(Jan 7, 2015, 05:12)johnytrout Wrote: [ -> ]This is all very well if you can afford decent lenses..... You can't get good macro shots with a kit lens. You would need a proper macro lens and they're not cheap
A lens with f1.2 will knock spots of a f5.6
I think I have a keen eye for composition and I know what I want to achieve but it's frustrating not being able to get there due to lack of funds.
With all due respect, I do believe that you missed the point of the article. It really is not about Macro photography at all. It is about the "journey" that photographers can expect to make as they start out in their photography. Whether it is for a career in photography, or just as a hobby, we all have to expect some "bumps" along the way. Our early work is probably not going to be up to the standards that we have for ourselves. I know that mine wasn't. Even today, some of it isn't up to my personal standards, but that is the way it goes. Sometimes you try things that don't work and sometimes they do work. That's just the way it is.
I am sure that we could get into a long discussion about all of this, but I would draw your attention to the work of Cartier-Bresson who took most, if not all of his pictures hand-held with a 35mm camera and a 50mm lens, although he would, occasionally used a wide angle. I would disagree with your contention that a good camera and expensive lenses will help improve your photography. Maybe it will help with yours, but I have seen folks out in the field on some of the photography tours that I have attended with high-end cameras and professional lenses shoot images that really weren't that good, so gear isn't everything. In fact, I believe it was Ansel Adams that said
The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it.
I would also note that you can buy extension tubes for use with a kit lens as a start for macro - you don't really need a
proper macro lens to start out with. The tubes come in sets of three and, if you do get some, get those that allow communication between the lens and the camera. When I first started out in macro, many, many years ago, that is how I got my start - a Canon consumer film camera, a 50mm lens and a set of Kenko extension tubes. I don't used the camera or the lens anymore, but I still have the extension tubes and I still user them with my macro lens and some of my other lenses as well. The extension tubes are a bit more expensive today than they were when I bought mine, but you can still get them from B&H for about $140US, quite a lot cheaper than a good macro lens. Of course, if you are going to do macro, then you will need a good, steady tripod, but that's the subject of a whole different posting!
The other thing you can buy are close up lenses. These look a bit like filters that you screw on to the front of your lens. Again there are quite a variety of these, some good, some not so good and they range from those that are cheap to those that are very expensive (more than a macro lens). If these interest you, then I would suggest you do your research before buying any - me, I would go for the extension tubes first as all they do is move your lens further away from the sensor. There is no glass in them to affect the quality of the final image.
The last thing you could look at is buying second hand lens or a refurbished lens. If you go this route, just do your homework on "second hand" stuff. What to look for, what to avoid, etc. Alternatively, you can buy a new 3rd party lens (Sigma or Tamron) for whatever camera you have for less than $400 and you can even buy a new 50mm macro lens for a Canon for under $300 (approximate B&H prices in US $)
So, I would suggest things are not as bad as you might think they are. If you have any more questions, then post back and I will only be too happy to try and answer them.
WesternGuy