Ironically, the article about using the M8 in antartica and it's limitations, left me thinking that the proof was in the photos, and the photos were simply superb. The author may have wished he'd had long lenses and IS, but I have to say - these images are the best I've seen on this site so far.

Perhaps less is more, or being constrained by your equipment means you have to work harder, think more, and be a bit more inventive. I felt that a lot of the compositions were great.

Hi Bruce

You have a point there, and are endorsing a technique which I have adopted myself, partly from a desire to concentrate the mind and also due to strength problems brought on by a heart attack four years ago.

Was a time when the camera bag was always full of whichever format I'd decided to use; today, the Gitzo gathers more dust than exposures and the norm is for a single body and lens to be taken out for the shoot which, of course, is now more pre-determined than ever before. This worked with film and is even better with digital - hoping not to be a hostage to fortune, I must say that not swapping lenses in the wild has saved me dirt-on-sensor problems so far...

On the M8 thing: I think that the current home-page shot of the flowers and sculpture is far more interesting than any iceberg; I'm sorry to say this, and I accept that this sure ain't my personal website, but I have a feeling that icebergs are in great danger of being added to the 'another rock, another tree' mantra of what might have been done to death by virtue of over exposure. Perhaps thrilling, exciting even for those who were on the trip, but when you don't have that part of the equation in your mind it leaves a lot of the attraction missing. Much like somebody else's baby, in fact.

No offence, but an honestly held belief.

Rob C

I think ice bergs are an immature subject (not well photographed) and the majority of images of ice bregs are immature treatments (rather basic approaches). Hence, the feeling of just another ice berg.