Bump

That doesn't prove anything really.
It's not a particularly challenging subject - all the time in the world to compose your shot, good light to one side, everything on the same focal plane (not the usual lottery of where it's going to focus), bit contrasty and predictably, the shadows have filled-in. Sky is starting to look a bit smudgy/grainy - wouldn't want to look too closely at that or heaven forbid, introduce a bit of sun!

Nigel, I posted that bit specifically in response to your assertion that:
I was just pointing out (rather badly) that that's just an opinion. If you don't mess around with the noise and smudge it around, then it is very like film grain and perfectly pleasant side-effect of pushing the envelope.
But my main point was that I don't really agree with the main thrust of the argument. There are indeed bad cameras. A good camera won't transform a bad photographer, but it will add to his ability to capture difficult images, say, very contrasty, or poor light.
A good photographer can always go a bit further, whatever he has in his hands, but he's not going to lumber himself with something like a WG-3 if he doesn't have to.

Ray, have you actually clicked the link?

I've been seeking-out high-speed film since 1980 just for the grain and now I routinely add noise to digital images that I feel are too clean.
The article is deliberately provocative, polarising the argument. 'All the gear, no idea' is very often the case, but there are still some shitty lenses and cameras which will make capturing your vision really painful, if not impossible. My current bête noire is the WG-3 - simply incapable of doing what I want (I've just thrown away 4 day's worth of holiday images where it has either missed the action, bleached out the highlights, washed out the colours, missed the focus... etc. Not one decent picture. I definitely had the vision and I gave it so many chances; it definitely didn't have the capability.
If I was in a war zone, the subject would be so powerful, it wouldn't matter and I would be glad of a robust little device, but my children playing in the waves with the sun glistening on the curling breakers should be a similarly poignant image for me; an image I can forgive a few technical deficiencies, but the camera failed to capture anything but a mess.

I often make tall crops with the subject way down in the bottom quarter.
Sometimes I have to 'create' more canvas to achieve this.

Ah yes, that's a good point. I'm still not sure myself about leaving it off; I have one small WM, just to let people know where the image came from.

Some nice images there. Last one especially (for me)
Go easy on the watermarks tho. One is plenty IMO.
A very large number of top professionals don't watermark at all. Sharing is promotion and nobody shares a watermarked image.

If you remove all the flowers so you're left with the rather beautiful background, you have a nice image. Seriously, blow it up and frame it.
You're right about that lens
The flower is too sparse and the blown highlight ruins it.
Personally, I don't care for the crop above.
Alternatively, if you have more to play with, then emphasise the spindly flower by isolating it further and placing it at the bottom of the (now tall) frame. Just an idea.

Anybody want a WG-3. they're really good, honest.