit. Some will decide that photography is not that important or due to budgetary reasons cannot improve their kit. Each person will make different decisions based on how much they value the hobby and how far they want to go. That's totally okay with me.
When I first started almost 4 years ago, the idea of spending $1000 on a lens made me laugh and think some guys are just crazy. The next lens I want is about $6K. I have a lot of other things to budget for before I pull the trigger on that, but if I was making a living with my gear, that lens would already be in my bag.
My pics had improved dramatically, but being the competitive sob I was, I wanted better and picked up a used 60mm f/2.8 AD, a very sharp lens some fish shooters were using. It was like another step up in picture quality.
Then I was intrigued with macro, so I picked up a used 105mm f/2.8 AD. It was another WOW moment.
Then the D300 came out. It was a beast. I could afford it. I bought it. All the while, my knowledge improved as did my thirst for photography. I wanted to start shooting outdoors. That's when it became apparent that good glass was required.
It also became apparent that my D300 was not the ISO performer it was marketed as. I needed better ISO performance in order to get faster shutter speeds in dim lighting. So when the D700 came out, I was all over it. I was seriously considering jumping to the Canon 5d, until I realized Nikon's autofocus system was miles ahead, so I stuck with Nikon.
I could have made due with what I had in glass, but the truth is that pro glass is much better and a better investment due to it's better resale value.
Did I need to spend that kind of money in order to get really good fish pictures? No. Did I need to spend that kind of money to enjoy photography? No. I spent that money because I could afford to. Could I achieve the same results without spending what I did in the end? In terms of aquatic photography, yes. In terms of bird in flight shooting, not even close.
So to end my long diatribe, I will say that lighting is as important as any other part of the toolkit, because it gives you infinite more options. People who get into photography come to recognize that one part of their toolkit is always weak. Some decide they are not happy with their results and so will improve the weakest part of their kit. Some will decide that photography is not that important or due to budgetary reasons cannot improve their kit. Each person will make different decisions based on how much they value the hobby and how far they want to go. That's totally okay with me.
When I first started almost 4 years ago, the idea of spending $1000 on a lens made me laugh and think some guys are just crazy. The next lens I want is about $6K. I have a lot of other things to budget for before I pull the trigger on that, but if I was making a living with my gear, that lens would already be in my bag.
