What kind of camera and best priced place to buy it?

[reefgeek84]

I know this question has been brought up before...but I am a complete noob to cameras...I would like to get a digital SLR. I have seen some amazing photos and I want to take ones like it. People have told me that it can be done with a point and shoot, but I disagree, I have spent countless hours trying to get the photos that people get with their SLR's and I have yet to achieve those results. This will be strictly for coral macros...I may use it for some other photo's, but not going out and wanting to win a Pulitzer...

 

-what Brand is best? is Nikon and Cannon really worth it, or would Sony or Fuji do?

-How high end? for example if I went nikon, do I need the d80 or would the d40 be great..

-What kind of lens?

 

also is there a place that had either great prices on used or is new the way to go?

 

I would appreciate any help and input someone can give on this.

[CCR]

we have always been cannon fans. The rebel xti is the newer one. the xt is a little older 8.2 mp. is a great buy. we have the t

[andy]

I'm on the other side, I'm a Nikon fanboy. My suggestion is to go to a store, try out both the Canon and the Nikon and see which you like the feel of better. Which fits your hand better, which menu system you like better, etc. Both Canon and Nikon make excellent cameras, and you'll be happy with the image quality, etc from either.

 

Personally, in the SLR market, I wouldn't buy anything other than a Nikon or Canon. I view anything else as a gamble. When you buy your first SLR, you're really making a long-term decision to buy into a complete photography system. All your subsequent purchases will be based off that -- lenses, flash, accessories. The last thing you want to do is spend a few grand on a system only to have that company exit the market, get bought out by a crap company, etc.

 

The Nikon D40 is a great entry-level camera. It sacrifices a few features, of course, to make that price point but I doubt they're anything you'll miss. Check out the Overall Conclusions section at the DPReview Review, it covers things nicely. If you are serious about mostly shooting corals and want to save a bit of money, most cameras can be bought body-only (no lens included). Buy the body, then buy the Tamron 90mm Macro lens to go with it. That'll get you set up for coral shooting quite well. Also, invest in a decent tripod and head (figure ~$250 for the pair). Like reefkeeping equipment, cheap photo gear sucks to use, works poorly and will let you down when you need it most.

 

Cool, now that the impartial stuff is out of the way I'm gonna tell you why you should buy Nikon instead of Canon :-) Two of Canon's major strengths are:

1. Autofocus speed - Canon has excellent autofocus speed, which is a big part of why you'll see a vast majority of sports photogs shooting on Canon gear. In macro photography that doesn't really come into play. You'll usually focus manually to the lens' minimum focusing distance then physically move the camera back and forth to bring the subject into focus (which is why you want a good tripod, much easier to do this with a quality tripod/head)
   
2. Image Stabilization - Canon has a wider range of lenses with image stabilization. Image stabilization can give you a couple of extra stops when shooting a subject at distance, but has very little affect on macro work.
   

Nikon is traditionally strong in macro, their Micro-Nikkor lenses are widely viewed as the best macro lenses available. They're also very expensive (which is why I suggested the really-good Tamron 90mm macro).

 

The biggest reason I suggest Nikon is their Creative Lighting System (explanation and review here). It allows complete control of remote speedlights without using a sync cable, instead using micro flashes of the built-in flash. I've been experimenting with this technique and while I've not mastered it yet I'm getting some pretty decent results. Plus, it's a lot of fun to play around with (clap)

 

Last but not least, buy locally. You might save a few bucks buying over the internet, but in the long run you're better off spending a few bucks extra and develop a relationship with your local store. The same way your LFS would help you out if you have questions or if a ballast crapped out on you, Pro Photo Supply (for example) would do the same for photo stuff. Plus, Pro Photo Supply rents gear so you can try before you buy, or just rent for once-in-a-while projects.

 

Come to think of it, wouldn't it be cool if you could rent expensive gear from the LFS to check it out? Is the Deltec skimmer worth it? Spend $40 to rent it for a month and find out. Would T-5's look good on my system? Spend $20 to rent it for the weekend... Hmmm.... (scratch)

 

Anyways, those're my opinions. Let me know if you want to check out some Nikon stuff in the real world...

[reefgeek84]

I'm on the other side, I'm a Nikon fanboy. My suggestion is to go to a store, try out both the Canon and the Nikon and see which you like the feel of better. Which fits your hand better, which menu system you like better, etc. Both Canon and Nikon make excellent cameras, and you'll be happy with the image quality, etc from either.

 

Personally, in the SLR market, I wouldn't buy anything other than a Nikon or Canon. I view anything else as a gamble. When you buy your first SLR, you're really making a long-term decision to buy into a complete photography system. All your subsequent purchases will be based off that -- lenses, flash, accessories. The last thing you want to do is spend a few grand on a system only to have that company exit the market, get bought out by a crap company, etc.

 

The Nikon D40 is a great entry-level camera. It sacrifices a few features, of course, to make that price point but I doubt they're anything you'll miss. Check out the Overall Conclusions section at the DPReview Review, it covers things nicely. If you are serious about mostly shooting corals and want to save a bit of money, most cameras can be bought body-only (no lens included). Buy the body, then buy the Tamron 90mm Macro lens to go with it. That'll get you set up for coral shooting quite well. Also, invest in a decent tripod and head (figure ~$250 for the pair). Like reefkeeping equipment, cheap photo gear sucks to use, works poorly and will let you down when you need it most.

 

Cool, now that the impartial stuff is out of the way I'm gonna tell you why you should buy Nikon instead of Canon :-) Two of Canon's major strengths are:

1. Autofocus speed - Canon has excellent autofocus speed, which is a big part of why you'll see a vast majority of sports photogs shooting on Canon gear. In macro photography that doesn't really come into play. You'll usually focus manually to the lens' minimum focusing distance then physically move the camera back and forth to bring the subject into focus (which is why you want a good tripod, much easier to do this with a quality tripod/head)
   
2. Image Stabilization - Canon has a wider range of lenses with image stabilization. Image stabilization can give you a couple of extra stops when shooting a subject at distance, but has very little affect on macro work.
   

Nikon is traditionally strong in macro, their Micro-Nikkor lenses are widely viewed as the best macro lenses available. They're also very expensive (which is why I suggested the really-good Tamron 90mm macro).

 

The biggest reason I suggest Nikon is their Creative Lighting System (explanation and review here). It allows complete control of remote speedlights without using a sync cable, instead using micro flashes of the built-in flash. I've been experimenting with this technique and while I've not mastered it yet I'm getting some pretty decent results. Plus, it's a lot of fun to play around with (clap)

 

Last but not least, buy locally. You might save a few bucks buying over the internet, but in the long run you're better off spending a few bucks extra and develop a relationship with your local store. The same way your LFS would help you out if you have questions or if a ballast crapped out on you, Pro Photo Supply (for example) would do the same for photo stuff. Plus, Pro Photo Supply rents gear so you can try before you buy, or just rent for once-in-a-while projects.

 

Come to think of it, wouldn't it be cool if you could rent expensive gear from the LFS to check it out? Is the Deltec skimmer worth it? Spend $40 to rent it for a month and find out. Would T-5's look good on my system? Spend $20 to rent it for the weekend... Hmmm.... (scratch)

 

Anyways, those're my opinions. Let me know if you want to check out some Nikon stuff in the real world...

 

Wow, thank you! you should work for something that has to do with cameras...I think you have convinced me to get a Nikon. The renting thing is pretty cool, I may have to try it out and see what I can come up with...I have seen Nikon stuff in the real world, digital SLR's are way better then point and shoot.

[Piero]

You can get what regular consumers would consider amazing photo quality from pretty much any digital camera these days. Poor images are typically more a product of the user and environmental factors, not the hardware. I recommend the coolpix 4500 for good reef and macro shots. amazing little camera and these days you can get them for under $200 i would think. Wish I had kept mine actually.

 

I'm a longtime Nikonian, but Canon is good too. coke vs. pepsi, imo. But if you're not already really a photo nut, I would just stick with point/shoot. Especially if this is your first digital camera.

 

sounds like regardless you have lots of reading/homework to do. start here: www.dpreview.com and try the usual locations too, like RC's photography forum.

 

if that doesn't help try googling "digital photography shopping guide" "aquarium photography" and you should get plenty of results with helpful information.

[andy]

You can get what regular consumers would consider amazing photo quality from pretty much any digital camera these days. Poor images are typically more a product of the user and environmental factors' date=' not the hardware.[/quote']

 

This is true, I've captured some fine images with a P&S (Canon PowerShots for the most part) and many people are justifiably happy with the results they give. However, for many reasons (sensor size and noise being two major ones) P&S photos won't ever be comparable to well captured SLR shots. OF course, SLRs will never compete with P&S on their strong points either (portability, pure ease of use).

 

From my POV the decision set boils down to two criteria:

 

1. Purpose - If someone is looking for a bit of fun, or to capture photos to put up on a coral-for-sale website a P&S is just fine. If they want to work artistically or capture the highest quality macro shots an SLR is more likely to please them.
   
2. Approach - If someone wants to just get a picture when they want/need one, a P&S is the way to go. If someone wants to move into photography as a hobby unto itself and is expecting to put time into it, an SLR is the way to go.
   

[Piero]

judging by reefgeek's post, I'm guessing point-shoot will more than meet his needs. Sounds like he doesn't have any real photography experience and does not have specific needs.

 

of course point and shoot will never bee SLR, but most people don't have a real need for DSLR. A VW may never be a lambo, but I'm just looking to get around, not race the pros. I notice very often - especially in this hobby - people seem to get much more camera than they need or will ever use... just because they think 'dslr is good' and don't understand that it's more about the user's needs.

 

If you're just planning on taking pictures casually of your life and reef tank to post on the internet or make small prints, point and shoot is fine. If you're planning on making photography a hobby by itself and invest in lenses, then consider DSLR. But most people are just interested in taking nice pics and are not into the pro aspects.

 

Plenty of people spring $1000 on a DSLR setup and then never take it off the 'auto' setting. So definitely determine your needs first, then figure out what will satisfy those needs adequately. I'm guessing something like a Coolpix or a Canon Digital Elf would be a good match. The one thing to reasearch is which models shoot close-up/macro well. That's what set the coolpix 4500 apart for reef shooting specifically. I have a digital elf in addition to my Dslr gear and it takes great pics.

[blown65]

Ya, I'd say Canon or Nikon also. I have read some that the new Pentax is supposed to be a good DSLR but I don't know anything about it.

 

I love my Canon XTI.

 

Couple good links with huge amounts of info.

 

www.fredmiranda.com (everything, visit the forum)

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/ (Canon info)

[reefgeek84]

judging by reefgeek's post, I'm guessing point-shoot will more than meet his needs. Sounds like he doesn't have any real photography experience and does not have specific needs.

 

of course point and shoot will never bee SLR, but most people don't have a real need for DSLR. A VW may never be a lambo, but I'm just looking to get around, not race the pros. I notice very often - especially in this hobby - people seem to get much more camera than they need or will ever use... just because they think 'dslr is good' and don't understand that it's more about the user's needs.

 

If you're just planning on taking pictures casually of your life and reef tank to post on the internet or make small prints, point and shoot is fine. If you're planning on making photography a hobby by itself and invest in lenses, then consider DSLR. But most people are just interested in taking nice pics and are not into the pro aspects.

 

Plenty of people spring $1000 on a DSLR setup and then never take it off the 'auto' setting. So definitely determine your needs first, then figure out what will satisfy those needs adequately. I'm guessing something like a Coolpix or a Canon Digital Elf would be a good match. The one thing to reasearch is which models shoot close-up/macro well. That's what set the coolpix 4500 apart for reef shooting specifically. I have a digital elf in addition to my Dslr gear and it takes great pics.

 

Wrong you did not read my first post...I said that I am not getting the results I want from my point and shoot that I have...

 

find me a point and shoot that can take photos like this...

(this photo was taken by bwest on RC and in one of E-A-G-L-E-S threads)

[Piero]

Actually, any canon or nikon point and shoot can get you pics like that.

You may not need a new camera to address your issues. Are you referring to the fact that it is close-up? Just pick a camera that can focus up close. My coolpix 4500 could focus as close as 1.5cm.

 

What camera are you working with currently? There's a good chance that the problem is likely not your camera. As previously stated these issues are more often a product of inexperience. You said you're new to photography, so I'm guessing that may be the case.

[Piero]

If you doubt point-and-shoot capabilities, see this. I took these with my 4-year old coolpix. It's a 'crappy' point and shoot by today's standards. I have 100s of more examples if you're interested.

[andy]

find me a point and shoot that can take photos like this...

 

I'm always up for a challenge ;-)

 

I just shot this with a Canon Powershot S40 (old P&S). It's the best of three shots, run through a quick pass in Adobe Lightroom. It's a different style of shot, but technically equal (better, imo (rock2)) to the shot you provided. Piero's right, you don't have to go SLR to get nice shots. You could buy a P&S, and spend the money you saved on a new lighting rig for my tank (clap)

 

[reefgeek84]

So, I am a horrible photographer like you said Piero...My camera is a Casio Elixim 6 mega pixel, so maybe it is the camera, I have a tri-pod and have tried every different setting and combo to get photos like that and I can not.

 

So is it me or my camera? I will post a couple of shots, that I took...and the specs on what I did...

[Piero]

oh cmon...you're certainly not a 'horrible photographer'; you're simply a beginner. No worries. Could also be the camera, idunno. I didn't even realize Casio made cameras. yeah post a couple and lets see what's goin' on..

[reefgeek84]

No, I am bad at it, from looking at the pics that you and andy posted...

 

Settings...

Sharp +2

ISO 100

Anti-shake

Macro focus

6m [3:2]

White balance manual

Contrast +2

 

Photoshop changes-

-Auto-color

-Sharpen

-resized image

[Piero]

the first two apper to have focus issues. One may be too close to focus(the first?) and the other may be movement blur so make sure you are using a tripod. If you still get movement blur you need more ambient light to speed up the shutter(more light, faster exposure).

 

but the third one is much better....a bit grainy...and a bit out of focus....could be too close to the subject. First address the focus issues, then exposure issues.

 

so, first pass:

1) make sure you're not too close to the subject for the camera.

2) make sure you have enough light so the shutter can snap more quickly and you'll avoid motion blur.

3) use tripod

 

hope that helps. Don't hesitate with more questions.

[reefgeek84]

My pics, just do not have the color that your guy's pics have...that is what I am wanting...

 

What is the best way to get more ambient light?

[Piero]

more light - literally, more light. Ideally from the tank, but ambient light in the room can affect shutter speed as well.

 

hrm, color saturation can be enhanced post-proc, but it's all about the light. I'm assuming the coral looks much more colorful to your naked eyes.

[reefgeek84]

more light - literally, more light. Ideally from the tank, but ambient light in the room can affect shutter speed as well.

 

hrm, color saturation can be enhanced post-proc, but it's all about the light. I'm assuming the coral looks much more colorful to your naked eyes.

 

Yes, they look so much better to my eyes...I have 800watts of MH over the tank...not sure what else I can do to get more light...

[blown65]

ISO 100 isnt helping you much either.

[Piero]

put everything on auto or default settings, except make it macro mode, and try a shot.

 

The visual noise factor might be the camera though, idunno. Casio is not known for their cameras I don't believe. I think the only electronics company with any camera-rep is Sony, but i'd honestly go for a nikon or a canon...

[reefgeek84]

ISO 100 isnt helping you much either.

What would you recommend...I was told to have it low, to take out noise...

[reefgeek84]

put everything on auto or default settings, except make it macro mode, and try a shot.

 

The visual noise factor might be the camera though, idunno. Casio is not known for their cameras I don't believe. I think the only electronics company with any camera-rep is Sony, but i'd honestly go for a nikon or a canon...

 

I have tried that and it is worse...looks like I need to get a Nikon P&S...

[blown65]

Well, I dont know your camera, and yes having it at 100 will take out noise. I wouldnt think moving up to 200 or 400 would or should introduce significant noise to the picture. Its nice to be able to add light, but thats pretty tuff on a aquarium IMO. Raise the ISO and take some shots, it will keep you from getting motion blur since the shutter with be faster now.

[izzypop]

Coming from an inexperienced person. I have a canon powershot 540 and can take some pretty sweet pics of my tank with it but only in certain situations. It has an underwater filter that works fantastic. Heck my picture did pretty well for POTM with a powershot. I have played with the D80 and it is by far SWEET and I know hardly anything but a simple 30 minute instruction from the owner and I was takin some [language filter] good shots that my powershot couldn't get. All in all I would love the D80 but the Powershots are hard to beat for the price. I know I could get that shot with a D80 and some time. With my powershot I don't think so unless the acro was right infront of the glass. Probably a more experienced person could do it but I'd rather not struggle and become an expert at the powershot.

My vote: DSLR - NIKON / POS - Canon Powershot