# Is it just me, or are there lots of camera threads already? Well now theres one more.



## Da Plant Man

I need a better camera...I might sell my fujii camera, it works really good, great point and shoot, but just can't take pictures of my tanks. It is great up until that point. It was made in 2008, I got it refurbed from a vendor off amazon for 60% off retail at the time, has served me wonderful but it might be time to retire it. Figure I might be able to get $100-$150 from it and then save up another $100-$150 for a nice camera. Its 10 mega pixels, and has AA batteries, not rechargeable, makes it nice when you go hiking. It has one flaw that can be fixed; the battery lid won't stay closed and you have to use duct tape to keep the batteries in. What do you think? Here are some photos taken with it.



























Do you think I should sell my camera, get a new one and put a hold on my tank for a month or not? I just can't stand taken photos/videos of my tank anymore.


----------



## TickleMyElmo

You're not really going to get good pictures of your tank until you get to a DSLR. Sure, there's some good point and shoots out there that will take decent pics, and people will try to convince you that their xyz point and shoot takes "great pics!" of their tank, but honestly, you're not going to get impressive high quality results until you get into the DSLR world. And just getting a DSLR doesn't mean you're pics will instantly become professional, it takes talent, skill, and a lot of knowledge about light and lighting to get real professional results. And by that time you'll have spent much more than a $600 Nikon D3100.

That's not to say you cant get great pictures from a D3100 or other low end DSLR, any semi-competent picture from a D3100 will blow the socks off a point and shoot any day, especially if you have some talent. You can have all the bells and whistles and "macro modes" you want in a point and shoot, but at the end of day its all about the sensor size. 98% of point and shoots sensors are the size of your fingernail. The 2% exception is something like the Canon G12 or Nikon P7000, whose sensors are only marginally bigger. DSLR's with crop sensors are about the size of 8 point and shoot sensors, and full frame DSLR sensors are about the size of 15 point and shoot sensors. I'm just saying to be realistic in your expectations :icon_wink Believe me, a point and shoot just isn't worth it, you're better off saving for DSLR if you're going to be serious about it. Of course, that may not be worth it if the only good pictures you want will be of your fish tank :red_mouth


----------



## Da Plant Man

I am most certainly going with a DSLR, you can tell the difference from the best point and shoot to a "okay, could be better" DSLR. What might be my options if I do get a camera? Any place I should be looking? I like CNET for reviews, hopefully I might score lucky on a camera on [Ebay Link Removed] I need the money first.


----------



## TickleMyElmo

Anything from Nikon or Canon would be good. I have a preference for Nikon, as I like the ergonomics, lenses, and flash system much better than Canon. It's really matter of personal taste though, I highly recommend going to a camera shop or BestBuy and holding a few from Nikon and Canon as their handling is quite different and that'll give you the best judgment. I don't know as much about Canon as I do Nikon, so I can only recommend Nikon cameras. In your price range a used DSLR would be your best bet. Look into something like the Nikon D40 (older, but considered a classic and has a huge fan club following even amongst advanced DSLR users), Nikon D3000 or D3100...really cant go wrong with any camera from the big 2 (Nikon and Canon)...


----------



## Da Plant Man

The D40 doesn't seem to have that many megapixels...only 6.1MP... I want something 10MP or higher I think. I might have a "in" with a private photographer who does weddings, summer camps, things like that. She might have a older dslr she might want to sell. I will keep searching/saving my pennies until I find the right one.


----------



## speedie408

Caton,

If you're really interested in a DSLR, check out these 2 links for starters:

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Guides/dslr_buying_guide_01.htm
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

Then come back  

Elmo is a Nikon fan boy, he has nothing on Canon  *j/k Elmo* Jokes aside, I do agree with Elmo. There's a plethora of gear out there. Do your research and find what you think fits you and your current budget. If you become a true photography nut, you're bound to upgrade down the line so that's why you can always start on the lower end of the spectrum to get your feet wet. It's part of the learning curve. 

Nikon does have their own perks but so does Canon. Even Sony's been looking good lately. As Elmo already stated, it is truely up to the end user (YOU) to decide what brand you want to devote to. I say devote because once you start buying the different lenses/flash/equipment/etc. for your camera, that gear will only work for that specific brand. You become "loyal" to your brand. 

If you decide to go the Canon route, I'd suggest you look into some of the newer Rebel bodies. Or even the 40D or 50D (Canon's stepping stone bodies into pro bodies). You're going to be hooked. Just be ready to empty out your pockets every time you buy a lens because they cost more than the bodies. Have fun!


----------



## TeamTeal

i doubt you can sell an old P&S digital camera for anywhere close to $100 in the condition you describe. =S


----------



## xJaypex

definitely check craigslist

I bought my sony a300 dslr for only 80 bucks, al i had to do was get a 3 dollar charger and replace the lcd screen which i did myself


----------



## MCHRKiller

Megapixels dont really matter *that* much as far as normal sized images go. Point and shoot companies honestly use megapixels as a p*ssing contest to trick people into thinking their crappy little camera will take better photos. Unless you like to print subway poster size images, you will not notice the difference as far as megapixels are concerned. Sensors, lighting, and lenses...are MUCH more important. Which you have a sheer advantage with a DSLR as previously stated you have a much larger sensor. You can also change out lenses to handle different types of photos and lighting levels and you can toss on some speed lights to assist otherwise. That D40 which you can get used for dirt on ebay, will blow any P&S out of the water by far.


----------



## majstor76

I was too on budget and bought slightly damaged canon 350d for 200$. I had 3 analogue Praktica lenses and bought canon adapter for them so now i have 4 lenses for little money. And ebay is full of cheap Canon equipment (bateries, chargers, filters...) and there are more of it than Nikon.


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist

Hi Caton,

I have been taking photos for several decades I have come to realize it isn't just the camera, but the photographer. I have a Nikon SLR for film, but I use a under $200 Canon PowerShot SX110is (replaced by SX130is) for digital. I like the ability to go manual mode, set the speed, f-stop, with manual focus. The Macro mode gives good close ups. It uses two AA batteries; I use rechargeable. the "Auto" mode is a great "Point and Shoot"; just offering up an alternative. BTW, this image has been dropped down from 2000 KB to 200 KB so it looks a little "grainy"


----------



## rickztahone

MCHRKiller said:


> Megapixels dont really matter *that* much as far as normal sized images go. Point and shoot companies honestly use megapixels as a p*ssing contest to trick people into thinking their crappy little camera will take better photos. Unless you like to print subway poster size images, you will not notice the difference as far as megapixels are concerned. Sensors, lighting, and lenses...are MUCH more important. Which you have a sheer advantage with a DSLR as previously stated you have a much larger sensor. You can also change out lenses to handle different types of photos and lighting levels and you can toss on some speed lights to assist otherwise. That D40 which you can get used for dirt on ebay, will blow any P&S out of the water by far.


+1 wrt the Mega pixels. They are what catch people's attention but in reeality not many people use such high mp's to their full potential


----------



## rich815

_*"You're not really going to get good pictures of your tank until you get to a DSLR"*_

Sorry, but that's a load of mulm.

You can get excellent professional-quality results from P&S digital cameras and you do not need a DSLR to do so. Most people _who insist_ only a DSLR can give good results have spent thousands on their DSLR and need to justify it and feel better for having spent all that money.

Here's some digital images from my tank taken with a 5.0mp Sony digi-cam made in 2003. What's that, maybe 8-10 generations of digicams in the past?? Gee, imagine what I could do with a new digicam! Or even if I had a DSLR! LOL!

Not to say a DSLR is bad, heck if you got the money and want to go whole hog go for it, you'll get great results from a DSLR, but it's certainly NOT needed and that blanket statement is far from accurate.


----------



## rich815

BTW, which Fuji digicam model do you have now? I might buy it.


----------



## TickleMyElmo

rich815 said:


> _*"You're not really going to get good pictures of your tank until you get to a DSLR"*_
> 
> Sorry, but that's a load of mulm.
> 
> You can get excellent professional-quality results from P&S digital cameras and you do not need a DSLR to do so. Most people _who insist_ only a DSLR can give good results have spent thousands on their DSLR and need to justify it and feel better for having spent all that money.
> 
> Here's some digital images from my tank taken with a 5.0mp Sony digi-cam made in 2003. What's that, maybe 8-10 generations of digicams in the past?? Gee, imagine what I could do with a new digicam! Or even if I had a DSLR! LOL!
> 
> Not to say a DSLR is bad, heck if you got the money and want to go whole hog go for it, you'll get great results from a DSLR, but it's certainly NOT needed and that blanket statement is far from accurate.



I say this in the kindest way possible, with no intent of starting anything, but I just don't consider those to be high quality professional results. There's all kinds of technical issues with them. Some are grainy, some suffer from sub-par shutter speed, the DOF on some is off and the focus missed on a few of the shots. In the end, you can still tell they were taken with a point and shoot.

That's not to say they're bad, they're definitely not, in fact they're rather impressive for a point and shoot, especially a 7 year old one 

Basically, it comes down to the OP's expectations. What you posted may be well within his expectations and may be the perfect solution for him and any other person who just wants to take pictures of their tank to post on the internet. For me, not so much, but again, it all depends on personal expectations and goals. You could do a fashion photo-shoot with a point and shoot and get great results, but in the end, chances are the DSLR will always be of better quality, it all comes down to lens options and sensor sizes as mentioned before. You simply cannot get the level of control available in a DSLR in a point and shoot. There's a reason all professionals use SLR's, believe me, if they could they would all be using P&S's for their light weight and compactness. 

Can you get great shots of your tank using a point and shoot? Absolutely. Professional? Probably not, unless its in the hands of a professional and even then, the quality would still be slightly lesser than with the use of DSLR. It simply about the capabilities of the individual camera.

Again, its all about how serious the OP wishes to get, that's all I'm saying :thumbsup: I should have said in my original post "You're not really going to get good,* high quality, professional-ish* pictures of your tank until you get to a DSLR"

Awesome shrimp and discus by the way :icon_wink


----------



## Da Plant Man

I have a finepix S1000fd, its a great camera, looks fine, only problem is the batteries. Takes a normal SD card. 12x zoom. I really wish I knew about the megapixel deal...Lol, I am a noob


----------



## speedie408

rich815 said:


> Most people _who insist_ only a DSLR can give good results have spent thousands on their DSLR and need to justify it and feel better for having spent all that money.


Rich, If you ever hear me say this horse manure, please slap me. :icon_cool 

I've spent some coin on my gear over the years but I don't go around saying I'm a pro or my pictures are better than everyone elses, etc. Like someone recently said in another forum, once you get paid for your work on a regular, you then can be considered a pro. Otherwise we're all just hobbyist. Some more talented then others definitely. 

Oh how I _love_ photography discussions


----------



## Da Plant Man

The only downside I see to a point and shoot (don't get me wrong, there are tons of other things) but that is the ability to change out lenses and manual zoom. If my camera had manual zoom, I would keep it and not upgrade. I know that a DSLR is amazing though so now that I tried my friends I have to get it


----------



## houseofcards

You could definitely get great shots with a P/S camera. But what's great will always bee in the eye of the beholder. A professional or advanced hobbyist will always see things in the pic that many wouldn't in the same way an art critic looks at a painting or a aquascape critic looks at a layout. 

With that being said. Light is usually the limiting factor to good pics. Ever notice when you go outside with your P/S the pics look really good compared to indoors. Some of the really high end SLRs take much better pics in low light although all benefit from external light sources. Add to that the ablity to shoot in raw and edit more variables. Most P/S cameras just can't match up in that respect.


----------



## Da Plant Man

I really like my P&S but, I think it might be time to sell mine and upgrade.


----------



## Da Plant Man

After looking at the Cnet reviews, I might go with the Pentax K-x, it is around $450, they give it a good review, and it has all the things I need.


----------



## Da Plant Man

I think I am pretty set on a camera (my demands just increased), I just need to get the money. I am going to get a Nikon D3100. It is in my price range, has okay lens, has most the features I want and is light (not that it matters). Now to just get the dough to buy it.


----------



## dwc13

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi Caton,
> 
> I have been taking photos for several decades I have come to realize it isn't just the camera, but the photographer. I have a Nikon SLR for film, but I use a under $200 Canon PowerShot SX110is (replaced by SX130is) for digital. I like the ability to go manual mode, set the speed, f-stop, with manual focus. The Macro mode gives good close ups. It uses two AA batteries; I use rechargeable. the "Auto" mode is a great "Point and Shoot"; just offering up an alternative. BTW, this image has been dropped down from 2000 KB to 200 KB so it looks a little "grainy"


 

+1 on the "it's the photographer", not the equipment. 

While a DSLR will have a significantly larger sensor than a digicam, the light hitting the sensor is spread out over a larger area. Where the DSLR has the undisputed advantage is in its ability to use add-on accessories, such as lenses (i.e., larger apertures for low light situations), filters, etc. You just don't have anywhere close to the range of options with a digicam that can be found on a typical DSLR system. 

Also, some folks like shooting RAW image files, which digicams don't often support.


----------



## JACimages

I use the Canon 5D, i have the 24-70L, nifty 50, and the 70-200 and a bunch of lighting stuff since i shoot mainly fashion and stuff. i shoot all raw, and use PS, Bridge and lightroom to do all my post work.

ex


----------



## houseofcards

JACimages said:


> I use the Canon 5D, i have the 24-70L, nifty 50, and the 70-200 and a bunch of lighting stuff since i shoot mainly fashion and stuff. i shoot all raw, and use PS, Bridge and lightroom to do all my post work.
> ex


Nice pics. What kind of studio lighting would you recommend for shooting aquariums?


----------



## brianS

People have been taking great pictures with a lot less than a dslr for many years. +many on the comments about it not being the camera, but rather the user. Behind every great photograph, is a great photographer. For many, it's being in the right place, at the right time. For most, it's about what you see...then capturing that on an image. Some are more artistic than others. But, if all we're doing is taking pictures of our tanks, then any camera will do. Instead of going out and throwing down $500 - $2500 on the latest dslr, with all the useless fluff...learn about your camera's functions first. Know the camera inside and out. I've seen spectacular images from many cell phone camera's. Don't believe me? Google "chase jarvis" and see what he's done with his iphone camera.


----------



## JACimages

strobing really shouldn't be in an option in shooting aquariums. you will get a washed out look and you will get glare on the glass.. unless your diffusing the light like crazy but i still wouldn't do it. if you were going to do it. i would strobe off whitecards place all around the tank probably besides. or just shooting up at a white cealing will get the your fish to freeze possibly behind. 

but i would just have a good aquarium light, and a good lens and camera where i can bump up my ISO and shutterspeed.

heres a good article 
http://www.wetwebmedia.com/ca/volume_2/cav2i2/aquarium_photography/photography.htm


----------



## speedie408

JACimages said:


> strobing really shouldn't be in an option in shooting aquariums. you will get a washed out look and you will get glare on the glass.. unless your diffusing the light like crazy but i still wouldn't do it. if you were going to do it. i would strobe off whitecards place all around the tank probably besides. or just shooting up at a white cealing will get the your fish to freeze possibly behind.
> 
> but i would just have a good aquarium light, and a good lens and camera where i can bump up my ISO and shutterspeed.
> 
> heres a good article
> http://www.wetwebmedia.com/ca/volume_2/cav2i2/aquarium_photography/photography.htm


I have to disagree if it's regarding fish/invert photography. After experimenting with a remote flash trigger, I was able to capture much more vivid fish pictures with the best IQ. Why you might ask? Well because with a flash you're shooting at the lowest ISO yielding the best IQ. To balance the washed out colors from the flash you simply bump up the aperture to f/8. The DOF will also become much wider enabling more of the fish to be in focus. You'll still get a nice bokeh if you're using a macro lens. Here are a few shots I recently took with this technique:




























Now if we're just talking FTS (full tank shots), that's another story. I'd agree with you on that part.


----------



## houseofcards

Just so there's no misunderstanding. I know I need off camera light to take the photography where I want to go. I just wanted another opinion on whether strobe or a fixed light setup was better and/or pros/cons. Speedie have you tried both? Nice shots!


----------



## speedie408

Thanks hoc.

IME shooting without a flash is great for FTSs and random non macro shots. If you're wanting detail and IQ of a certain plant or fish/invert, then definitely hands down flash photography ftw. To answer your question, I have tried both. I love using the remote flash trigger. Too bad it's a cheap model and isn't E-TTL compatible.


----------



## JACimages

im taking out my studio strobes now. and i will show you results. i do this for a living


----------



## speedie408

JACimages said:


> im taking out my studio strobes now. and i will show you results. i do this for a living


This I'd love to see. Please post up. . If you don't mind, a shot of your strobe setup as well plz. .


----------



## JACimages

i did 3 different set ups all shot at iso 200 at 160 at f8

3ft Octa overhead mid behind









GLARE!


















Basic Reflector off ceiling









Basic Reflector Pointed mid down at tank









full tank shot


----------



## JACimages

No strobe. iso 1000 shutter 80 at f 5


----------



## Da Plant Man

You guys so many nice photos! Still leaning toward the D3100 or the D5000 or D90. For some reason I just like the look and feel of Nikons. I know thats just me, but it seems like they have more of what I want than the new features. Right now, after looking at it more, I am thinking D90


----------



## houseofcards

JACImages,

Just for the record I'm sure your a very good photographer, but aquarium shooting is different. It's pretty well known that most of the advance aquascapers who enter contests or want to get the absolute best detail and contrast use strobes and/or additional fixed lighting over the tank. You simply can't pick up the detail any other way. If you go to the end of the 1st page of this thread you will see some of the setups:

http://www.aquascapingworld.com/forum/aquatic-photography/3583-photograph-techniques-aquascapes.html


----------



## speedie408

houseofcards said:


> JACImages,
> 
> Just for the record I'm sure your a very good photographer, but aquarium shooting is different. It's pretty well known that most of the advance aquascapers who enter contests or want to get the absolute best detail and contrast use strobes and/or additional fixed lighting over the tank. You simply can't pick up the detail any other way. If you go to the end of the 1st page of this thread you will see some of the setups:
> 
> http://www.aquascapingworld.com/forum/aquatic-photography/3583-photograph-techniques-aquascapes.html


hoc - Thanks for sharing that link buddy. Those are some SICK lighting setups!


----------



## JACimages

i understand that. and i would recommend strobes to anyone's arsenal for shooting aquariums to babys. but for someone who doesnt already own strobes its quite a learning curve and very expensive to just buy strobes for taking pictures of an aquariums. i am speaking on behalf of a complete novice to the photography/lighting world.


----------



## houseofcards

No problem speedie, I'm looking to going toward that type of equipment so I've been looking into it. 



JACimages said:


> i understand that. and i would recommend strobes to anyone's arsenal for shooting aquariums to babys. but for someone who doesnt already own strobes its quite a learning curve and very expensive to just buy strobes for taking pictures of an aquariums. i am speaking on behalf of a complete novice to the photography/lighting world.


 I don't disagree, but if we are talking about ways to take better pics, it has to be included. For the most part I have taken good pics with just p/s and an entry-level slr with just tank lighting, but it doesn't compare to the detail achieved with those systems.


----------



## JACimages

ok than you are correct. if you have the money, space, and knowledge to do all that than yes strobes are the better option, but if you have 0 knowledge i still wouldn't recommend it that is unless you have a friend like me! haha but than again i come from a fashion background


----------



## TickleMyElmo

Caton said:


> I think I am pretty set on a camera (my demands just increased), I just need to get the money. I am going to get a Nikon D3100. It is in my price range, has okay lens, has most the features I want and is light (not that it matters). Now to just get the dough to buy it.


Awesome, that and the D90 are great cameras and will allow you to grow into them and learn photography at your own speed and (mostly) without too many limitations. Glad to hear you talked yourself out of that icky Pentax :hihi: And before someone starts going off about how Pentax or Sony or Olympus is just as good and has more features and weather-sealing blah blah blah...

I dont care.

They suck.

Their lenses suck.

There's a reason they have to include so many features....they suck and nobody would buy them if they didn't include them.

There's a reason they aren't there with the top 2 ( Nikon and Canon)

There's a reason Pro's dont use them (I mean real Pro's, not some Wedding photographer you know that uses them, so they gotta be good....right?....right??!?!)

Their lens selection, accessibility and availability (new and used) sucks.

They're limiting and hamper your choices when it comes to gear.

They suck.

The end :biggrin:

That was mostly a satirical rant, so don't get your panties in a wad ( although its still true! lol)



JACimages said:


> *strobing really shouldn't be in an option in shooting aquariums*. you will get a washed out look and you will get glare on the glass.. unless your diffusing the light like crazy but i still wouldn't do it. if you were going to do it. i would strobe off whitecards place all around the tank probably besides. or just shooting up at a white cealing will get the your fish to freeze possibly behind.
> 
> but i would just have a good aquarium light, and a good lens and camera where i can bump up my ISO and shutterspeed.
> 
> heres a good article


Says who? See my journal below for some great examples of strobist fish photography...



houseofcards said:


> Just so there's no misunderstanding. I know I need off camera light to take the photography where I want to go. I just wanted another opinion on whether strobe or a fixed light setup was better and/or pros/cons. Speedie have you tried both? Nice shots!


Strobist all the way!....Take a look at my journal, on page 9 mostly, either by clicking this link or click the pic in my signature...

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/t...57-elmos-40-breeder-journal-update-1-a-9.html



Caton said:


> You guys so many nice photos! Still leaning toward the D3100 or the D5000 or D90. For some reason I just like the look and feel of Nikons. I know thats just me, but it seems like they have more of what I want than the new features. Right now, after looking at it more, I am thinking D90


Anything you choose from Nikon (or even icky Canon...I hear they have cooties! :flick: ) will be a good choice. I know what you mean about the feel of Nikons, they fit my hand perfectly. Canons just seem big and bulky...

Oh yeah, and Nikon lenses RULE! (We're number 1! We're number 1! lol) Unfortunately you pay the (more expensive) price for such lenses, lol...


----------



## Da Plant Man

Ticklemyelmo, you have just said everything I have been wanting to hear. (and not wanting to hear...) You said basically everything I read on cnet and other review saids but I needed somebodies other personal experience, not somebody who owns every camera possible and rates them. Each person needs is different. 

I think I will go with the D90, its bigger, heavier (not flimsy), big sensor, has video capabilities (still curious on how a DSLR can have that feature, I keep hearing if it has video or live view, it isn't DSLR). I hope to stick with the kit lens until I can get enough funds for a nice one (which mm is best? I hear 35mm is great for everyday use, but yet I see people with like 105mm and a telescope taking pictures of super-nova's, don't need it, but super cool). 


Now all I need is to sell my stuff..Wanna buy my r/o unit? :redface:


----------



## dodohead

whoa hey whats wrong with big and bulky? i need a big camera body to balance out that fat white lens on the other end :biggrin:

if u want to do fish photography, you need a nice dedicated macro lens... and you get what u pay for... if u get some "its good enough" lens, your pictures will look like you took them with a camera phone


----------



## TickleMyElmo

Caton said:


> Ticklemyelmo, you have just said everything I have been wanting to hear. (and not wanting to hear...) You said basically everything I read on cnet and other review saids but I needed somebodies other personal experience, not somebody who owns every camera possible and rates them. Each person needs is different.
> 
> I think I will go with the D90, its bigger, heavier (not flimsy), big sensor, has video capabilities (still curious on how a DSLR can have that feature, I keep hearing if it has video or live view, it isn't DSLR). I hope to stick with the kit lens until I can get enough funds for a nice one (which mm is best? I hear 35mm is great for everyday use, but yet I see people with like 105mm and a telescope taking pictures of super-nova's, don't need it, but super cool).
> 
> 
> Now all I need is to sell my stuff..Wanna buy my r/o unit? :redface:


Hehe, no problem. Some would say what I said about Pentax/Sony/Olympus was rude, but I call it like I see it, and sometimes the truth hurts :tongue:

The D90 is a good choice, and if I was in your position, it's what I would buy, BUT!....Do not get it for the video. The D90 was the first DSLR with video and frankly, it sucks....it suffers from a horrible "jello-effect" and it only records in 720p ( if you can watch it long enough without vomiting from the jello-effect) True, all DSLRs suffer from a jello-effect, but its been severely minimized on the newer models where you probably wont notice it as much....frankly, the D90 sucks for video....

HOWEVER!

As a stills camera, the D90 is a great choice. It's been around for 2 years now and in that time, has established itself with a reputation as a great camera and has become a Nikon classic. The reason I say I would get the D90 in your shoes is that yeah, the 3100 may have better video, but the D90 has more features, one of the most important of which is the AF motor built into the body, which will allow you to use the older AF-D lenses and have auto-focus while using them (Much cheaper, saves big-time $$$, its a feature that pays for itself with one lens purchase) 

The D90 is also a camera you can grow into, you wont be feeling limited a year from now, or even 3 years or more from now. With a 3100, you'd probably start feeling limited about a year in. I had a D40 but ditched it within 6 months (but I had years of film photography background before that) Another big plus over the 3100 is a built in flash commander mode. Again, it ties into the camera you can grow into thing, but with the commander mode you can fire flash-units off camera wirelessly with your built in flash. Now you don't have flashes now, but you may and probably will have them down the road, and that feature allows you to control and adjust the flashes wirelessly from your camera (Nikon term: Creative Lighting System) instead of having to buy some $25 radio flash triggers of ebay that only work 85% of the time....

Also the D3100 may have more mega-pixels, but meguhpickles (lol) dont mean squat unless your printing huge files, and the megapixel war is just another sales race thing to sell the most cameras to ignorant consumers. Don't be put off by a lack of a macro lens either. I don't have one, all the pics in my journal were taken with a regular lens and then cropped, but yet there's still plenty of detail. Now granted the lens I used recently is very expensive and very sharp, but you can still get good results without a macro lens...

So yeah, in short Nikon/Canon>all others and Nikon D90>you're other Nikon choices  although the 3100 is no slouch...



P.S. Don't get the D5000, its old, it just got discontinued, and its way behind the D3100 and the D90, besides...its a betweenish model, either go with the beginner yet capable camera or get the D90/D7000, dont waste your time with the one that doesn't do either role very well. Jack of all trades, master of none kind of thing....


----------



## kcrossley

This is a good thread. I went to Best Buy this weekend and I almost dropped $800 on a Canon 2Ti, but after holding the Canon it seemed a little cheap. The D90, IMO, had a much better feel. The only concern I have is the D90 is 2-year old technology.

Quite frankly, I'm looking for a good DSLR that I can use primarily for studio shooting to photograph some of the printed design work my company does. Is the D90 still a good choice? Also, what general purpose lens should I get?


----------



## speedie408

kcrossley said:


> This is a good thread. I went to Best Buy this weekend and I almost dropped $800 on a Canon 2Ti, but after holding the Canon it seemed a little cheap. The D90, IMO, had a much better feel. The only concern I have is the D90 is 2-year old technology.
> 
> Quite frankly, I'm looking for a good DSLR that I can use primarily for studio shooting to photograph some of the printed design work my company does. Is the D90 still a good choice? Also, what general purpose lens should I get?


Shoulda got the 60D instead. :hihi:


----------



## kcrossley

speedie408 said:


> Shoulda got the 60D instead. :hihi:


Didn't buy anything--yet. Why the 60D?


----------



## speedie408

kcrossley said:


> Didn't buy anything--yet. Why the 60D?


My apologies, I missed that part. 

The 60D is still pretty new. It's got allot of options that the D90 doesn't have.
- better LCD which also swivels on a nice hinge
- higher resolution sensor (18mp)
- electronic leveler 
- better live view implementation
- better video mode implementation (1080p instead of D90's 720p) better framerate too
- lower noise in higher ISO settings

That's just to name a few.


----------



## JACimages

This is going to get nasty cause i am a canon shooter and Canon Tech for many different high end fashion photographers here in LA. and i will say that 80% of all HIGH END fashion photographers use canon. if your looking to do alot of studio work you want a full frame camera which gives you the ability to do solid crop and finer retouching. 

but listen, this Canon vs Nikon war has been going on forever. and both have their strong points, but really it comes down to what feels and fits best for you. anyone can buy a 10,000$ camera but its the person who is using it is what makes the difference.

and T2i will work just fine. just figure out how to use it to its full potential. even better get the 5d2 with the fill frame and outstanding video quality they use to film such shows at Anthony B*** lol no Reservations. 

i would try you hand just at shooting and getting familiar with the camera before you take the plunge into strobing, because it will open a whole new world of shooting and things you have to learn like raido slaves, flash duration, and tricks you will learn just by trial and error

also you can look and getting different post programs to do you altering. just as a simple Adobe photoshop or Bridge or even Lightroom.


----------



## TickleMyElmo

kcrossley said:


> This is a good thread. I went to Best Buy this weekend and I almost dropped $800 on a Canon 2Ti, but after holding the Canon it seemed a little cheap. The D90, IMO, had a much better feel. The only concern I have is the D90 is 2-year old technology.
> 
> Quite frankly, I'm looking for a good DSLR that I can use primarily for studio shooting to photograph some of the printed design work my company does. Is the D90 still a good choice? Also, what general purpose lens should I get?


I agree, Canon's feel cheap to me, but also big and unnecessarily bulky. The D90 is a fine choice, even at 2 years old, but if it really concerns you, get the D7000 instead. Its a fantastic camera, it has the latest and greatest, and its getting rave reviews. There's a reason stores cant keep them in stock, they fly off the shelves like hotcakes. Unfortunately, its also more expensive, and its really not a replacement of the D90, its above it according to Nikon. And yes, for full disclosure, I do have one (and love it) but I'm still waiting for the D700 replacement to come out 



kcrossley said:


> Didn't buy anything--yet. Why the 60D?


Because he has one, don't listen to him, he's trying to convert you to evil Canon-ism :hihi: He's just angry Canon released a crappy 60D "replacement" that was actually a downgrade :flick: Don't doooo itttttttt!

Edit: I see the Canonites are preparing for battle....thats okay, I'll take you all down by myself! Warrrrrrrr!!!!! lol....:flick:


----------



## JACimages

i dont know why you are trying to persuade a person to buy a certain product. it doesnt matter what he buys. if he has an atristic eye and a certain way he wants to shootit. Quite frankly it doesnt matter if he has a canon or Nikon. Listen i am a Full canon shooter and would love to smash a nikon. but i would use any camera just to shoot.

so dont listen to anyone. go with what feels best to you.


----------



## JACimages

Taken with an iphone while working for the Wynn Magazine shoot... my point exactly. doesnt matter what you have as long as you have an inspiration

]


----------



## kcrossley

Sweet. Nice composition.


----------



## kcrossley

Am I better off buying the camera body and lens separately? If so, what beginner lens would you recommend?


----------



## speedie408

JACimages said:


> i dont know why you are trying to persuade a person to buy a certain product. it doesnt matter what he buys. if he has an atristic eye and a certain way he wants to shootit. Quite frankly it doesnt matter if he has a canon or Nikon. Listen i am a Full canon shooter and would love to smash a nikon. but i would use any camera just to shoot.
> 
> so dont listen to anyone. go with what feels best to you.


:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Don't mind Elmo. He's the local Nikonian Prince. He probably has stock with the company.


----------



## dwc13

TickleMyElmo said:


> Hehe, no problem. Some would say what I said about Pentax/Sony/Olympus was rude, but I call it like I see it, and sometimes the truth hurts :tongue:
> 
> The D90 is a good choice, and if I was in your position, it's what I would buy, BUT!....Do not get it for the video. The D90 was the first DSLR with video and frankly, it sucks....it suffers from a horrible "jello-effect" and it only records in 720p ( if you can watch it long enough without vomiting from the jello-effect) True, all DSLRs suffer from a jello-effect, but its been severely minimized on the newer models where you probably wont notice it as much....frankly, the D90 sucks for video....
> 
> <edit>


 

Hopefully nobody who wants to shoot HD video often is buying a DSLR primarily for that purpose. It would be akin to buying a computer with Intel GMA (your choice) for the purpose of playing DNF when it finally is released. Although the technologies for HD video and still photography are converging, there are still a number of issues that need to be addressed (resolved) before a single device is able to do both seamlessly (at an affordable price for the consumer mass market). 

BTW, if I was to bet on what company will do the best job down the road of truly (seamlessly) integrating HD video and still photography, I'd bet on Canon -- and possibly Sony -- before Nikon. Canon & Sony design & fab their own sensors for both DSLRs and digital camcorders. Nikon does not. I think Canon's experience with both still photography and video technology (and high speed copiers) will ultimately pay off. Sony picked up Minolta's portfolio of 35mm technology a few years back to complement its own expertise in video/electronics. Sony is also far better at marketing than Canon or Nikon. Nikon's strength is at the end of the day it remains focused on photography. 

Fusion, anyone? Oh, sorry. Wrong industry.


----------



## JACimages

kcrossley said:


> Am I better off buying the camera body and lens separately? If so, what beginner lens would you recommend?


it all depends really. there are many different variables to that question. like i said its what u know and what u want to achieve. Budget? what are you shooting? do you need is (Images Stabilazation) how much light are you going to need( more glass = more money) do you want to buy an off brand?

there are so many questions


----------



## speedie408

dwc13 said:


> Hopefully nobody who wants to shoot HD video often is buying a DSLR primarily for that purpose. It would be akin to buying a computer with Intel GMA (your choice) for the purpose of playing DNF when it finally is released. Although the technologies for HD video and still photography are converging, there are still a number of issues that need to be addressed (resolved) before a single device is able to do both seamlessly (at an affordable price for the consumer mass market).
> 
> BTW, if I was to bet on what company will do the best job down the road of truly (seamlessly) integrating HD video and still photography, I'd bet on Canon -- and possibly Sony -- before Nikon. Canon & Sony design & fab their own sensors for both DSLRs and digital camcorders. Nikon does not. I think Canon's experience with both still photography and video technology (and high speed copiers) will ultimately pay off. Sony picked up Minolta's portfolio of 35mm technology a few years back to complement its own expertise in video/electronics. Sony is also far better at marketing than Canon or Nikon. Nikon's strength is at the end of the day it remains focused on photography.
> 
> Fusion, anyone? Oh, sorry. Wrong industry.


You my friend, are in the know. You pretty much hit the nail on the head.


----------



## speedie408

TickleMyElmo said:


> I agree, Canon's feel cheap to me, but also big and unnecessarily bulky. The D90 is a fine choice, even at 2 years old, but if it really concerns you, get the D7000 instead. Its a fantastic camera, it has the latest and greatest, and its getting rave reviews. There's a reason stores cant keep them in stock, they fly off the shelves like hotcakes. Unfortunately, its also more expensive, and its really not a replacement of the D90, its above it according to Nikon. And yes, for full disclosure, I do have one (and love it) but I'm still waiting for the D700 replacement to come out
> 
> 
> 
> Because he has one, don't listen to him, he's trying to convert you to evil Canon-ism :hihi: He's just angry Canon released a crappy 60D "replacement" that was actually a downgrade :flick: Don't doooo itttttttt!
> 
> Edit: I see the Canonites are preparing for battle....thats okay, I'll take you all down by myself! Warrrrrrrr!!!!! lol....:flick:


Well aren't we just swimming in a river of diamonds.  Damn you're PRO! I bow down


----------



## JACimages

http://www.jac-images.com


----------



## mordalphus

I just got an older canon last week, and i love it! It's not a professional camera, it's just a rebel, but the thing takes great pictures. I picked up a sigma 28-90mm lens for snapping pictures while on break at work, and have been using an extension tube to take jury-rigged macro shots. It's not bad! But I've got the wonderful canon 100mm macro on its way and then I'll see what she can really do.

My next purchase will be a few flashes and a remote trigger setup for better lighting on my shrimp. But that's another thousand or so dollars, ugh.

Speaking of which, anyone here have any recommendations for flashes to use on a remote trigger? I can't see using anything too expensive.

-- liam


----------



## TickleMyElmo

speedie408 said:


> :thumbsup::thumbsup:
> 
> Don't mind Elmo. He's the local Nikonian Prince. He probably has stock with the company.


Yeah seriously, everybody knows I'm the local Nikon fanboy :icon_wink 

But really, everything I say is just me messing around, notice the tons of :flick: smilies...like you said at the end of the day its better to just buy whatever fits you best....although if someones leaning Nikon you bet I'll talk them into it lol...


----------



## speedie408

mordalphus said:


> I just got an older canon last week, and i love it! It's not a professional camera, it's just a rebel, but the thing takes great pictures. I picked up a sigma 28-90mm lens for snapping pictures while on break at work, and have been using an extension tube to take jury-rigged macro shots. It's not bad! But I've got the wonderful canon 100mm macro on its way and then I'll see what she can really do.
> 
> My next purchase will be a few flashes and a remote trigger setup for better lighting on my shrimp. But that's another thousand or so dollars, ugh.
> 
> Speaking of which, anyone here have any recommendations for flashes to use on a remote trigger? I can't see using anything too expensive.
> 
> -- liam


Toss those tubes and extentions bro. Worthless once you get the dedicated macro. Those things are so finicky to work with you won't even touch em anymore... trust me. 

As for flashes, any old flash will work. I have an old Speedlite 420EZ that I use primarily for the remote trigger. Unless you're getting a true E-TTL compatible remote trigger... What are you getting?


----------



## JACimages

mordalphus said:


> I just got an older canon last week, and i love it! It's not a professional camera, it's just a rebel, but the thing takes great pictures. I picked up a sigma 28-90mm lens for snapping pictures while on break at work, and have been using an extension tube to take jury-rigged macro shots. It's not bad! But I've got the wonderful canon 100mm macro on its way and then I'll see what she can really do.
> 
> My next purchase will be a few flashes and a remote trigger setup for better lighting on my shrimp. But that's another thousand or so dollars, ugh.
> 
> Speaking of which, anyone here have any recommendations for flashes to use on a remote trigger? I can't see using anything too expensive.
> 
> -- liam


the most well known for the best price flashes and triggers is Alienbee. thats what i use. there quality isnt the best but there well known and their customer service is next to none, also their modifiers are cheap.

http://alienbees.com/


----------



## Da Plant Man

I am not getting it just for the video, although a selling point, it isn't going to be "lets see it move instead of have a still". I plan on getting this camera, saving up for some good lens, maybe a few other accessories, then getting a water-proof point and shoot. I have my eye on a olympus, I know somebody and have played with his camera is its good for point and shoot standards. I want something waterproof though, I know I could spend money on a water proof case but I think I can find something better without the hassle of the case.

The fact that it is 2 years old doesn't bother me, if it works good why get rid of it? I have my dads SLR (yes, I do mean with real film) from the eighties and it is fun to pull out sometimes and mess with. BUT it does only take film photos, and it isn't as cost effective + it is very simple ("Digital? What's that?" - the eighties). I don't expect every picture I take to come out perfect, but I want it with little to no noise. That is the one thing I hate most. Sometimes it being blurry can be a good thing (but most the time not). Just wondering, but would buying a D90 USED be okay (lightly of course) or should I get brand new? Right now I am researching cameras, next is lens, I will get back to you on that. 

@Kcrossley I hear 35mm is "normal" but generally 20mm-55mm is the standard lens. (but I am no expert, just what I have heard)


Edit: WHAT THE HECK!?!?! I just got ninja'ed by like two pages...


----------



## TickleMyElmo

speedie408 said:


> Well aren't we just swimming in a river of diamonds.  Damn you're PRO! I bow down


You bet! A river of geuine imitation diamonds lol....

Seriously though, I didn't mean any snobbery by that, believe me, I'm not rich :red_mouth More like barely floating by lol....

Like I said, I'm a Nikon fanboy but that doesn't mean I dont like Canon or appreciate them, I too would use one of course if offered the chance ( or especially if given one for free hehe)

Aw man, you guys are no fun. Brand wars are so much fun! I find it entertaining lol....

I don't want anybody thinking I'm some Nikon elitist snob, I appreciate all cameras and love them all equally! (*except Pentax, Sony, and Olympus,.....I still hate them, lol *DSLRs, not point and shoots...)


----------



## dwc13

kcrossley said:


> Am I better off buying the camera body and lens separately? If so, what beginner lens would you recommend?


 
Do you already have an investment in 35mm film lenses using a mount that is supported by a particular DSLR you are interested in? If so, you might want to take that into consideration. 

When I bought my wife her first DSLR (Nikon D50) years ago, I bought the body only (instead of the kit, which included 2 lenses). I also bought her a Tamron 18-200mm asperhical zoom lens (digital only), because I didn't want her to have to carry (let alone switch between) multiple lenses for different shots while she was learning to use the D50. Fortunately, one of the strengths of this particular lens is it offers sufficient flexibility under most of the situations she would initially be shooting -- at a relatively affordable price. Another strength is it is remarkably light and compact. 

Without knowing what/where you will primarily shooting, and what DSLR you are considering and what your budget is, I'm hesitant to make a specific recommendation on a lens. That being said, I recommend you consider a lens that is very flexible, such as one of these Tamron all-in-one zoom lenses: 

http://www.tamron.com/en/photolens/di_II_all_in_one/ 

IMHO, spend more of your time shooting pictures under widely varying situations rather than switching lenses (at least initially while you are learning to use the DSLR). Unless, of course, you already know 95% of your time shooting with the DSLR will be spent taking pictures of your aquarium, in which case you should probably consider a more appropriate lens.


----------



## Da Plant Man

dwc13 said:


> IMHO, spend more of your time shooting pictures under widely varying situations rather than switching lenses (at least initially while you are learning to use the DSLR). Unless, of course, *you already know 95% of your time shooting with the DSLR will be spent taking pictures of your aquarium, in which case you should probably consider a more appropriate lens.*


Not really for me, I am moving to Kauai and I hope to do a lot of photography hikes, taking pictures of plants (terrestrial) to ID later, messing with settings, and generally learning on. Right now, I have messed with DSLR (I even was camp photographer at my summer camp dealing with $3,000 DSLR's and $5,000 video cameras), but that was still amateur, I want to REALLY get into it (Oh man! I get to mess with the ISO! :flick.

The lens I want is the ones you would take if you went to the zoo. Some pictures are going to be of plants, others of animals a little farther out.


----------



## Da Plant Man

Oh, and Ticklemyelmo, if you EVER want to sell that D7000, contact me :flick:


----------



## dwc13

Caton said:


> You guys so many nice photos! Still leaning toward the D3100 or the D5000 or D90. For some reason I just like the look and feel of Nikons. I know thats just me, but it seems like they have more of what I want than the new features. Right now, after looking at it more, I am thinking D90


 

Just my $0.02 - 

Obviously, it is very important for you to be comfortable holding the DSLR, unless you plan on shooting strictly while using a tripod. You should also consider whether the buttons are laid out in a way that makes sense to you or that you can easily learn/adapt to. Is the on/off button recessed or too easily hit inadvertently? 

Aside from physical characteristics, it is also important that the camera's menu system makes sense in your mind. Are there too many layers to go through in order to access certain settings/functions that you will often use? How easy is it to delete an image? 

Finally, I'm not a fan of proprietary flash memory formats because the consumer is at the mercy of the developer for advances/licensing to TPVs. Therefore, I won't consider a DSLR/digicam unless it uses a either Compact Flash or Secure Digital flash memory. In other words, no Sony (memory stick) or Olympus (xD) devices for me if they don't also support a non-proprietary memory card format.


----------



## dodohead

wow i missed a lot.... get a 5d if you think a rebel is cheap...... full frame sensor!! u can get a used one for around $1000

dont get a canon 60d, its made outta plastic =x


----------



## dwc13

JACimages said:


> http://www.jac-images.com


 
Some nice pics in your gallery. I, on the other hand, have absolutely no eye or talent for taking pictures of people.


----------



## dwc13

speedie408 said:


> hoc - Thanks for sharing that link buddy. Those are some SICK lighting setups!


 
If you're living in the heart of Silicon Valley, then you probably have the budget for a similar setup! Or perhaps you have access to seed money from VC firms... :biggrin:


----------



## speedie408

dodohead said:


> wow i missed a lot.... get a 5d if you think a rebel is cheap...... full frame sensor!! u can get a used one for around $1000
> 
> dont get a canon 60d, its made outta plastic =x


So much hate lol ... Have you used one before ? :icon_eek: 

What's wrong, can't look past that part to all the goodies that the 40D lacks  ? 

Comparing price and options alone puts the 60D over most midrange DSLRs atm. As long as you can get past the "plastic" . (It actually feels much better than my old 40D).



dwc13 said:


> If you're living in the heart of Silicon Valley, then you probably have the budget for a similar setup! Or perhaps you have access to seed money from VC firms... :biggrin:


----------



## dodohead

speedie408 said:


> So much hate lol ... Have you used one before ? :icon_eek:
> 
> What's wrong, can't look past that part to all the goodies that the 40D lacks  ?
> 
> Comparing price and options alone puts the 60D over most midrange DSLRs atm. As long as you can get past the "plastic" . (It actually feels much better than my old 40D).



haha dude im just picky.. the thing that bugs me most is the new design and layout.. plus the flip out screen.. OH!... and the 5.3fps.. thats like... 20d speed.. my 40d has 6.5fps. and u know i need it :smile:

the only things i wish my 40d had that a 60d has... is a better resolution lcd, and video..which i probably wouldnt use. 

i only mentioned the plasticky feel cause he said the rebel felt cheap, but im sure it feels solid enough. 

oh yeah i still need to post up pics........


----------



## JACimages

i shoot with the 5D  and its older compared to alot of cameras, but gets the job done. the full frame is almost a key and 12 mpx is enough since im not doing huge billboards. the color sensor is amazing (nothing like the 5d2). i dont really shoot sports (not my thing) so the FPS doesnt really bother me. i just buy better glass for the camera.

but also remember you will have to get stuff for your computer to be fully happy.. and you will if your shooting RAW, your computer will not open RAW as is.










examples.


----------



## houseofcards

Actually I currently have a Rebel XSI, which I'm getting rid of to get either the 60d or 7d. I don't think it feels cheap at all, but depends what your comparing to. The 60d is a good size the 7d is pretty big to move around. So I guess it depends what the mean use is. I think the upgrade will give me more flexibility and not as much noise in lower light by using higher ISO. JACImages those are nice pics, but almost any camera will take good pics outside during the day.


----------



## JACimages

Top one was fully strobed. last one was strobed on her right as a fill.. it was just to show color comp. and i have an XSI also, and it doesnt take nearly as good of pictures as my 5D does.

whatever i really don't care this is just going in circles. we all know Nikons are garbage. and im right and everyone else is totally wrong.:hihi:

lol JK!


----------



## Da Plant Man

Well, I am not shooting in studios, that is for sure. I think I am pretty set on the D90 now, it seems...so...perfect...like the canons always seem to only be good in one thing while nikon is good in that "one thing" plus 10 others. NIKON FOR THE WIN.


----------



## houseofcards

Full tanks shots I think the SLR is important because the sensor picks up more detail within the lowlight areas. Off camera light is still really important and would help tremendously with a p/s. Moving fish would be even more important since you need to probably go up in iso and with a cheaper camera you get alot of noise, correct? I actually think shrimp are some of the easiest aquarium pics to take, since the shrimp have a stop and go movement so you can catch them with a slow shutter and low iso if your patient. For example, this pic was taken with an old Canon p/s:

*Canon s2 IS *









As well as this one:

*Canon s2 IS*









This moving fish shot was taken with a *Canon Rebel XSI.*


----------



## Da Plant Man

I think I could take pretty good shrimp pictures as long as there is a relatively nice camera (even a P&S), my avatar and signature were both taken with a point and shoot camera, but the more I deal with my P&S, the more I want to take my shotgun out and say PULL! Like I said before, I am getting a new P&S later (waterproof) but right now, I just want to be able to take a photo with noise. Even when I mess with the aperture and ISO all my photos come out with tons of noise. I lower the ISO to 400 and there is still noise, don't even get me started on ISO 3400...

Now another question: Buy the body with the kit lens or get just the body and get a nice nikkor lens? But remember, my budget is only $700-$800 and its already pushing that...


----------



## kcrossley

I'm leaning towards the D90 since the camera/lens combo kit seems pretty good. I'm really surprised that the D90 hasn't been discontinued since it's nearly 2-years old. The lowest I can find it for new is about $1K. 

Is Nikon coming out with any new models that may encourage Nikon to reduce the price of the D90 even further? 

Would you ever consider a used D90?


----------



## Da Plant Man

1k for a D90? I found a few for $750...


----------



## kcrossley

Caton said:


> 1k for a D90? I found a few for $750...


$1K was for the camera and lens through an authorized Nikon dealer. Where did you see it for $750? Feel free to PM me.


----------



## brianS

The D90 can be had for cheap...if you find one that's refurbished. These people are good. I've been dealing with them for the past 15yrs;

http://www.adorama.com/INKD90H.html

Nikon, along with Cannon hasn't really came out with anything new lately and if they do, it will just be a model with more "fluff" on it. Your best bet would be an older model that they still sell new, or a refurbished.


----------



## dwc13

If you buy a used car and something goes wrong, you can often diagnose what is wrong (especially if equipped with OBD) and sometimes make repairs yourself.

Try doing that with a DSLR. 

At a minimum I would ask a reputable camera repair person what he/she charges just to even look at a non-operating DSLR (minimum charge + insured return shipping) before even considering purchasing a used DSLR. 

Remember, with a used DSLR you might not know the complete, accurate history of the camera. Was it used for extended periods in harsh environments (i.e., lots of dust, extreme temperatures, etc.)? Was the seller (or a previous owner) a smoker or was the camera stored in a building that had caught fire (IME, electronics and smoke don't mix very well)? How many times was it dropped? Note that I'm not saying you shouldn't consider a used DSLR at all, but understand it's not quite so easy to determine what you're really getting. And you often won't get a meaningful warranty with a used DSLR.


----------



## brianS

A used camera from a reputable dealer can be a good experience. Ask if they offer an extended warranty on it...most of them do, and they aren't that expensive. Many people don't understand the dslr market. The dslr market is a rich mans game, where they trade last years camera in for a new one "just because". There's typically nothing wrong with these trade-ins because the rich amateur who traded it in didn't even use it to it's full potential. I purchased a used d2x for pennies of what they sold for new, and it's in mint condition. Another note; don't put all you $$ on a camera body, as they depreciate way too quickly (buy used) Instead, put your $$ in glass (lenses). They hold value well.


----------



## kcrossley

brianS said:


> The D90 can be had for cheap...if you find one that's refurbished. These people are good. I've been dealing with them for the past 15yrs;
> 
> http://www.adorama.com/INKD90H.html
> 
> Nikon, along with Cannon hasn't really came out with anything new lately and if they do, it will just be a model with more "fluff" on it. Your best bet would be an older model that they still sell new, or a refurbished.


That looks like a good deal, but isn't the lens offered here a better value? 
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Nikon+-...=1217633560861&skuId=8975184&st=d90&cp=1&lp=2


----------



## TickleMyElmo

Caton said:


> Well, I am not shooting in studios, that is for sure. I think I am pretty set on the D90 now, it seems...so...perfect...like the canons always seem to only be good in one thing while nikon is good in that "one thing" plus 10 others. NIKON FOR THE WIN.


Yesssss my young padawan. You are learning well. You too will be a loyal Nikon fanboy. I will train you as such.....Excellllllennttt (/Smithers) lol jk....




Caton said:


> Now another question: Buy the body with the kit lens or get just the body and get a nice nikkor lens? But remember, my budget is only $700-$800 and its already pushing that...


This is tough to answer. On the one hand, its good to start with the kit lens to learn what you'll want and need in the future, and it offers flexibility that you won't find in any other cheap zoom. On the other hand, everybody knows that kit lenses pretty much suck. Everytime you use a kit lens a kitten dies as they say, lol....Now, you probably wont notice their shortcomings as a new user, but in time, you'll want to move away from them, but that doesn't mean you should'nt start with one to get that experience. 

If you wanted to get a fine lens right away, I would get the body and a Nikon 50mm 1.8 AF-D (not the AF-S) lens. Since you'll have the D90, you'll have the focus motor built in, which will allow you to autofocus with the older AF-D version, which is $100, brand new ( Ding! Ding! Ding! Remember what I said about getting the D90 with focus motor and saving money?!) The 50mm 1.8 is great because its so cheap yet has amazing optical quality and with its very large 1.8 aperature, you can get great low ISO shots with higher shutter speeds than a kit lens, plus it has great depth of field (which produces great "bokeh") which is great for aquarium shots without noise. The tradeoff in such a lens is flexibility. It won't be good for wide angle landscapes, since it's a prime lens (meaning it stays fixed at 50mm, cant zoom it) and since you'll be using a crop-sensor camera (DX), the field of view will be pretty long, or rather zoomed in another words. So you wont be able to get any shots where the subjects are close, unless you take a few steps back. Its a great lens to learn the aspects of photography though, since you cant get the same depth of field produced by such a low aperture (1.8) as with the max aperture of a kit lens (4 to 4.5 or so).

Another great lens is the 35mm 1.8 AF-S. A newer lens, its the perfect field of view for DX cameras like the D90. I have one myself. Its considered the "normal" field of view. Its not terribly wide, but wide enough, and its not terribly long either, but you can always take a few steps forward or back. Coming in at $200 brand new, it's also a great choice, and I would honestly get it over the 50mm 1.8 if you can spend the extra money, as its just more versatile, though it's still a prime lens (cant zoom)

Honestly, I would tell you to get the body only and the Nikon 35mm 1.8, but its up to you what trade-offs are acceptable. I honestly think the 35 1.8 is better for aquarium shots and you'll be most pleased with that one, since it allows higher shutter speeds and much less noise (which is what you're after)

One thing I recommend you NOT do is buy cheap third-party lenses like Sigma or Tamron. Although there are a very few limited exceptions, the quality just doesn't match up with Nikon lenses. They may be cheaper, but it comes at the expense of quality. There's no point in buying that Ferarri (D90) if you're going to put cheap tires on it (Sigma/Tamron)....



kcrossley said:


> I'm leaning towards the D90 since the camera/lens combo kit seems pretty good. I'm really surprised that the D90 hasn't been discontinued since it's nearly 2-years old. The lowest I can find it for new is about $1K.
> 
> Is Nikon coming out with any new models that may encourage Nikon to reduce the price of the D90 even further?
> 
> Would you ever consider a used D90?


It is discontinued. The Nikon D7000 came out, and though its not really a replacement according to Nikon, the D90 has dropped in price as much as it really will. When a new model comes out, Nikon doesn't really heavily discount older models, it just allows them to be bought slowly until there are none left. But yes, I would definitely still consider a D90, its a classic Nikon camera. If the price is too high with the kit lens, consider what I said above and get the body only and a different lens, but again, it's all about trade-offs....


----------



## dwc13

brianS said:


> A used camera from a reputable dealer can be a good experience. Ask if they offer an extended warranty on it...most of them do, and they aren't that expensive. Many people don't understand the dslr market. The dslr market is a rich mans game, where they trade last years camera in for a new one "just because". There's typically nothing wrong with these trade-ins because the rich amateur who traded it in didn't even use it to it's full potential. I purchased a used d2x for pennies of what they sold for new, and it's in mint condition. Another note; don't put all you $$ on a camera body, as they depreciate way too quickly (buy used) Instead, put your $$ in glass (lenses). They hold value well.


 

Clarification: From my perspective, "used", as in found on e-Bay, Craigslist or other similar sites, local newspaper classifieds, etc., but the device has not been refurbished. 

"Refurbished" is meaningful if the company that does the work is reputable, knows what it's doing, does the work such that the device meets (or exceeds) the original manufacturer's specifications, and offers a reasonable warranty.


----------



## TickleMyElmo

kcrossley said:


> That looks like a good deal, but isn't the lens offered here a better value?
> http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Nikon+-...=1217633560861&skuId=8975184&st=d90&cp=1&lp=2


Yeah, thats with the kit lens. The link the other person posted is with the 55-200, which is a telephoto, leaving you with no wide angle zoom range. However, even better than bestbuy is B&H, who is by far one of the best and most reputable camera stores, and they have it for $969

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/580422-REG/Nikon_25448_D90_SLR_Digital_Camera.html

Cant hurt to save a few bucks right lol...


----------



## orchidman

caton- what kind of film camera does your dad have? you may be able to use the lenses from that on your new camera. thats what i did when i got my D90. i used the old lenses from the film camera while i was learning how to use the camera itself and until i could save up for some nice glass. just something to consider. thats why i ended up getting a nikon

i know you still want to get a p&s in the future. i have a pentax optio w80. it is waterproof and shockproof. and unlike other waterproof p&s's ive used, it actually takes nice pictures ( for a p&s ). 

just my two cents. im no "pro" but im getting there. i have done some weddings and a few sr portraits, but im not up there with elmo or anyone yet. but i do know a thing or two


----------



## dwc13

TME -

Do you have a lens recommendation (Nikon D90) for shooting animals -- more often at a distance than close-up? 

TIA.


----------



## TickleMyElmo

dwc13 said:


> TME -
> 
> Do you have a lens recommendation (Nikon D90) for shooting animals -- more often at a distance than close-up?
> 
> TIA.


The best cheaper recommendation I can suggest is the 55-200 *with* VR if you can swing it. Its not much more, but the VR really helps. 

Brand new it's $220...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/486717-USA/Nikon_2166_AF_S_DX_VR_Zoom_Nikkor.html

*But you can get it refurbished by Nikon for an amazing $145*

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/731076-REF/Nikon_2166B_AF_S_DX_VR_Zoom_Nikkor.html

200mm won't be long enough for most birds or animals that are "actual wildlife" (as is on a safari or somethin, lol) but for backyward wild animals, seagulls, rabbits, deer, etc, it should be adequate. Just don't expect to get National Geographic cover shots of a finch a football field away, lol....Anything past 200mm starts becoming crazy expensive

There's also the Nikon 70-300, but its big and rather bulky, and more expensive, at $455....

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/449088-GREY/Nikon_2161_AF_S_VR_Zoom_NIKKOR_70_300mm.html

To illustrate just how crazy expensive tele-photo lenses become past 200mm, check out this page, lol...

http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Camera-Lenses/Autofocus/Super-Telephoto.page


----------



## dwc13

TickleMyElmo said:


> <edit>
> 
> One thing I recommend you NOT do is buy cheap third-party lenses like Sigma or Tamron. Although there are a very few limited exceptions, the quality just doesn't match up with Nikon lenses. They may be cheaper, but it comes at the expense of quality. There's no point in buying that Ferarri (D90) if you're going to put cheap tires on it (Sigma/Tamron)....



On the other hand, why waste a Ferrari outfitted with expensive tires on someone who is just learning how to drive? 

Partnering a Ferrari with cheap tires (your description) happens quite often because not everyone can afford to buy the best, nor should they. There is a reason why vendors pair far more Intel Core i7 processors with Intel GMA rather than dedicated AMD or Nvidia GPUs combined -- so that a lower price point can be hit for the significantly larger market. And keep in mind pairing an i7 with GMA doesn't preclude the user from upgrading to a Radeon 6950 at a later date. 

The stark reality is everyone has limited financial resources. Even Warren Buffett. If the past 3 years haven't imparted upon everyone the importance of living within one's means, then perhaps the cycle of economic disaster is destined to repeat in the future. However, I'm hoping most of us have learned an important lesson about being responsible with our finances and better understand what the consequences could be if we fail again. 

Would I have bought my wife a similarly-spec'd Nikkor lens instead of the Tamron lens when I bought her a D50 DSLR if the difference in cost was not that significant? Probably. But the Tamron lens was @$400 while the similarly spec'd Nikkor version was @$1,000 at the time. My wife had no ambitions of trying to make a living as a professional photographer, even though she is quite good. Viewed in that light, I was not at all convinced the "better quality" of the Nikkor lens was worth anywhere near the additional $600+. . 

The bottom line is if one's budget for a DSLR and lens is fixed at $800, it doesn't do much good to seriously look at combinations that will cost $1,200. Most of us don't have access to an Intaglia printing press and my parents were right when they said money didn't grow on trees. And buying a less expensive, but essentially functionally equivalent lens initially doens't preclude one from purchasing a better lens in the future once he/she becomes more familiar with the DSLR and how to shoot digital, and appropriate financial resources become available.


----------



## dodohead

here's my take on sigma/tamron type lenses... even low end canon/nikon lenses

for some, yeah it might be "good enough" but your pictures will show it. yeah i know money doesnt grow on trees, trust me. but i've found some really good deals on craigslist for used ones. i tested them and made sure i got some background on the lens before i bought it, but i think the lenses i got were great deals at the time. 

i bought the L series canon lenses and i could probably sell it back for the same price i paid 3-4 years ago, if not more. the thing about sigma/tamron lenses is, theres no real demand for them in a sense. the only people who would want to buy them are the beginners or people who want good enough, meanwhile everyone else is upgrading or going for the nicer lenses to begin with. if you sell your sigma/tamron, it will probably be at a loss as well. good lenses hold their value and last... even camera bodies come and go and lose value. they dont even need to be higher end $1000 lenses. i have a canon 50mm 1.8 which takes nice pictures and i got it for $100. i'd be perfectly happy with a 60 2.8macro for $350 or a 85mm 1.8 for $300. 

when i first got my canon 10d back in 2003, i went with a "whatever lens" which was an older 28-135mm. the guy i bought my camera from gave me an iffy look when i said i wanted that lens, which is the same look i give people now when they buy low end lenses. the pictures from the lens were OK. they look like..... point and shoot pictures but not as noisy. but they were ok because i didnt know any better. 

another thing, places like best buy or walmart or wherever have outrageous prices on lenses. their canon 75-300mm 4.5-5.6 IS or whatever it is... costs like $580 there. if u go on a forum or craigslist u can get the same lens for $300 and the lens isnt even that good. same with the 70-300mm III lens which is $400 at best buy? i wouldnt use that lens if they gave it to me for free. 

i would get a decent lens which holds its value over a cheapy lens. even if that means a non zoom lens or whatever because when you decide to upgrade you shouldnt have a problem selling the lens.


----------



## koop

dwc13 said:


> Hopefully nobody who wants to shoot HD video often is buying a DSLR primarily for that purpose.


There is a MASSIVE market for people that buy DSLRs and never shoot a single still frame on it. Yes, I'm a pro photographer and make 100% of my income from photography. I shoot Nikon but by next video camera will be the Canon 5D Mark III.


----------



## dwc13

koop said:


> There is a MASSIVE market for people that buy DSLRs and never shoot a single still frame on it. Yes, I'm a pro photographer and make 100% of my income from photography. I shoot Nikon but by next video camera will be the Canon 5D Mark III.


 
Massive? Please define "Massive" in objective, quantitative and substantiated terms.


----------



## Da Plant Man

I just found a great deal on a D90:

http://dealnews.com/Refurbished-Nik...Camera-Body-for-650-free-shipping/429629.html


----------



## dwc13

dodohead said:


> here's my take on sigma/tamron type lenses... even low end canon/nikon lenses
> 
> for some, yeah it might be "good enough" but your pictures will show it. yeah i know money doesnt grow on trees, trust me. but i've found some really good deals on craigslist for used ones. i tested them and made sure i got some background on the lens before i bought it, but i think the lenses i got were great deals at the time.
> 
> i bought the L series canon lenses and i could probably sell it back for the same price i paid 3-4 years ago, if not more. the thing about sigma/tamron lenses is, theres no real demand for them in a sense. the only people who would want to buy them are the beginners or people who want good enough, meanwhile everyone else is upgrading or going for the nicer lenses to begin with. if you sell your sigma/tamron, it will probably be at a loss as well. good lenses hold their value and last... even camera bodies come and go and lose value. they dont even need to be higher end $1000 lenses. i have a canon 50mm 1.8 which takes nice pictures and i got it for $100. i'd be perfectly happy with a 60 2.8macro for $350 or a 85mm 1.8 for $300.
> 
> when i first got my canon 10d back in 2003, i went with a "whatever lens" which was an older 28-135mm. the guy i bought my camera from gave me an iffy look when i said i wanted that lens, which is the same look i give people now when they buy low end lenses. the pictures from the lens were OK. they look like..... point and shoot pictures but not as noisy. but they were ok because i didnt know any better.
> 
> another thing, places like best buy or walmart or wherever have outrageous prices on lenses. their canon 75-300mm 4.5-5.6 IS or whatever it is... costs like $580 there. if u go on a forum or craigslist u can get the same lens for $300 and the lens isnt even that good. same with the 70-300mm III lens which is $400 at best buy? i wouldnt use that lens if they gave it to me for free.
> 
> i would get a decent lens which holds its value over a cheapy lens. even if that means a non zoom lens or whatever because when you decide to upgrade you shouldnt have a problem selling the lens.


 

First off, "good enough" represents the vast majority of the market. And quite often, "good enough" is more than acceptable. Why do you think unit sales of digicams are on the decline? It's because more people have come to accept the camera built into their cellphone as being sufficient. As a non-professional photographer, I honestly don't care if someone thinks a picture I took suffers from technical or other deficiencies. If I'm happy with the image taken, that's really all that matters to me. Besides, there's always Photoshop...

Here's the fundamental issue (aside from budget):

Photography equipment is a luxury item, not a necessity. When talking about non-essential goods/services, why should one buy a far more expensive" item if he/she doesn't know whether he/she will be using it regularly over the long-term? That being said, one can always upgrade to a better lens at a later date if he/she wants to pursue more advanced topics in photography and/or determines a need for additional capabilities. 


The other disagreement I have with your comments: 

What good is your so-called decent lens if I can't use it to take the shot I want? In other words, following your advice if I purchased a decent 50mm lens (no zoom) rather than a "cheap" zoom lens, I'd be SOL if I couldn't get close enough to the subject matter to have it appear decent-sized in the image. Maybe I'm in the Uecker seats and want a shot of the scoreboard across the field showing the perfect game line. Or perhaps I'm in Scotland visiting Loch Ness and I look across the lake and suddenly I see what appears to be the neck of a large creature sticking out of the water in the distance. I'd rather be able to take a "lesser quality" (whatever that means) image than not have a shot at all.


----------



## TickleMyElmo

dwc13 said:


> First off, "good enough" represents the vast majority of the market. And quite often, "good enough" is more than acceptable. Why do you think unit sales of digicams are on the decline? It's because more people have come to accept the camera built into their cellphone as being sufficient. As a non-professional photographer, I honestly don't care if someone thinks a picture I took suffers from technical or other deficiencies. If I'm happy with the image taken, that's really all that matters to me. Besides, there's always Photoshop...
> 
> Here's the fundamental issue (aside from budget):
> 
> Photography equipment is a luxury item, not a necessity. When talking about non-essential goods/services, why should one buy a far more expensive" item if he/she doesn't know whether he/she will be using it regularly over the long-term? That being said, one can always upgrade to a better lens at a later date if he/she wants to pursue more advanced topics in photography and/or determines a need for additional capabilities.
> 
> 
> The other disagreement I have with your comments:
> 
> What good is your so-called decent lens if I can't use it to take the shot I want? In other words, following your advice if I purchased a decent 50mm lens (no zoom) rather than a "cheap" zoom lens, I'd be SOL if I couldn't get close enough to the subject matter to have it appear decent-sized in the image. Maybe I'm in the Uecker seats and want a shot of the scoreboard across the field showing the perfect game line. Or perhaps I'm in Scotland visiting Loch Ness and I look across the lake and suddenly I see what appears to be the neck of a large creature sticking out of the water in the distance. I'd rather be able to take a "lesser quality" (whatever that means) image than not have a shot at all.


What's the point of buying a DSLR if you're not going to use it to its full (or almost full) potential? Why buy a DSLR if you're not going to take advantage of its capabilities? If you're going to do all that and just go for "good enough", then why not just use a point and shoot?

As to why buy a Ferrari (D90) for someone just learning to drive (photograph)....because its better to buy something once and grow into it, then to waste money on something you'll probably want to upgrade later on, not to mention saving money on AF-D lenses and flashes, since you have the Nikon wireless Creative Lighting System built in already...


----------



## dodohead

TickleMyElmo said:


> What's the point of buying a DSLR if you're not going to use it to its full (or almost full) potential? Why buy a DSLR if you're not going to take advantage of its capabilities? If you're going to do all that and just go for "good enough", then why not just use a point and shoot?
> 
> As to why buy a Ferrari (D90) for someone just learning to drive (photograph)....because its better to buy something once and grow into it, then to waste money on something you'll probably want to upgrade later on, not to mention saving money on AF-D lenses and flashes, since you have the Nikon wireless Creative Lighting System built in already...



roud:


----------



## koop

dwc13 said:


> Massive? Please define "Massive" in objective, quantitative and substantiated terms.


"DSLR video" get 13 million google hits so I would call that a fairly large number. It's obviously a specialized market. And I am biased because I see colleges using DSLRs for video every day but they are out there if you keep your eyes open.


----------



## dwc13

TickleMyElmo said:


> What's the point of buying a DSLR if you're not going to use it to its full (or almost full) potential? Why buy a DSLR if you're not going to take advantage of its capabilities? If you're going to do all that and just go for "good enough", then why not just use a point and shoot?
> 
> As to why buy a Ferrari (D90) for someone just learning to drive (photograph)....because its better to buy something once and grow into it, then to waste money on something you'll probably want to upgrade later on, not to mention saving money on AF-D lenses and flashes, since you have the Nikon wireless Creative Lighting System built in already...


 

Yours is a flawed argument. By far the bigger waste of money is when someone buys too much and subsequently throws it away or doesn't use it as often as he/she originally thought you would. For example, think of all the food/water people in the US waste on a daily basis. 

Upgrades, on the other hand, are a natural path for consumers, provided the interest, need, and resources are there to support the upgrade. The first car for most people in the US wasn't a new Cadillac or other luxury car, but rather an older used car with lots of miles already on the odometer during/after high school/college. In time, as needs (i.e., more room for family, better gas mileage for longer work commutes) and resources increased, bigger/faster/better cars were purchased. But most people didn't initially start out with the "best" car model. Same thing with DSLRs. There is no need for a non-professional to start out with a Nikkor lens. A competent photographer using a Tamron lens with a DSLR can take pictures that many will find to be excellent.


----------



## dwc13

koop said:


> "DSLR video" get 13 million google hits so I would call that a fairly large number. It's obviously a specialized market. And I am biased because I see colleges using DSLRs for video every day but they are out there if you keep your eyes open.


 
First off, "DSLR video" doesn't mean the person is "never shooting a single still frame" with the same DSLR, which you had indicated. That was the key part of your previous statement I took issue with. Perhaps some people do use a DSLR solely for video, but their numbers clearly are not "massive". The overwhelming majority of DSLR users are primarily taking still images. The proof is reflected in the continued sales of digital camcorders. 

Second, "DSLR video" is a fairly generic search of popular terms and as such it should generate a significant number of hits. That being said, there is undoubtedly an interest in DSLR video. I'd love to have a single device that can seamlessly capture great still images and HD video with the same DOF and low-light abilities as when taking still images. One device, one charger, one battery type, one flash memory type, learning curve for one device...


----------



## Da Plant Man

It may be more "natural" but it certainly is more expensive. I am going to get the kit lens and then upgrade to a better lens if I feel I need to, best of both worlds. You may get good pictures with a Tamron lens but over all, more of them will turn out with noise, or blurry. If I did see the loch ness monster and had cheap lens, it might not turn out good, while I saved for another month and got a better lens, I could have captured Scotlands beast on film. I am afraid that you cannot simply say: "your argument is flawed", I think both of you make good points, I could go one way, I could go the other, it all depends on the consumers needs, every person's needs is different. 

P&S cameras might be fine for most people, but in the end its what you want as the end product. You might get better mileage in a Farrari and better speed, but most people don't mind paying over time for gas, and taking their time, but some people need to be places and they need to be there NOW. As I said before, and what other people have said, it all depends on the consumer.


----------



## dwc13

An obvious flaw in his argument is (paraphrasing) buying something (lens) now that you'll probably want to upgrade later is a waste. The reality is there might never be an upgrade on the lens. After learning how to use the DSLR & lens, perhaps the photographer is quite happy with the results. Or perhaps there is a change in his/her financial situation/priorities, a loss of interest in DSLR photography, a lost/stolen/broken DSLR, a new technology that renders DSLR obsolete (where is Kodak today? recall Blockbuster laughed at Netflix initially), etc. And even if there is an eventual upgrade, it might not come for 3, 5, or 10 years (or more), during which the photographer has had the benefit of the initial lens that was purchased. I'd hardly call that a waste.

The bigger flaw is the waste I pointed out -- call it "overbuying" -- is a far more serious problem. For an extreme example of "overbuying", you only need to take a look at the current housing crisis, which was brought about when too many people purchased houses that were far beyond their needs and financed it with arrangements well beyond their means.


----------



## Da Plant Man

That is a lot of " if's ". Like I said before, it all depends on the consumer, some might give it up, some might not, but for me (the consumer), once I want to get something, unless I find something better to spend my money on (before I get it), I most always save up for it, even if it takes a year. Still not sure what you are trying to prove...It seems like you are trying to prove both sides as right AND wrong...


----------



## dodohead

um.. yeah.... so caton.. gonna go with the nikon d90? thats a nice little camera.


----------



## dwc13

TickleMyElmo said:


> What's the point of buying a DSLR if you're not going to use it to its full (or almost full) potential? Why buy a DSLR if you're not going to take advantage of its capabilities? If you're going to do all that and just go for "good enough", then why not just use a point and shoot?
> 
> As to why buy a Ferrari (D90) for someone just learning to drive (photograph)....because its better to buy something once and grow into it, then to waste money on something you'll probably want to upgrade later on, not to mention saving money on AF-D lenses and flashes, since you have the Nikon wireless Creative Lighting System built in already...


 
Must be late. What's the point of buying a DSLR? The point of buying a DSLR (with any lens) is it will consistently take better pictures in most situations than a digicam (P&S). I've not been debating the merits of upgrading to a DSLR from a P&S or the image quality of a DSLR compared with a P&S, and I doubt you'll see that in any of my posts. 

What I have taken issue with is someone saying one can't get excellent results using DSLR equipped with a Tamron lens and instead must opt for far more expensive Nikkor lenses in order to get excellent results; and therefore one should spend considerably more money upfront for the Nikkor lenses without first trying a less expensive, similarly spec'd alternative from Tamron.


----------



## speedie408

Seems like Caton is pretty much set on the Nikon D90. 

It aint got nothing on the 60D though!! muuahahahahahahahaahaha! 

Caton - Let's see if your future D90 can do better than this  : just to clarify all the little specs are not lens dust or "noise". It's just ASII that's turning to mush in my tank sending floating debris everywhere. These pics are unedited, straight out the box, only resized, and uploaded.


----------



## dodohead

dude thats not fair... you have a dedicated macro lens.. 

this is as good as i can get with my point n shoot.. not bad, but it would be nice if the shutter speed was a little faster..


----------



## speedie408

The shots above were taken from the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, not my macro.


----------



## dodohead

speedie408 said:


> The shots above were taken from the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, not my macro.



oh nice lens.. i wouldnt mind one of those.. i'd probably go for the 17-40 though... its half the price and wider


----------



## speedie408

dodohead said:


> oh nice lens.. i wouldnt mind one of those.. i'd probably go for the 17-40 though... its half the price and wider


That's where my EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM comes into play. Absolutely love this lens! Not an *L*, but sure does act like one.


----------



## dodohead

speedie408 said:


> That's where my EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM comes into play. Absolutely love this lens! Not an *L*, but sure does act like one.


wow nice... the 24-105 has good range, but i think i'd go for a 24-70. ive always wanted one...

lately ive been doing more scenic shots, so ive been wanting a wide angle. but first!.... 100mm 2.8.... so i can get some cool shrimp pics


----------



## JACimages

i want a macro lens now just for my aquarium. i have the 24-70L and the 70-200 and the 1.4 50..... i have the kit 18-35 but its a 5.0


----------



## Da Plant Man

Psh, Mr. I use wireless flash. Like previously said: its the photographer, and some of the camera

You have skill and a nice camera, therefore you get good pictures.


----------



## speedie408

Just pulling your leg buddy.  

Have fun with whatever you decide on and post lots of pics!


----------



## mordalphus

speedie408 said:


> Toss those tubes and extentions bro. Worthless once you get the dedicated macro. Those things are so finicky to work with you won't even touch em anymore... trust me.
> 
> As for flashes, any old flash will work. I have an old Speedlite 420EZ that I use primarily for the remote trigger. Unless you're getting a true E-TTL compatible remote trigger... What are you getting?


speedie, i'm doing a modified version of this:
http://www.aquatic-photography.com/...expensive-flash-setup-for-aquatic-photography

I bought a 40w master strobe and a few slave strobes, plan on triggering either with built-in flash, pc sync or wireless trigger. Still learning about flash, but have a lot of time to play around.

-- liam


----------



## speedie408

mordalphus said:


> speedie, i'm doing a modified version of this:
> http://www.aquatic-photography.com/...expensive-flash-setup-for-aquatic-photography
> 
> I bought a 40w master strobe and a few slave strobes, plan on triggering either with built-in flash, pc sync or wireless trigger. Still learning about flash, but have a lot of time to play around.
> 
> -- liam


That's quite a nifty setup. Do a writeup! I'd like to see your process and progress.


----------



## JACimages

Good thread for photography people posting their aquariums on another forum im on for photography

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=907367&highlight=aquarium


----------

