# Camera



## zchauvin

What camera do you guys suggest?


----------



## tetra73

What's your budget???  What you will use it for? I personally use a Canon 1dmarkIII....


----------



## zachary908

I personally use the Canon T2i.


----------



## zachary908

tetra73 said:


> I personally use a Canon 1dmarkIII....


Nice!


----------



## Bettatail

mine is Canon Kiss X4(T2i), super jealous tetra73's Mark III

a lens is equally important, I have a Tamron 180mm macro for close up pictures

in memory of my congo tetra, he passed away when he was 4 years old.


----------



## Nubster

Nikon D300
Tamron 90mm macro

Photographer>Lens>camera body


----------



## Bettatail

Nubster said:


> Nikon D300
> Tamron 90mm macro
> 
> Photographer>Lens>camera body


can I use it as my avatar too?


----------



## Patriot

Nikon d3100 for lower price but i would get the nikon d7000 which is about $1500


----------



## driftwoodhunter

tetra73 said:


> I personally use a Canon 1dmarkIII....


Woo-Hoo! What a first post to this thread - lol
You all need to add to the ongoing "Photos" thread in the Introductions forum (I think it's in introductions?lol)

I have a Canon 50D and I love it, but I need to upgrade one of my lenses and get a macro.


----------



## driftwoodhunter

Not a fishie, but my favorite pet!










(this is the crappy lens I want to replace)


----------



## Razorworm

Cannon G12


----------



## zchauvin

Thanks for all the suggestions guys. I'm trying to stay in the 1000$ range.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


----------



## speedie408

zchauvin said:


> Thanks for all the suggestions guys. I'm trying to stay in the 1000$ range.


Get the new Canon 1D X  Of course you'd have to add another $6K to your bank account first hahaha

PURE SEX!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4r5sbJBA0Q&feature=player_embedded


----------



## Franzi

The new S100 from Canon is awesome if you want a compact. I also like the T3i if you're looking for entry level SLR's. (I just wish the awesome lenses didn't cost so damn much!)


----------



## zchauvin

Yeah I dont need a super high tech one, all I have now is one of the cool pix cameras lol i like that Canon but too much money and looks way to complicated for me Haha. I don't know the first thing about cameras, lenses ect.. 

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


----------



## tetra73

zchauvin said:


> Yeah I dont need a super high tech one, all I have now is one of the cool pix cameras lol i like that Canon but too much money and looks way to complicated for me Haha. I don't know the first thing about cameras, lenses ect..
> 
> Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk



I say any sub $300 point and shoot camera is fine. They all produce similar image quality and some may have more options than others. Maybe more ergonomic than others. If you want to use for aquarium photography, there are a lot of factors involved. Light..I am sure our own home aquarium would have enough light. Fish is probably won't be swimming as much. You may need a marcro feature to shoot your home aquarium fish, comparing to a public aquarium (bigger fish). Some shots from the Brooklyn NY aquarium:

Shot with a 1dmarkIII, Sigma 50 f1.4, and flash...


----------



## driftwoodhunter

I love Sigma lenses!
Stunning pics!


----------



## GraphicGr8s

zchauvin said:


> What camera do you guys suggest?


Depends on what you're going to do with the final output. 
Internet only? Maybe a few snapshots to print out occasionally? If that's the case any P&S will do.
Want to get into photography as a serious hobby? Then a DSLR is the way to go. I still recommend (and use) Pentax cameras. A lot of bang for the buck without breaking the bank. A lightly used K10D or K20 will do well. Even a *ist will produce a 16 x 20 with good results. Well good enough to sell them anyway. And all the lenses ever made for Pentax are at you disposal. And Pentax and other third party manufacturers made some awesome glass that will match and in many cases rival what's available today. Pentax uses a mount that is still in use today on their digitals. Canikon can't claim that.


----------



## GraphicGr8s

driftwoodhunter said:


> I love Sigma lenses!
> Stunning pics!


Yeah if I could ever afford it I'd get the Bigma.


----------



## zchauvin

tetra73 said:


> I say any sub $300 point and shoot camera is fine. They all produce similar image quality and some may have more options than others. Maybe more ergonomic than others. If you want to use for aquarium photography, there are a lot of factors involved. Light..I am sure our own home aquarium would have enough light. Fish is probably won't be swimming as much. You may need a marcro feature to shoot your home aquarium fish, comparing to a public aquarium (bigger fish). Some shots from the Brooklyn NY aquarium:
> 
> Shot with a 1dmarkIII, Sigma 50 f1.4, and flash...


So not to much money is a 7k camera lol....
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bettatail

Tetra73, make sure you copyright these photos, someone out there is willing to pay for them, you never know.


----------



## tetra73

Bettatail said:


> Tetra73, make sure you copyright these photos, someone out there is willing to pay for them, you never know.



I am not worry considering that I don't believe I have the permission to sell them since they were taken from NY Aquarium. I do sell photos but mostly cycling races. Here, none of my photos would ever be on a publicly shared hosting site.


----------



## GraphicGr8s

tetra73 said:


> I am not worry considering that I don't believe I have the permission to sell them since they were taken from NY Aquarium. I do sell photos but mostly cycling races. Here, none of my photos would ever be on a publicly shared hosting site.


I am reasonably sure you could sell them even if it is a public venue. Copyright protects the work itself. Photoshop user mag had a series of articles on copyright. Trouble is it's hard to protect online and harder to collect any monies due. Best way is a low res jpg. It's one of the reasons I don't put my work online though. When I send proofs it's low res and with a copyright mark through it. Plus a few other safeguards. But if someone really wants it it's as good as theirs. Not hard at all to invalidate most of the methods for protection.

Here's a link that may help

http://books.google.com/books?id=rJ...m=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false


----------



## 150EH

You don't need to spend a ton of money but it helps, some of the smaller point and shoot cameras can give nice results and with smaller sensors than the DLSR you can get awsome macro pics, look for manual control and overall picture quality and this doesn't mean the highest amount of megapixels you can get.

Lurk at dpreview.com/ and look at newer cameras in the last year or so of reviews and try to find something in your budget, then ask about the pros and cons in the forum for that model, good luck.


----------



## tetra73

GraphicGr8s said:


> Am am reasonably sure you could sell them even if it is a public venue. Copyright protects the work itself. Photoshop user mag had a series of articles on copyright. Trouble is it's hard to protect online and harder to collect any monies due. Best way is a low res jpg. It's one of the reasons I don't put my work online though. When I send proofs it's low res and with a copyright mark through it. Plus a few other safeguards. But if someone really wants it it's as good as theirs. Not hard at all to invalidate most of the methods for protection.
> 
> Here's a link that may help
> 
> http://books.google.com/books?id=rJ...m=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false


Trusted me, I have consulted other professional photographers. Here is a FAQ from NY Aquarium. 

http://www.nyaquarium.com/plan-your-trip/faq.aspx

Of course, personally, I think there is no market for nature photography unless you live in some beautiful places. Even then, the works are often shown in galleries, rather than online or on Facebook. 

I once contacted by a zoo in somewhere in Europe. They wanted to use one of my Snow Leopard shots from the Bronx Zoo. First, they have no intentions to pay me other than giving me credits. LOL Can I pay bills with credits? What good would a credit do for me if the shot is shown in Europe? In this situation, it is purely commercial, which would require consent or permission release from the Bronx Zoo.


----------



## houseofcards

tetra73 said:


> I say any sub $300 point and shoot camera is fine. They all produce similar image quality and some may have more options than others. Maybe more ergonomic than others. If you want to use for aquarium photography, there are a lot of factors involved. Light..I am sure our own home aquarium would have enough light. Fish is probably won't be swimming as much. You may need a marcro feature to shoot your home aquarium fish, comparing to a public aquarium (bigger fish). Some shots from the Brooklyn NY aquarium:


I agree about the p&s. Without a doubt light makes the largest difference in capturing a good pic for home aquaria. There simply isn't enough of it to get most moving fish (shrimp and slow movers are exceptions.) Most really good shots have studio type lighting in addition to or in place of the tanks own lighting (especially if your are lowlight setup, lol.)


----------



## Bjielsl

I either use my 5d mkii or my 1diii with the 100L macro. The 1diii is best for low light autofocus.


----------



## houseofcards

Bjielsl said:


> I either use my 5d mkii or my 1diii with the 100L macro. The 1diii is best for low light autofocus.


OK that's great, but I'll go out on a limb and say most here don't have $6,000 professional cameras. With most using P&S and entry level SLR, adding additional light is necessary to capture moving fish in home aquaria.


----------



## Bettatail

houseofcards said:


> OK that's great, but I'll go out on a limb and say most here don't have $6,000 professional cameras. With most using P&S and entry level SLR, adding additional light is necessary to capture moving fish in home aquaria.


Agree, I use several remote flash to aid the macro shot, but need to do more homework to bring out the vivid colors/contrast


----------



## Bjielsl

houseofcards said:


> OK that's great, but I'll go out on a limb and say most here don't have $6,000 professional cameras. With most using P&S and entry level SLR, adding additional light is necessary to capture moving fish in home aquaria.


You are correct.. I would recommend the Canon G12. It can use canon external flashes and you can go full manual with it as well. I think it is a great P&S for the price. It is also know for having great Macro capability...

here is a sample image from Canon's site









And here is a great thread on a canon forum I frequent:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1013490


----------



## zenche

Sony a700, 100mm 2.8 Macro shot with a flashgun.


----------



## GraphicGr8s

tetra73 said:


> Trusted me, I have consulted other professional photographers. Here is a FAQ from NY Aquarium.
> 
> http://www.nyaquarium.com/plan-your-trip/faq.aspx
> 
> Of course, personally, I think there is no market for nature photography unless you live in some beautiful places. Even then, the works are often shown in galleries, rather than online or on Facebook.
> 
> I once contacted by a zoo in somewhere in Europe. They wanted to use one of my Snow Leopard shots from the Bronx Zoo. First, they have no intentions to pay me other than giving me credits. LOL Can I pay bills with credits? What good would a credit do for me if the shot is shown in Europe? In this situation, it is purely commercial, which would require consent or permission release from the Bronx Zoo.


First off your not a member of the media. (hope that sentence comes off as I mean it) That statement is for an actual photo shoot where you're setting up lighting and tripods, etc. They will usually let you in a little before or stay after official closing so you don't interrupt normal business hours. And while they will usually frown upon a tripod during hours they mostly allow monopods without a problem. At least that's been my experience with public venues. Even with all the latest security measure with TSA shooting at airports is welcomed. At least at Tampa International it is and a few others I've shot at.

Never had a problem at the Baltimore Aquarium either. But I did call them first and got their restrictions. A commercial shoot there was like $3000. After hours and with their staff and all of our equipment and personnel. Personal shoot like you did was just fine. Certain fish you had to watch the flash though. I've even gone there with 2 other people to hold wireless flash and they asked a few questions and said have fun, hope you sell a few. We did both.


----------



## zchauvin

What are you guys opinions on buying used? I've been looking and I see a lot of them are roughly half price or less if used. I know you have to watch for different things but not experienced enough to know what is good or bad.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


----------



## tetra73

GraphicGr8s said:


> First off your not a member of the media. (hope that sentence comes off as I mean it) That statement is for an actual photo shoot where you're setting up lighting and tripods, etc. They will usually let you in a little before or stay after official closing so you don't interrupt normal business hours. And while they will usually frown upon a tripod during hours they mostly allow monopods without a problem. At least that's been my experience with public venues. Even with all the latest security measure with TSA shooting at airports is welcomed. At least at Tampa International it is and a few others I've shot at.
> 
> Never had a problem at the Baltimore Aquarium either. But I did call them first and got their restrictions. A commercial shoot there was like $3000. After hours and with their staff and all of our equipment and personnel. Personal shoot like you did was just fine. Certain fish you had to watch the flash though. I've even gone there with 2 other people to hold wireless flash and they asked a few questions and said have fun, hope you sell a few. We did both.


Hmmm...I don't make my money shooting nature theme and so that's fine. Trust me, people don't buy photos because the shot looks beautiful. That's the general misconception. People buy the photos because the shot means something to them + beautifully captured as well. Now, if those Discus shots are your Discus, I am sure you would buy them...

BTW, it has nothing to do if you are a member of the media. If you use the photo taken from either a public or private location to "promote" your business, it becomes commercial. The key point is "business promotion." In this case, you need a property release as well as a model release of the shot. Everything else is considered editorial, which a release is not required. 

You don't need a whole light crew to capture fish in a public aquarium, unless your shots contain people in it. If you know your stuff, you can capture this giant hogfish swimming by in a lowly lit public aquarium.


----------



## tetra73

zchauvin said:


> What are you guys opinions on buying used? I've been looking and I see a lot of them are roughly half price or less if used. I know you have to watch for different things but not experienced enough to know what is good or bad.
> 
> Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk



Depending on the camera. Which model you are considering?


----------



## zchauvin

I looked at that Sony a700 and they have a used for 499 but I'm open to whatever is best 

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


----------



## tetra73

GraphicGr8s said:


> First off your not a member of the media. (hope that sentence comes off as I mean it) That statement is for an actual photo shoot where you're setting up lighting and tripods, etc. They will usually let you in a little before or stay after official closing so you don't interrupt normal business hours. And while they will usually frown upon a tripod during hours they mostly allow monopods without a problem. At least that's been my experience with public venues. Even with all the latest security measure with TSA shooting at airports is welcomed. At least at Tampa International it is and a few others I've shot at.
> 
> Never had a problem at the Baltimore Aquarium either. But I did call them first and got their restrictions. A commercial shoot there was like $3000. After hours and with their staff and all of our equipment and personnel. Personal shoot like you did was just fine. Certain fish you had to watch the flash though. I've even gone there with 2 other people to hold wireless flash and they asked a few questions and said have fun, hope you sell a few. We did both.


Information about various types of photography. What defines them is how you use the photos. Is not who took them.
http://asmp.org/tutorials/licensing-guide.html

Various licensing usage and solely based on the use of the photos:
http://asmp.org/tutorials/what-license.html

There are a lot of gray areas. If in doubts, always ask and get a release. You don't want to get yourself into any legal troubles.


----------



## tetra73

zchauvin said:


> I looked at that Sony a700 and they have a used for 499 but I'm open to whatever is best
> 
> Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


Where did you see it used and who is selling it used? Used is fine as long as you know who was using it and you can see the condition of the body. Normally, you should ask for the shutter counts. How many times the shutter has been "clicked" or "cycled?" The shutter has its own lifespan. My 1dmarkIII is rated for 300,000 cycles. Other bodies could be less, 100,000 cycles.


----------



## speedie408

tetra73 said:


> If you know your stuff, you can capture this giant hogfish swimming by in a lowly lit public aquarium.


Seems like you know a thing or two about photography and you've def got some Top shelf gear as well. That being said, I'll have to disagree and say a $300 P&S will not be able to take such a snazzy photo of that hogfish the same way your 1dmkIII did. Shoot, even my 60D won't take a really good shot in lowly lit locations. You need a very good low light capable camera with high ISO that renders very little noise mated with a very fast lense f/2.8 or larger. That's only something the higher end DSLRs are capable of. 

Now if you're both using light on the other hand, it'll be fair game.


----------



## zchauvin

Its on amazon or something I think. I'm not sure

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


----------



## tetra73

speedie408 said:


> Seems like you know a thing or two about photography and you've def got some Top shelf gear as well. That being said, I'll have to disagree and say a $300 P&S will not be able to take such a snazzy photo of that hogfish the same way your 1dmkIII did. Shoot, even my 60D won't take a really good shot in lowly lit locations. You need a very good low light capable camera with high ISO that renders very little noise mated with a very fast lense f/2.8 or larger. That's only something the higher end DSLRs are capable of.
> 
> Now if you're both using light on the other hand, it'll be fair game.



The reason why a PS camera can't capture similar shots because the autofocus is too slow. Second, they don't support external flash, which is very crucial. I am not going into the details on aquarium photography. It is more about techniques and having the full understanding about flash photography and lighting, and knowing what flash does to a moving subject. FYI, my ISO was 800. Shutter speed was 1/200s. These setting does not scream 1dmarkIII.... Aperture is around F 3.5 to F4.


----------



## tetra73

zchauvin said:


> Its on amazon or something I think. I'm not sure
> 
> Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk



So, you want to get a DSLR? Remember that a DSLR is big. You need lenses and other accessories. There is a learning curve. You don't want to shoot anything in Auto mode. I am a Canon guy. If you want to switch to Canon, I think I know a thing or two about their DSLR bodies. Their top of the line PS camera is the powershot G12.


----------



## houseofcards

Was the hogfish pic taken with external flash?


----------



## speedie408

tetra73 said:


> The reason why a PS camera can't capture similar shots because the autofocus is too slow. Second, they don't support external flash, which is very crucial. I am not going into the details on aquarium photography. It is more about techniques and having the full understanding about flash photography and lighting, and knowing what flash does to a moving subject. FYI, my ISO was 800. Shutter speed was 1/200s. These setting does not scream 1dmarkIII.... Aperture is around F 3.5 to F4.


You could be right, what the hell do I know? :icon_cool I've never used a P&S for aquarium photography. 

I'll say that even at those settings your camera will still yield higher quality photos than any other non pro camera with the same settings (no flash involved). If it was all technique and no gear, every pro wouldn't be using "pro" gear in the first place.


----------



## tetra73

houseofcards said:


> Was the hogfish pic taken with external flash?



Yes...but diffused. Only enough light to light up the fish and not to render it with your typical harsh flash look.


----------



## lauraleellbp

OK, so is there a Canon body and lens that would work in his $1000 budget?


----------



## speedie408

tetra73 said:


> Yes...but diffused. Only enough light to light up the fish and not to render it with your typical harsh flash look.


lol 

I thought you were talking about non flash. Like I've stated, if flash is involved it's fair game with a nice P&S.


----------



## zchauvin

lauraleellbp said:


> OK, so is there a Canon body and lens that would work in his $1000 budget?


+1 thanks for sticking to topic. As I said guys I don't need a really high tech camera and id rather a used if possible as I am not experienced. A used would save me money and give me some practice ect.. 

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


----------



## speedie408

lauraleellbp said:


> OK, so is there a Canon body and lens that would work in his $1000 budget?


Any old Rebel body ($200) mated with the trusty EF 100mm f/2.8 macro ($500), and one or two old speedlites ($30 each) will do the trick. Don't forget the remote flash triggers for off shoe flash photography ($20 each). That falls right in his price range. :thumbsup:


----------



## tetra73

speedie408 said:


> lol
> 
> I thought you were talking about non flash. Like I've stated, if flash is involved it's fair game with a nice P&S.



No, is not... You need to adjust your flash output power as well as the angle of the flash head. Your PS can't do that. Autofocus speed.....your PS has lag during focusing and when you [censored][censored][censored][censored] the shutter button. We are talking about focusing through thick glass with fast moving fish. Diffused lighting means you use a larger light source to illuminate the subject in order to render the subject in a softer tone. Your quarter size flash on the PS can't achieve anything like that. Yes, I see people taking shots of fish with their smart phones and can't figure out how to deal with the glare...


----------



## speedie408

Ummm... I thought were arguing that P&S cameras would be able to capture pictures such as your Pro camera? Now you're saying that they wont? You lost me lol.


----------



## tetra73

speedie408 said:


> Any old Rebel body ($200) mated with the trusty EF 100mm f/2.8 macro ($500), and one or two old speedlites ($30 each) will do the trick. Don't forget the remote flash triggers for off shoe flash photography ($20 each). That falls right in his price range. :thumbsup:


Hmmm...where you can get old Canon speedlites for $30??? Unless you are referring to some off brand from ebay??? Canon speedlites 430ex markII is about $300. 580ex markII is about $500. Only the 580ex markII can remote trigger either the 430ex or another 580ex. You can buy an off brand remote trigger for $60 which you can use on any flash. There is one problem. It only works in manual power mode. You have to manually adjust the flash power output. Frankly, I think that's a bit too much for someone just starting out in DSLR.


----------



## tetra73

speedie408 said:


> Ummm... I thought were arguing that P&S cameras would be able to capture pictures such as your Pro camera? Now you're saying that they wont? You lost me lol.


It comes down if the fish is moving or not. With your own home aquarium, maybe. For the lighting issue, just turn on all the lights. In a public aquarium in which you have NO Controls of your lighting and the fish behaviors, you need at least a semi-pro body to accurately focus and capture the fish. For the lighting, you need to know what you can do with the flash, not just firing the flash at full power.


----------



## speedie408

tetra73 said:


> Hmmm...where you can get old Canon speedlites for $30??? Unless you are referring to some off brand from ebay??? Canon speedlites 430ex markII is about $300. 580ex markII is about $500. Only the 580ex markII can remote trigger either the 430ex or another 580ex. You can buy an off brand remote trigger for $60 which you can use on any flash. There is one problem. It only works in manual power mode. You have to manually adjust the flash power output. Frankly, I think that's a bit too much for someone just starting out in DSLR.


I wasn't referring to the stuff you listed. 

Flash: Canon 420EZ speedlite can be found on evilbay for the price I listed (go check)
And yes I only shoot manual mode for aquarium related subjects. It's preferred actually.

Remote triggers: evilbay as well for $30 shipped for 2 receivers and 1 transmitter. Look up CowboyStudio NPT04 4ch Wireless Transmitter + 2Receiver


If I can do it, anybody can.  Don't have to be a pro.


----------



## houseofcards

tetra73 said:


> Yes...but diffused. Only enough light to light up the fish and not to render it with your typical harsh flash look.


Yeah, I can definitely see that, especially with a diffused flash. I have a Canon 60D as well and without add'l light unless you have a very high light tank it's very difficult to capture moving fish with quality.


----------



## GraphicGr8s

For an entry level camera you could look at the K100, K100Super, K10D *ist. All would be used and a lot less than the Canon and the Nikon. K10D is a 10mp. *ist is a 6mp and will still give you a poster size picture with good quality. High quality glass can be had new for a lot less than a Canon or Nikon.

Although I say "entry" level I know many photogs who shoot Pentax professionally. And you've seen their shots on many a magazine cover.


----------



## lauraleellbp

LOL @ "evilbay"


----------



## houseofcards

Speedie I have the 60d as well. Did you debate spending more and getting the 7d. I considered it, but for my purposes I didn't think there was any clear advantage for me.


----------



## speedie408

lauraleellbp said:


> LOL @ "evilbay"


:tongue:



houseofcards said:


> Speedie I have the 60d as well. Did you debate spending more and getting the 7d. I considered it, but for my purposes I didn't think there was any clear advantage for me.


I love my 60D and actually chose it over the 7D. The 7D wasn't practical for me and also had a much higher price tag which was a NO NO with my banker.  If you ask me, the 60D is a bit more advanced as far as technology. I absolutely love the video with the swivel LCD screen (which is much bigger than the 7D screen). That's just me :icon_cool


----------



## tetra73

lauraleellbp said:


> OK, so is there a Canon body and lens that would work in his $1000 budget?



Just remember that when you buy a DSLR, you are buying the system and the overall accessories. Once you have the camera, you will get lenses and flash for it. If you decide to switch to another brand, all the accessories become useless. Pretty much most entry level bodies are good enough. Is hard to go wrong with it. Canon t3i and 60D are good. The 7D advantage is the better weather sealing under adverse weather condition. If you don't shoot in the rain, you don't need that. It has micro adjustment which would allow you to fine tune your lens focus. More advanced auto focus system which can allow you to capture more accurate shots with moving subjects. 

Sony and Pentax have image stabilization built into their bodies. It can prevent camera shake when taking the shot. Canon has IS (image stabilization) in the lens itself. What about Nikon??? Is like 
Canon except all the ergonomic is reserved...

Also, if possible, go visit your local bestbuy and to hold one of the cameras. Some cameras are easier to hold while others could be too small for your hand.


----------



## Bjielsl

zchauvin said:


> What are you guys opinions on buying used? I've been looking and I see a lot of them are roughly half price or less if used. I know you have to watch for different things but not experienced enough to know what is good or bad.
> 
> Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


I purchased my canon 100L macro used from Canon's refurb site and have been very please. It usually matches the average used price but at least you get some sort of a warranty.


----------



## zenche

fwiw, i agree with everything tetra's posted re: camera advice, and location shooting advice.

the most important thing he's said, is that there is a learning curve when shooting with DSLRs. It takes knowledge and skill to shoot aqautic photography well. You cant just take a P&S and snap away.

Photography is all about mastery of lighting, which can get very technical (arguably more so than fishkeeping). 

A rebel body + 100mm macro lense + cheap flash guns being triggered with radio triggers will definitely cost you less than $1K. It doesn't have to be Canon Rebels..every mfg has entry level bodies that'll serve your purpose. I would not recommend getting a macro any 'shorter' than 100mm though for a variety of reasons.


----------



## lauraleellbp

Anyone have links to a good online lighting-for-dummies tutorial?


----------



## zenche

hrm, i used to. lost that folder of bookmarks somehow...hrm. i'll dig around some later tonight for specifics, but this is a good start with many things for a beginner to read up on

http://www.digital-photography-school.com/digital-photography-tips-for-beginners


----------



## tetra73

lauraleellbp said:


> Anyone have links to a good online lighting-for-dummies tutorial?



http://strobist.blogspot.com/

Also, go pickup this book too.

http://www.amazon.com/Light-Science...8193/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1320281885&sr=8-1

Just realized they finally have the Ebook version.

For understanding about exposure and how to properly expose a picture:
http://www.amazon.com/Understanding...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1320281989&sr=1-1


----------



## tetra73

zenche said:


> fwiw, i agree with everything tetra's posted re: camera advice, and location shooting advice.
> 
> the most important thing he's said, is that there is a learning curve when shooting with DSLRs. It takes knowledge and skill to shoot aqautic photography well. You cant just take a P&S and snap away.
> 
> Photography is all about mastery of lighting, which can get very technical (arguably more so than fishkeeping).
> 
> A rebel body + 100mm macro lense + cheap flash guns being triggered with radio triggers will definitely cost you less than $1K. It doesn't have to be Canon Rebels..every mfg has entry level bodies that'll serve your purpose. I would not recommend getting a macro any 'shorter' than 100mm though for a variety of reasons.



Hmmm....planted tank is harder. You screw up, you get massive algae breakout, that may take months to clear up. You are in the dark most of the times. You screw up, live stocks can die. This remains me I lost another 5 shrimps this morning for no apparent reasons.

In photography, you screw up, you get lousy looking photos. Another learning experience. And very visual too. If someone is paying you to shoot and you screw up, you can get sued and your name is tied to "bad photographer." In these days and age, even if you screw up you can at least savage some decent shots and hopefully your clients won't know any better too.


----------



## houseofcards

zenche said:


> ...
> 
> A rebel body + 100mm macro lense + cheap flash guns being triggered with radio triggers will definitely cost you less than $1K. .


Tell me where you shop sounds like a good deal. Your not talking all canon glass are you? Also on the macro, why do you feel the 100mm is a must.


----------



## bigstick120

Canons 100mm, old version is one of canons sharpest lenses. Even sharper then many of their Ls


----------



## bigstick120

On a budget Id suggest, used Rebel 250-300, 100mm macro used or new 400-5--, off brand flash Yongnuo have good reviews, depending on model 40-160, id suggest you go the newer with ETTL, and get the new Pixel Kings transmitter/reciever 150, puts you right around 1000


----------



## tetra73

houseofcards said:


> Tell me where you shop sounds like a good deal. Your not talking all canon glass are you? Also on the macro, why do you feel the 100mm is a must.



At 100mm, you can still focus close to the subject (insects, small fish, and etc) without getting physically too close. This will scare the subject. 150mm and 180mm is a good range. The only 3 places I shop are www.adorama.com 
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/ and http://www.beachcamera.com/?ref=brand-camp&omid=135


----------



## tetra73

bigstick120 said:


> On a budget Id suggest, used Rebel 250-300, 100mm macro used or new 400-5--, off brand flash Yongnuo have good reviews, depending on model 40-160, id suggest you go the newer with ETTL, and get the new Pixel Kings transmitter/reciever 150, puts you right around 1000



Why people are so obsessed with off camera flash? If you don't know how to properly use a single hotshoe on-camera flash, you won't know what to do to have 2 flashes to use. Remember that when you talk about off camera flash, you are also talking about using a light stand for that second or first off camera flash. And possibility using a light modifier such as an umbrella or a softbox. 

For macro photography, you should use a macro ring flash. It practically eliminates shadows. http://www.adorama.com/CAMR14EX.html

If you use a regular external flash with macro photography, your distance to the subject gets too close. The flash would be too high up relative to the subject you are shooting. You will get that shadows being cast down from above. The top of the subject will be more illuminated than the rest of the body down below.


----------



## houseofcards

tetra73 said:


> At 100mm, you can still focus close to the subject (insects, small fish, and etc) without getting physically too close. This will scare the subject. 150mm and 180mm is a good range. The only 3 places I shop are www.adorama.com
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/ and http://www.beachcamera.com/?ref=brand-camp&omid=135


Yep, I like b&H. You could probably walk there or take mass trans. Anyway yeah I hear you on the distance, especially if your shooting outside and something might move. Is that still the case though inside the aquarium? Also the 100mm is a big lense. It's tougher to handle and harder to go around with if your not used to it. I actually have the 60mm, which I'm pretty happy with since it's a good size and is easier to use day to day, but it really depends what your doing with it. Another thing people don't realize is how good these lenses are for potrait and not just macro.


----------



## tetra73

houseofcards said:


> Yep, I like b&H. You could probably walk there or take mass trans. Anyway yeah I hear you on the distance, especially if your shooting outside and something might move. Is that still the case though inside the aquarium? Also the 100mm is a big lense. It's tougher to handle and harder to go around with if your not used to it. I actually have the 60mm, which I'm pretty happy with since it's a good size and is easier to use day to day, but it really depends what your doing with it. Another thing people don't realize is how good these lenses are for potrait and not just macro.



Yes, I am in a very dangerous place since I am only an hour subway ride to either BH and Adorama.... I am cutting back on my photography expenses now and trying to not to spend money unless it is necessary. I have all the gear I need, or too much gear in some way. I like Beachcamera because I don't need to pay tax ordering online. I still get my prints from adorama. Haven't been to BH for a while though.


----------



## speedie408

tetra73 said:


> Why people are so obsessed with off camera flash? If you don't know how to properly use a single hotshoe on-camera flash, you won't know what to do to have 2 flashes to use. Remember that when you talk about off camera flash, you are also talking about using a light stand for that second or first off camera flash. And possibility using a light modifier such as an umbrella or a softbox.
> 
> For macro photography, you should use a macro ring flash. It practically eliminates shadows. http://www.adorama.com/CAMR14EX.html
> 
> If you use a regular external flash with macro photography, your distance to the subject gets too close. The flash would be too high up relative to the subject you are shooting. You will get that shadows being cast down from above. The top of the subject will be more illuminated than the rest of the body down below.


Everyone has their own technique but with my limited photography knowledge, I'll say that I've shot some half decent shots with off shoe flash. None of them have been with an on-camera flash unit. Even with a diffuser, you won't be able to capture the natural shadows that you can with off shoe flash. Have you checked out the guys over at Aquatic-Photography.com ? Almost all those guys use off shoe flash religiously. 

If you haven't seen some of my non pro work, here they are using nothing but a cheap radio triggered 420EZ speedlite with my 60D and 100mm macro. By all means I do not concider myself PRO so I'll let the pictures speak for themselves. Here's a few:























































btw, I don't use any fancy umbrellas or light stands.  cam in one and and the flash in the other.

Please don't get me wrong... I'm just trying to say there are other ways (on a budget) with flash photography to enable one to take some solid pictures.


----------



## zenche

re: where and $ - i meant used, as bigstick outlined. other places i'm comfortable buying glass in addition to the already mentioned places - KEH and various photography forums. 

re: strobist...tbh, strobist isn't very beginner friendly. I know i know, they have the 101 section and all, but it's still a lot to take in for someone starting from zero off-camera flash experience. i know i certainly felt that way. 

+1 for Light: Science and Magic. Amazon shows me I bought this back on Dec 26, 2007 

another reason for 100mm+ for macro glass is better compression.

nick - nice work man. i too am all about off-camera flash.


----------



## tetra73

speedie408 said:


> Everyone has their own technique but with my limited photography knowledge, I'll say that I've shot some half decent shots with off shoe flash. None of them have been with an on-camera flash unit. Even with a diffuser, you won't be able to capture the natural shadows that you can with off shoe flash. Have you checked out the guys over at Aquatic-Photography.com ? Almost all those guys use off shoe flash religiously.
> 
> If you haven't seen some of my non pro work, here they are using nothing but a cheap radio triggered 420EZ speedlite with my 60D and 100mm macro. By all means I do not concider myself PRO so I'll let the pictures speak for themselves. Here's a few:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> btw, I don't use any fancy umbrellas or light stands.  cam in one and and the flash in the other.
> 
> Please don't get me wrong... I'm just trying to say there are other ways (on a budget) with flash photography to enable one to take some solid pictures.



Nice shots. I think people should learn to achieve the same result with less gear. This will prevent yourself from constantly buying gear to solve a lighting problem. The following were shot from Mystic Aquarium in CT. This aquarium is by far the most challenging to photograph. It is darker than most I have been to. Even the main tank at the center is dark and with a strange greenish color cast. Again, single external flash on the hot shoe using variable flash power.


----------



## speedie408

Very nice shots man. That's where your skill PLUS the fact that you have a pro body (FF) camera comes into direct play. GEAR does make a big deal if you ask me. haha


----------



## tetra73

speedie408 said:


> Very nice shots man. That's where your skill PLUS the fact that you have a pro body (FF) camera comes into direct play. GEAR does make a big deal if you ask me. haha



Thanks. The 1dmarkIII is actually a 1.3x crop factor body. Not a full frame. I bought it refurbished from Adorama, $3k. Back then a new one was about $4k. It is Canon best second camera ever made. I think the mark4 is nice too, minus the video. I do wish it has more megapixel since I tend to crop a lot.


----------



## lauraleellbp

I just want to say; I'm getting quite the education here- thanks guys!


----------



## speedie408

tetra73 said:


> Thanks. The 1dmarkIII is actually a 1.3x crop factor body. Not a full frame. I bought it refurbished from Adorama, $3k. Back then a new one was about $4k. It is Canon best second camera ever made. I think the mark4 is nice too, minus the video. I do wish it has more megapixel since I tend to crop a lot.


I would trade in the 60d for a 1dmkiii in a heartbeat! I don't care how old it is! I stand corrected on the FF remark. Still, a 1.3x crop is better than the small 1.6x found on all the non pro bodies. Bokeh is the worst on 1.6x crop bodies.


----------



## Bjielsl

speedie408 said:


> I would trade in the 60d for a 1dmkiii in a heartbeat! I don't care how old it is! I stand corrected on the FF remark. Still, a 1.3x crop is better than the small 1.6x found on all the non pro bodies. Bokeh is the worst on 1.6x crop bodies.


+1 on the MKiii


----------



## houseofcards

Speedie and tetra nice pics!

Tetra that last group of photos I assume those were also taken with the diffused speedlite or did you use the ring flash?


----------



## tetra73

houseofcards said:


> Speedie and tetra nice pics!
> 
> Tetra that last group of photos I assume those were also taken with the diffused speedlite or did you use the ring flash?



It was Speedlites 430ex on a white diffuser. 1/8 of power. At various flash angles. You don't need a lot of flash since you can't light up the whole main tank anyway. Too much flash would just lead to overexposure to the fish itself.


----------



## houseofcards

tetra73 said:


> It was Speedlites 430ex on a white diffuser. 1/8 of power. At various flash angles. You don't need a lot of flash since you can't light up the whole main tank anyway. Too much flash would just lead to overexposure to the fish itself.


Thanks for that info. I recently got a 580 so I'll have to play around with. Did you have to post edit any glass reflection?


----------



## tetra73

houseofcards said:


> Thanks for that info. I recently got a 580 so I'll have to play around with. Did you have to post edit any glass reflection?



It never appeared at all.... Why? It was outside the frame. Second, I took the shot at an angle and the flash light would hardly reflect back to me. I wrote about some of the techniques I used here:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=989433&highlight=mystic+aquarium

My handle is TooManyShots.


----------



## houseofcards

tetra73 said:


> It never appeared at all.... Why? It was outside the frame. Second, I took the shot at an angle and the flash light would hardly reflect back to me. I wrote about some of the techniques I used here:
> http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=989433&highlight=mystic+aquarium
> 
> My handle is TooManyShots.


Thanks. I'll think I'll join that forum as well. I think I joined Photoforum a while back.

Should be interesting to take shots both ways, thru the glass and from above with the 580.


----------



## houseofcards

Getting back to the OP. Some of the Point & Shoot have pretty good macro capabilities built in. These pics not the greatest, some noise in there, but was shot with a Canon IS S2 Point & Shoot about 4 years ago on macro setting with just tank lighting. I would assume the macro capabilities in these point and shoots are even better now.


----------



## zchauvin

If any of you guys hear of anyone selling one let me know, at least ill know if comes from a good source. If its something around 5-600 used I'm interested. 

Thanks

Houseofcards, what is a point and shoot?? Just a standard camera?

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


----------



## houseofcards

zchauvin said:


> ...
> 
> Houseofcards, what is a point and shoot?? Just a standard camera?
> 
> Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


Yes, pretty much all the cameras you see from the really little ones to the ones that look you can change the lenses like a SLR. That's not a precise defintion but I think you know what I mean.


----------



## zchauvin

houseofcards said:


> Yes, pretty much all the cameras you see from the really little ones to the ones that look you can change the lenses like a SLR. That's not a precise defintion but I think you know what I mean.


Yeah I gotcha 

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


----------



## bigstick120

Umm, probably because its the best for macro work when shooting in aquariums. Who said you have to use 2 strobes? I only use 1 most of the time. Why do ppl assume so much?

I have a ring flash as well, in my limited experience trying it on aquarium stuff its awful. Granted I could make it work with some more practice, but off camera is 100 times better. With no modifiers all all or light stands. That is just stupid to think you need all that.




tetra73 said:


> Why people are so obsessed with off camera flash? If you don't know how to properly use a single hotshoe on-camera flash, you won't know what to do to have 2 flashes to use. Remember that when you talk about off camera flash, you are also talking about using a light stand for that second or first off camera flash. And possibility using a light modifier such as an umbrella or a softbox.
> 
> For macro photography, you should use a macro ring flash. It practically eliminates shadows. http://www.adorama.com/CAMR14EX.html
> 
> If you use a regular external flash with macro photography, your distance to the subject gets too close. The flash would be too high up relative to the subject you are shooting. You will get that shadows being cast down from above. The top of the subject will be more illuminated than the rest of the body down below.


----------



## GraphicGr8s

tetra73 said:


> Why people are so obsessed with off camera flash? If you don't know how to properly use a single hotshoe on-camera flash, you won't know what to do to have 2 flashes to use. Remember that when you talk about off camera flash, you are also talking about using a light stand for that second or first off camera flash. And possibility using a light modifier such as an umbrella or a softbox.


Assuming you DO know how to use a flash, at least the basics, getting it off the camera will help tremendously with red eye problems. Heck it helps with a lot of problems. If your flash won't tilt get it off camera and hold it for bounce. Even back in my film days I'd get my long PC cord and get that thing off the camera and hand hold it. Shot many an event doing that with great results. Shot my fishtanks like that too. My flash of choice is usually a handle mount though. My fist was a Vivitar 2900. I now use a Pentax AF400T. I've got the softboxes, use hairlights and side lights. Someone once commented it looked like I was selling umbrellas. Still my goto device is my own arm. It seems to always be available when needed.


----------



## tetra73

GraphicGr8s said:


> Assuming you DO know how to use a flash, at least the basics, getting it off the camera will help tremendously with red eye problems. Heck it helps with a lot of problems. If your flash won't tilt get it off camera and hold it for bounce. Even back in my film days I'd get my long PC cord and get that thing off the camera and hand hold it. Shot many an event doing that with great results. Shot my fishtanks like that too. My flash of choice is usually a handle mount though. My fist was a Vivitar 2900. I now use a Pentax AF400T. I've got the softboxes, use hairlights and side lights. Someone once commented it looked like I was selling umbrellas. Still my goto device is my own arm. It seems to always be available when needed.


I think in this context we are referring to using 2 strobes and firing them using a remote trigger. The thing is that the subject, a fish or a shrimp, is no bigger than 2 inches, is small enough to use a single flash. And the light would appear large enough to wrap around the subject. Like the sun illuminating a person. In an aquarium environment, the space is small. Usually, a single flash would illuminate the entire tank indiscriminately. Using a second flash won't contribute to the over all lighting.

You get red eyes because you aren't using the flash for fill but as a dominant light source. The only time I get red eyes is when I was shooting a bike race 6am in the morning with little light available.


----------



## GraphicGr8s

tetra73 said:


> I think in this context we are referring to using 2 strobes and firing them using a remote trigger. The thing is that the subject, a fish or a shrimp, is no bigger than 2 inches, is small enough to use a single flash. And the light would appear large enough to wrap around the subject. Like the sun illuminating a person. In an aquarium environment, the space is small. Usually, a single flash would illuminate the entire tank indiscriminately. Using a second flash won't contribute to the over all lighting.
> 
> You get red eyes because you aren't using the flash for fill but as a dominant light source. The only time I get red eyes is when I was shooting a bike race 6am in the morning with little light available.


Even as a fill light if the pupil is dilated enough and the light is straight on as it would be if using the built in you'll get red eye. Remember the red is coming from the flash bouncing off the retina so anytime the pupil is dilated enough you could get it if the flash is nearly straight on. Straight on flash is also a very harsh light. 

My flash is always off to the left and up higher since it's a handle mount. Never have a red eye problem.

Don't know about the canon or nikon flashes but i can dial in on how much the light spreads and how much light is presented. 

Shooting my own tanks I don't use flash at all anymore. I use a high enough ISO but not so high as to get noticeable noise and a fast lens. Manual all the way.


----------



## tetra73

GraphicGr8s said:


> Even as a fill light if the pupil is dilated enough and the light is straight on as it would be if using the built in you'll get red eye. Remember the red is coming from the flash bouncing off the retina so anytime the pupil is dilated enough you could get it if the flash is nearly straight on. Straight on flash is also a very harsh light.
> 
> My flash is always off to the left and up higher since it's a handle mount. Never have a red eye problem.
> 
> Don't know about the canon or nikon flashes but i can dial in on how much the light spreads and how much light is presented.
> 
> Shooting my own tanks I don't use flash at all anymore. I use a high enough ISO but not so high as to get noticeable noise and a fast lens. Manual all the way.


This shot has no red eyes.



So as this one.


Hot shoe mount flash, 580ex markII. 24-70L. The flash here is used as a fill.

I have shot over 30 races this year not once I have red eye issue. Except this race during late July and at 6am in the morning, no light.



Here, I needed to clone the eyes on the rider to the far right. Red eye becomes an issue the more the flash becomes the dominant light source. The more the flash is used as fill, you would have no red eyes.

Here, the sky is brightened up and a bit later in the morning. Flash was used as fill.


----------



## zchauvin

What do you guys think about a Canon rebel t2i 18 mp. It's for around 700 and comes with a 18-55 mm lens I think.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


----------



## speedie408

zchauvin said:


> What do you guys think about a Canon rebel t2i 18 mp. It's for around 700 and comes with a 18-55 mm lens I think.
> 
> Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


Nice little camera for anybody looking to to get into photography. It's quite capable actually.


----------



## zchauvin

So it'll be able to take close ups of tank ect and deliver good clear quality?

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


----------



## speedie408

zchauvin said:


> So it'll be able to take close ups of tank ect and deliver good clear quality?
> 
> Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


The kit lens will not be able to do macro shots. You'd have to get a dedicated macro lens for that purpose. Good clear quality, yes.


----------



## zchauvin

Thanks speedie, what so you suggest as a good macro lense?

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


----------



## tetra73

zchauvin said:


> Thanks speedie, what so you suggest as a good macro lense?
> 
> Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk



When comes to photography, makes sure you do it right. Get a dedicated marco lens. Not a lens with macro feature as an extra. It is not going to be cheap. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/searc...marcro+lens&ci=274&N=38+4293344976+4294185281


----------



## speedie408

zchauvin said:


> Thanks speedie, what so you suggest as a good macro lense?
> 
> Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


Best and most affordable one is the one I currently own: *Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro 
* Tack sharp and vivid colors!


----------



## zchauvin

Thanks, some of those lenses alone went for the price of the camera or more.... 

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


----------



## houseofcards

zchauvin said:


> Thanks, some of those lenses alone went for the price of the camera or more....
> 
> Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


Yes that is what usually happens. I have the Canon 60mm macro, cheaper than the 100mm and I"m pretty happy with it, but it depends on what you want to do.


----------



## tetra73

zchauvin said:


> Thanks, some of those lenses alone went for the price of the camera or more....
> 
> Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk



Body comes and goes, lens is forever... A good, reputable lens has good resales value. They rarely depreciate in values unless there is a 2nd version of it. The price stays very consistent throughout.


----------



## speedie408

zchauvin said:


> Thanks, some of those lenses alone went for the price of the camera or more....
> 
> Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


Also keep in mind, lenses almost never depreciate in value, if anything they'll go up in value if it's a good lense. Camera bodies will constantly be replaced and steadily depreciate as new bodies come onto the market.


----------



## zchauvin

Thanks guys. Really wish I could find a used. I'm sceptical of both... I don't want to get a brand new one since I don't know too much about it and I don't want to spend a whole lot because of that, but I don't want to buy a used and get screwed lol. I'll probably try to get one of those t2i black Friday and pick up a macro lense when possible.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


----------



## tetra73

zchauvin said:


> Thanks guys. Really wish I could find a used. I'm sceptical of both... I don't want to get a brand new one since I don't know too much about it and I don't want to spend a whole lot because of that, but I don't want to buy a used and get screwed lol. I'll probably try to get one of those t2i black Friday and pick up a macro lense when possible.
> 
> Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk



Here is an used Canon 100mm Marcro:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1111699


----------



## tetra73

zchauvin said:


> Thanks guys. Really wish I could find a used. I'm sceptical of both... I don't want to get a brand new one since I don't know too much about it and I don't want to spend a whole lot because of that, but I don't want to buy a used and get screwed lol. I'll probably try to get one of those t2i black Friday and pick up a macro lense when possible.
> 
> Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk



An used T2i:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1110318&highlight=t2i


----------



## zchauvin

Thanks but now I have to join first lol 

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


----------



## zchauvin

Which would be the better choice t2i or t3i. The t3 cost more but less megapixels. It's about 200 more- any reason why that I dont see that could benefit?

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


----------



## tetra73

zchauvin said:


> Which would be the better choice t2i or t3i. The t3 cost more but less megapixels. It's about 200 more- any reason why that I dont see that could benefit?
> 
> Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk



Get the one you can afford. Megapixel means little in reality. Is a marketing ploy. MP only matters if you print big, really big, poster size photos and anything beyond 8x10. And if you crop the shot a lot. FYI, my 1dmarkIII only has 10 mp...


----------



## houseofcards

tetra73 said:


> Get the one you can afford. Megapixel means little in reality. Is a marketing ploy. MP only matters if you print big, really big, postal size photos and anything beyond 8x10. And if you crop the shot a lot. FYI, my 1dmarkIII only has 10 mp...


I would respectively disagree with that. Someone buying a idmarkIII is probably not going to shy away from buying expensive lenses, but the cropping ability is huge and it can sometimes take the place off additional lenses.


----------



## tetra73

houseofcards said:


> I would respectively disagree with that. Someone buying a idmarkIII is probably not going to shy away from buying expensive lenses, but the cropping ability is huge and it can sometimes take the place off additional lenses.



You mean having more MP would allow you to "zoom" in more, without needing to buy a longer lens? There are certain truths to some extend. Unless you shoot sports or motor racing or wild life photography or zoo photography, very rarely would you need to use lenses longer than 150mm. Unless, you deliberately want to shoot a building across the street or a person across the street.


----------



## houseofcards

tetra73 said:


> ..You mean having more MP would allow you to "zoom" in more, without needing to buy a longer lens? There are certain truths to some extend...


Yes, don't you have more resolution to work with before the picture craps out by being too small. Here's an example for the OP. I took this picture at the St. Louis Zoo recently with my 60D and the kit lens it came with. 










Then I cropped it. If the MP were less wouldn't I not able to do this to such as extent before the pic wasn't printable.


----------



## zchauvin

So in my case the cheaper would the the better option, the t2i has 18mp as opposed to 10. Right now I'm having a lot of trouble when it comes to cropping. My phone has a 8mp and takes decent pics for a phone but when I try to crop to fit for this site, the picture gets very blurry.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


----------



## tetra73

zchauvin said:


> So in my case the cheaper would the the better option, the t2i has 18mp as opposed to 10. Right now I'm having a lot of trouble when it comes to cropping. My phone has a 8mp and takes decent pics for a phone but when I try to crop to fit for this site, the picture gets very blurry.
> 
> Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk



Your phone photos are just crappy to begin with. It has nothing to do with the MP. It has also to do with where you host the photos. I believe on this message board your photos has to be at a certain size in order to be uploaded. I use Flickr. The original size of my photo is 1024 pixel, about 500kb in file size. On this site as well as on other message boards, there are file size restriction, meaning that the photo file will get compressed even more (smaller file size). This will degrade your photo image quality.


----------



## zchauvin

Ok so yes... It's a phone camera, I knew that. No matter what is used, the image is worsened as its resized smaller and smaller. I'm simply asking which to get high or low mp. I want to know if I should pay more for less mp or less for more. 

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


----------



## jcardona1

Oh joy another camera thread!! My pair of pennies:

If you want maximum image quality and sharpness, get a DSLR. Period. End of story. No P&S will produce similar results, ever. Even a terrible DSLR photo will produce more detail than a P&S ever could. If P&S where so good, you'd see wedding photographers carrying around a pink P&S. There's a reason DSLRs are the go-to camera. And they're not hard to use. You can start shooting in full auto and gradually move over to manual settings as you learn. 

And you don't need to spend thousands. An entry-level Canon or Nikon DSLR can be had used for about $300+. My buddy bought his Nikon D40 with two lenses and a generic speedlight for $350 on craigslist. 

This is what I did with my old D40 and the 'crappy' 18-55mm kit lens










Right now, I have a D90. It's a great camera. I almost upgraded to a D700 but decided not to, since the D90 is a lot more capable than I am as a photographer, still have a lot to learn. 

A lot of people disagree with me here, but I ALWAYS suggest to buy the camera, then buy a speedlight. A speedlight is more important than getting new lenses. Pro-level glass is nice, but a speedlight will do more for your photos, ESPECIALLY aquarium photography. I have $3500 invested in two lenses, so I'm no stranger to pro glass. The benefits of pro lenses for aquarium photography are debatable. Build quality, not really important for aquarium photography. Constant big apertures, like f/2.8, doesn't matter. If you want the best quality photos you'll be shooting at f/11 or higher, I go up to f/16. Shooting at f/2.8 is not ideal for fish, unless you enjoy having a lot of the fish out of focus due to the narrow depth of field. Faster auto-focus, yes, that's a good thing to have when shooting fish. Better image quality, meh. It depends. Nikon's 18-55mm kit lens is one of the sharpest lenses ever made, just look at the above photo. 

Lighting is the most important thing in aquarium photography, and it will help all of your photos as well. For the most pleasing results, the light has to come from above the fish, not directly at it. Direct flash for aquarium is no good IMO. The fish look unrealistic, and makes the scales sparkle too much, which doesn't look real. I could always tell when direct flash was used on a fish. 

Here's a few of my aquarium pics:


----------



## houseofcards

As other's have said and you have echoed it really is all about the light, especially with aquariums. jcardona1 would it be possible to give us some of the pic properties and equipment used for a few of those pics. Maybe for example the first two.


----------



## tetra73

jcardona1 said:


> Oh joy another camera thread!! My pair of pennies:
> 
> If you want maximum image quality and sharpness, get a DSLR. Period. End of story. No P&S will produce similar results, ever. Even a terrible DSLR photo will produce more detail than a P&S ever could. If P&S where so good, you'd see wedding photographers carrying around a pink P&S. There's a reason DSLRs are the go-to camera. And they're not hard to use. You can start shooting in full auto and gradually move over to manual settings as you learn.
> 
> And you don't need to spend thousands. An entry-level Canon or Nikon DSLR can be had used for about $300+. My buddy bought his Nikon D40 with two lenses and a generic speedlight for $350 on craigslist.
> 
> This is what I did with my old D40 and the 'crappy' 18-55mm kit lens
> 
> 
> 
> Right now, I have a D90. It's a great camera. I almost upgraded to a D700 but decided not to, since the D90 is a lot more capable than I am as a photographer, still have a lot to learn.
> 
> A lot of people disagree with me here, but I ALWAYS suggest to buy the camera, then buy a speedlight. A speedlight is more important than getting new lenses. Pro-level glass is nice, but a speedlight will do more for your photos, ESPECIALLY aquarium photography. I have $3500 invested in two lenses, so I'm no stranger to pro glass. The benefits of pro lenses for aquarium photography are debatable. Build quality, not really important for aquarium photography. Constant big apertures, like f/2.8, doesn't matter. If you want the best quality photos you'll be shooting at f/11 or higher, I go up to f/16. Shooting at f/2.8 is not ideal for fish, unless you enjoy having a lot of the fish out of focus due to the narrow depth of field. Faster auto-focus, yes, that's a good thing to have when shooting fish. Better image quality, meh. It depends. Nikon's 18-55mm kit lens is one of the sharpest lenses ever made, just look at the above photo.
> 
> Lighting is the most important thing in aquarium photography, and it will help all of your photos as well. For the most pleasing results, the light has to come from above the fish, not directly at it. Direct flash for aquarium is no good IMO. The fish look unrealistic, and makes the scales sparkle too much, which doesn't look real. I could always tell when direct flash was used on a fish.
> 
> Here's a few of my aquarium pics:


Awesome discus shots!!!!!


----------



## jcardona1

houseofcards said:


> As other's have said and you have echoed it really is all about the light, especially with aquariums. jcardona1 would it be possible to give us some of the pic properties and equipment used for a few of those pics. Maybe for example the first two.


Sure. These two I just shot this past weekend, so it's all fresh in my memory  These were shot on my D90 using a Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 lens and an SB-900 speedlight. 

Settings were full manual, how it should always be  ISO 200, f/13 at 1/200th. The speedlight was placed directly on the aquarium's center brace, pointing down into the water. Flash was set at manual power (1/2) with the diffusor cap and a 10mm flash zoom level. 

That's it!


----------



## houseofcards

jcardona1 said:


> Sure. These two I just shot this past weekend, so it's all fresh in my memory  These were shot on my D90 using a Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 lens and an SB-900 speedlight.
> 
> Settings were full manual, how it should always be  ISO 200, f/13 at 1/200th. The speedlight was placed directly on the aquarium's center brace, pointing down into the water. Flash was set at manual power (1/2) with the diffusor cap and a 10mm flash zoom level.
> That's it!


Thanks I really appreciate that. I recently purchased a 580 speedlite for my 60d so I'm going to start playing around with it. Your specs give me a good reference point. And of course beautiful photos!


----------



## jcardona1

tetra73 said:


> Awesome discus shots!!!!!


Thanks, you have some nice photos as well  



houseofcards said:


> Thanks I really appreciate that. I recently purchased a 580 speedlite for my 60d so I'm going to start playing around with it. Your specs give me a good reference point. And of course beautiful photos!


Thanks, and no problem. Getting good photos with a speedlite is an art. I remember when I first started using off-camera flash for aquarium pics, the photos were so ugly lol! I've tried so many different techniques and settings, now I pretty much know what settings to use before I start shooing. 

And it all depends on the "look" you're after. If I want the mysterious look with blacked out background and shadows, I'll stop the settings down to reduce the ambient light, so that without the flash, the image is pitch black. The flash will be the only source of light that registers on the camera. That's how I get those pictures where the fish appears to be floating in a sea of darkness. 

If I want to see the whole tank and make the image appear bright and lively, I'll open up the settings. I'll use a combination of higher ISO, bigger aperture and a slower shutter speed to allow more of the ambient light to register.


----------



## jcardona1

Oh and of course, I shoot in RAW format and post-process in Photoshop. Just as important as the equipment itself for getting good photos.


----------



## houseofcards

Thanks for that add'l info, very helpful. 




jcardona1 said:


> Oh and of course, I shoot in RAW format and post-process in Photoshop. Just as important as the equipment itself for getting good photos.


This is where I get lazy, in the post-edit. I usually shoot in High Res Jpeg and do a quick fix. 

BTW. When you say the flash in the only light, so you are turning off the tank lighting itself, or only on the shots you described as floating in darkness.


----------



## jcardona1

houseofcards said:


> Thanks for that add'l info, very helpful.
> 
> This is where I get lazy, in the post-edit. I usually shoot in High Res Jpeg and do a quick fix.
> 
> BTW. When you say the flash in the only light, so you are turning off the tank lighting itself, or only on the shots you described as floating in darkness.


No the light stays on. But for example, if I were to shoot my tank at ISO 200, f/13 and 1/200th without the flash, the image would be pitch black. That's because my light fixture is not providing enough light for those settings, it's not bright enough. So, the whole tank looks black. But when I add the flash, then whatever is lit by the flash shows up on the final image. 

As for editing, it's almost like second nature to me. I edit everything now. The main benefit of shooting RAW is white balance adjustment, because the camera simply cannot get white balance right every time, especially in aquarium photography. For my fish pics, most of the edits I do are white balance, exposure, sharpening, clarity, and a little bit of vibrance. Then I'll take a healing brush to remove all the specks and particles floating in the water. 

I don't have before and after examples of fish photos, but here's some of a group of people. You can see the jpeg straight out of the camera has some awful white balance problems. Because I used bounced flash off a colored surface, it gave everything a weird color cast. There's no way I would have been able to fix this with a jpeg image, it's compressed and doesn't have the data of a raw file to push these levels without pixelating the image. 

*Note that if you view this in Google Chrome you won't be seeing the true color, because Chrome does not display color profiles properly*

JPEG, straight from camera









Processed RAW file


----------



## speedie408

Jose is a great mentor! Listen to him folks. 

After I started shooting RAW, I never went back to jpegs. Even with the crappiest RAW images, you can squeeze out some really nice photos using RAW editor on CS5.


----------



## jcardona1

speedie408 said:


> Jose is a great mentor! Listen to him folks.
> 
> After I started shooting RAW, I never went back to jpegs. Even with the crappiest RAW images, you can squeeze out some really nice photos using RAW editor on CS5.


Thanks Nick! And if you need help on shooting video and video editing, talk to Nick 

Yeah definitely on the RAW edits. With a RAW file you can easily push the exposure levels +/- 2 points without so much as ruining the quality. Try that on a jpeg and see what happens


----------



## zchauvin

Well Jose, I don't have discus anymore but I do have a few planted tanks, I'm stuck between a t2i with 18mp for 677$ and a t3i with 10 or 12 mp for 899$. Which would you choose. I'd choose the higher mp but why is the other more expensive?? Must have something I don't see or realize.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


----------



## jcardona1

zchauvin said:


> Well Jose, I don't have discus anymore but I do have a few planted tanks, I'm stuck between a t2i with 18mp for 677$ and a t3i with 10 or 12 mp for 899$. Which would you choose. I'd choose the higher mp but why is the other more expensive?? Must have something I don't see or realize.
> 
> Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


I don't know much about Canon models, but a quick search tells me that the T3i has built-in speedlight triggering and the T2 doesn't. This alone is an invaluable feature. This will let you place your speedlights anywhere in a room (or on top of your tank) and have the on-board flash trigger them. 

I love this about my D90. I don't even use my radio triggers anymore. From the camera itself, you can even control the speedlights and adjust the light intensity. You can trigger multiple speedlights and even have them running on separate groups.


----------



## zchauvin

Well for someone like me who probably won't get the extra lights ect.. should I spend the extra money? Ill just be shooting casual things and mostly have it for my tanks.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


----------



## speedie408

zchauvin said:


> Well Jose, I don't have discus anymore but I do have a few planted tanks, I'm stuck between a t2i with 18mp for 677$ and a t3i with 10 or 12 mp for 899$. Which would you choose. I'd choose the higher mp but why is the other more expensive?? Must have something I don't see or realize.
> 
> Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


I think you got the T3i mixed up with the T3. The T3i is almost exactly the same as the T2i except it's got a swivel screen for better video shooting angles and a bumped up 1080p video mode. If I were you I'd save the extra cash on glass and get the older T2i which is just as capable as the newer T3i. The T3 is not that great so I wouldn't even consider it.


----------



## jcardona1

Canon models confuse me LOL. So which two are we talking about here? I was looking at this here. Seems like they both cost about the same? 

http://www.lightandmatter.org/2011/...n-t3i-vs-t2i-is-the-t3i-worth-the-extra-cost/


----------



## jcardona1

zchauvin said:


> Well for someone like me who probably won't get the extra lights ect.. should I spend the extra money? Ill just be shooting casual things and mostly have it for my tanks.
> 
> Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


If you get the T2i, you then need to figure out how you'll trigger your speedlights, even if it's just one. You'll need to buy some separate triggers or run a long cable from the camera to the flash unit.

The built-in speedlight triggering was the main reason for going from a D40 to a D90 for me.


----------



## speedie408

Jose,

The T3i has wireless flash control capabilities. The T2i doesn't.


----------



## jcardona1

speedie408 said:


> Jose,
> 
> The T3i has wireless flash control capabilities. The T2i doesn't.


I see, so which is the OP comparing? Because the link I posted has them both at 18mp and both costing almost the same?


----------



## speedie408

jcardona1 said:


> I see, so which is the OP comparing? Because the link I posted has them both at 18mp and both costing almost the same?


He's confused himself lol. Like I stated 2 post back. I think he's got the older *T3* confused with the *T3i*. T3i is the latest addition to Canons prosumer Rebel series.


----------



## jcardona1

LOL gotcha. If we're comparing the T2i and the T3i, I'd definitely spend the extra $40 and get the T3i. The flash triggering and swivel LCD are well worth the extra cash.


----------



## speedie408

jcardona1 said:


> LOL gotcha. If we're comparing the T2i and the T3i, I'd definitely spend the extra $40 and get the T3i. The flash triggering and swivel LCD are well worth the extra cash.


Yes indeed. I didn't bother to notice the small price difference till now lol.


----------



## zchauvin

Ok, yes best buy has a t3 and t2i, sorry guys. 

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


----------



## jcardona1

T2i, 18mp, 18-55mm kit lens, $677
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/675618-REG/Canon_4462B003_EOS_Rebel_T2i_Digital.html

T3i, 18mp, 18-55mm IS II lens (better than lens above?), $771
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/753762-REG/Canon_5169B003_EOS_Rebel_T3i_Digital.html


----------



## jcardona1

I checked bestbuy.com, and the prices are same as I posted above, and they're both listed at 18mp. Must be something else.


----------



## zchauvin

Yeah thanks Jose, I saw the t2i and t3. 

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


----------



## zchauvin

So t2i and use other money for dedicated macro?

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


----------



## jcardona1

zchauvin said:


> So t2i and use other money for dedicated macro?
> 
> Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


If it were me, I'd go with the T3i, even though the kit with the lens costs $100 more. The T2i won't be able to trigger a speedlight. If you want to use a speedlight on top of the tank for aquarium photography, you need to buy some extra parts. 

You can do a long hotshoe cable or get some cheap radio triggers. This will run you $25-40. The radio triggers work well, but they don't transmit TTL information. This isn't important for aquarium photography since you'll want to shoot in manual flash mode anyways, but TTL is a great thing to have for general photography. 

With the built-in triggering control, you don't lose TTL.


----------



## zchauvin

Anyone use a NIKON d3100? How is that one 

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


----------



## crf529

jcardona1 said:


> but TTL is a great thing to have for general photography.


Eh, I wouldn't lose any sleep over not having TTL. 

TTL can be compared to shooting in Auto, it'll probably get the shot but meh. Great for parties just clicking randomly or environments where the distance to the subject is constantly changing, but I wouldn't use it for any shot I was consciously thinking about. And if your flash is off camera you should be using TTL even less. Wireless control over power settings is nice, but TTL, is well, yeah...


----------



## Bettatail

jcardona1 said:


> If you get the T2i, you then need to figure out how you'll trigger your speedlights, even if it's just one. You'll need to buy some separate triggers or run a long cable from the camera to the flash unit.
> 
> The built-in speedlight triggering was the main reason for going from a D40 to a D90 for me.


It is nice to have build in trigger, but you can get a set of transmitter and receivers for $30, and that was how much I paid for mine, one transmitter and two receivers. 

OP, go for T2i, looks like you prefer something better than the Digital Rebel I offer.
And Nick(speedie) has revealed the difference of T2i and T3i, the T3i add on are something extra but there is no upgrade from T2i in terms of better picture quality.


be prepared, to spend more on the lenses.

(ADD: Just saw the other post that the T3i only cost $40 more than the T2i.... go for the T3i)


----------



## jcardona1

crf529 said:


> Eh, I wouldn't lose any sleep over not having TTL.
> 
> TTL can be compared to shooting in Auto, it'll probably get the shot but meh. Great for parties just clicking randomly or environments where the distance to the subject is constantly changing, but I wouldn't use it for any shot I was consciously thinking about. And if your flash is off camera you should be using TTL even less. Wireless control over power settings is nice, but TTL, is well, yeah...


TTL compared to shooing in auto? Not a chance. All depends on your shooting style. Manual flash is not as easy to master as manual exposure. If you're shooting in a studio where the subject does not move away from the light source, then manual is what you'll want to use. For everything else, TTL is my choice. 

I learned what I know about lighting from reading Neil Van Nikerk's books about on and off-camera lighting. The guys knows what he's talking about and is spot-on when he says you get amazing results when you combine manual exposure with TTL flash. Why? Because it works, and it works remarkably well. 

And it's very easy to do. I myself like to under-expose the ambient light and overall scene by 1-2 stops, then add TTL flash on the subject. It gives you some very dramatic light. And because I'm not in a studio, we're always moving around, so manual flash would be a pain to use. You'd almost need to get a light meter to properly set the flash exposure. Or you could take several test shots, adjusting the flash power and moving it back and forth till you get the right amount of light. Meanwhile, if you'd be shooting in TTL you would have gotten the right exposure after 1-2 shots with no extra work. 

Here's a few things I've done with manual exposure, and TTL *off*-camera flash. The flash is usually in an umbrella or a softbox to the right or left of the camera.


----------



## jcardona1

Bettatail said:


> It is nice to have build in trigger, but you can get a set of transmitter and receivers for $30, and that was how much I paid for mine, one transmitter and two receivers.


Yeah, I have some as well, from Cowboy Studios. They work great, but I find myself not using them anymore because I prefer to keep TTL flash in most of my shooting. Nikon's CLS works amazingly well (creative lighting system). And when shooting my aquarium, I still prefer my camera's built-in trigger. 

As I mentioned earlier, I shoot aquariums with manual exposure and manual flash. With my built-in trigger, I can control all the speedlights remotely. I can place in manual mode or TTL mode. I can adjust the flash power or the flash exposure comp, all from the camera. 

With the cheap triggers you need to run back and forth to where ever your speedlight is to make adjustments to the flash power. With a built-in trigger, you control it all from the camera. 

The best of both worlds would be the TTL Pocket Wizards, but those things cost $400 for one transmitter and one receiver!


----------



## jcardona1

zchauvin said:


> Anyone use a NIKON d3100? How is that one
> 
> Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


It's a good camera and will take great photos. But as I tell everyone about to buy a DSLR...it's an addicting hobby. Everybody always say they just want it for one simple task. I started with a D40 and thought it was all I would need. Then the photography bug hit, and 6 months later I was wanting more, so I upgraded to a D90. If you think this will be a somewhat serious hobby, I'd go for a used D90.


----------



## tetra73

crf529 said:


> Eh, I wouldn't lose any sleep over not having TTL.
> 
> TTL can be compared to shooting in Auto, it'll probably get the shot but meh. Great for parties just clicking randomly or environments where the distance to the subject is constantly changing, but I wouldn't use it for any shot I was consciously thinking about. And if your flash is off camera you should be using TTL even less. Wireless control over power settings is nice, but TTL, is well, yeah...


No, no, no.....any flash system you get today has TTL, unless you are going old school and only shooting with a manual flash. TTL works, of course. It works depending on the lighting condition of your scene. It can automatically adjust the flash exposure power based on the lighting scene condition. Could you imagine every time you take a shot, you have to just your flash power output manually because you have no TTL flash metering? This works if you are shooting in one location and you have dialed in the correct flash power output (such as in a studio setting).


----------



## Jason Baliban

I dont know the first thing about photography, but i would say that after lighting, subject, and photographer skills the next thing that matters is glass. If you want good glass you are going to need an slr. As far as which SLR or brand, it really doesnt matter.

I would rather a 5 year old DSLR body with a $1k lens that a new DSLR body with a $200 lens. After all your body will be obsolete in 45 days, your lens will be good for 15 more years.

For what it is worth, i heard Nikon users have hairy shoulders and Canon users have fuzzy knuckles.

jB


----------



## zchauvin

Well whether it be NIKON, pentax, Canon ect... I am just looking to find a camera of good quality at a reasonable price. The rebel t2i are nice and I was taking it into consideration but then I saw the d3100 at Walmart at the mw3 release last night for only 450. I know a dedicated macro lenses will cost me another couple hundred so I don't want to use all that I have for only the camera. I'm on a college student budget and can't afford a whole lot at once. 

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


----------



## jcardona1

zchauvin said:


> Well whether it be NIKON, pentax, Canon ect... I am just looking to find a camera of good quality at a reasonable price. The rebel t2i are nice and I was taking it into consideration but then I saw the d3100 at Walmart at the mw3 release last night for only 450. I know a dedicated macro lenses will cost me another couple hundred so I don't want to use all that I have for only the camera. I'm on a college student budget and can't afford a whole lot at once.
> 
> Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


Are you totally against buying used?


----------



## jcardona1

tetra73 said:


> No, no, no.....any flash system you get today has TTL, unless you are going old school and only shooting with a manual flash. TTL works, of course. It works depending on the lighting condition of your scene. It can automatically adjust the flash exposure power based on the lighting scene condition. Could you imagine every time you take a shot, you have to just your flash power output manually because you have no TTL flash metering? This works if you are shooting in one location and you have dialed in the correct flash power output (such as in a studio setting).


This!


----------



## zchauvin

jcardona1 said:


> Are you totally against buying used?


Only if I know that who is selling it took care of it. I won't even give eBay or Craigslist a chance, people sell there trash all the time.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jason Baliban

http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?op=category&cat1=Used

jB


----------



## crf529

tetra73 said:


> No, no, no.....any flash system you get today has TTL, unless you are going old school and only shooting with a manual flash. TTL works, of course. It works depending on the lighting condition of your scene. It can automatically adjust the flash exposure power based on the lighting scene condition. Could you imagine every time you take a shot, you have to just your flash power output manually because you have no TTL flash metering? This works if you are shooting in one location and you have dialed in the correct flash power output (such as in a studio setting).



You don't have to adjust power output after every shot, it's just not true. I shoot sports and outdoors all the time with manual flashes on triggers, just as many others have done for years. It's not about your gear but how you use it. All the talk of how great TTL is, seems to be more fear of something 'manual' or unknown rather than a lack of the gears actual capability (do you shoot with your camera in Manual mode?). 

Also I can get 10 YN-560s for the price of 1 SB-900....

TTL isn't some godsend either, it leaves you with no control or consistency over the background exposure, and much like your cameras metering system, requires chimping the compensation to dial in the exposure for the subject (now how is that amazing when you do the same with a manual flash anyway?)

Alot of people think TTL is the only accurate or consistent way to shoot with a flash when the opposite is true. Like I said earlier it's comparable to shooting you camera in Auto or a Program mode, it'll probably get the shot, but if that's all your goal is you should be shooting with a P&S.

Also I resent the term 'old school', many many people still shoot manual triggers (and on purpose) because the offer much more control. I hardly qualify as old school and the results I get with cheap gear are usually far superior to that of the so called 'new school'...


----------



## crf529

Don't get me wrong, I also have a P-TTL flash, but only 1. It's only really used for parties and the like when I care more about enjoying it than photos.

Any other time I want an actual photo....manual flashes....(unless I'm playing with strobe mode for fun or a random shot)


----------



## GraphicGr8s

zchauvin said:


> Only if I know that who is selling it took care of it. I won't even give eBay or Craigslist a chance, people sell there trash all the time.
> 
> Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


If you have any interest in a Pentax system try Pentax Forums dot com.


----------



## bsmith

I bought a d3100 about a year ago and it has exceeded all expectations. My sales manager just found a d3100 on costco's site for ~$600 that came with a really nice nikon bag a 18-55 lens and a 55-200 lens. Thats a hell of a deal.


----------



## 150EH

I would check eBay and almost any DSLR kit will be fairly impressive, with the big 2 and full size sensors leading the pack and the price, but unless you need really high ISO to shoot in low light, most brands will do well.

I shoot Olympus but if you start hanging out at DPReview forum looking at photos, you can make almost any camera perform if you know all the tricks, from shooting to software manipulation.

Some of the new mirror less cameras are nice to, they are just like a dslr but with no mirror so you shoot from the LED screen or an electric view finder but Oly & Canon both have models with nice photos, interchangeable lenses, smaller in size and cost.


----------



## zdnet

crf529 said:


> You don't have to adjust power output after every shot, it's just not true. I shoot sports and outdoors all the time with manual flashes on triggers, just as many others have done for years. It's not about your gear but how you use it. All the talk of how great TTL is, seems to be more fear of something 'manual' or unknown rather than a lack of the gears actual capability (do you shoot with your camera in Manual mode?).
> 
> Also I can get 10 YN-560s for the price of 1 SB-900....
> 
> TTL isn't some godsend either, it leaves you with no control or consistency over the background exposure, and much like your cameras metering system, requires chimping the compensation to dial in the exposure for the subject (now how is that amazing when you do the same with a manual flash anyway?)
> 
> Alot of people think TTL is the only accurate or consistent way to shoot with a flash when the opposite is true. Like I said earlier it's comparable to shooting you camera in Auto or a Program mode, it'll probably get the shot, but if that's all your goal is you should be shooting with a P&S.
> 
> Also I resent the term 'old school', many many people still shoot manual triggers (and on purpose) because the offer much more control. I hardly qualify as old school and the results I get with cheap gear are usually far superior to that of the so called 'new school'...


Your post reminded me of the following post last year:

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1131529-post20.html


Fifteen months later, a 180-degree turn by praising the Nikon CLS:

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1586316-post151.html


The books by Neil Van Nikerk were credited for the turn around. If you haven't already, those books may be of interest to you.


----------



## bsmith

I am no expert, far from it. So one of the best things about the d3100 is that it has the best 'auto' mode of any entry level slr on the market (not my words just what about every review pro/novice says). What this allows me to do is take great (compared to the shots i use to take with my finepix) shots very quickly. Then after going through the shots you can see what the camera picked for settings and if you want to improve that shot you can go back and adjust exactly what you feel will make it better. Also this allows my wife who is much much less inclined to want to mess with ANY settings or take the time to research how to use them mainly because she primarily is using it taking shots of our 15 month old daughter (the main reason we purchased a proper camera in the first place) and if shes fiddling with the settings chances are shell miss the shot.

But, when I do want to mess with things manually it is also very easy to do that and take even better shots. Like Macro shots with just about everything on manual. With a 18-55 lens, that will test your patients!

So in short. 

Pretty unanimously reviewed as the best entry slr 'auto' feature and also a breeze to use manually.


----------



## Uptown193

This is an excellent and informative thread. I think it should be a sticky if there is not one about cameras already. Cameras have nothing to do with fish tanks but a lot of us here like to shoot our tank for others to see and the more knowledge we have about taking photos of our tanks the better pictures we can take. Thanks. I learned a lot here and great links to other sites as well.


----------



## Uptown193

jcardona1 said:


> T3i, 18mp, 18-55mm IS II lens (better than lens above?), $771
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/753762-REG/Canon_5169B003_EOS_Rebel_T3i_Digital.html


$719 Today.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/753762-REG/Canon_5169B003_EOS_Rebel_T3i_Digital.html


----------



## zchauvin

Nice find uptown. Thanks 

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


----------



## NJAquaBarren

I remember an old Pentax T1000 that I loved (think it was T1000). Was super simple to shoot manually. Idiot proof and took great pictures.

That was 30 years ago. Is there an equivalent today? A DSLR that has the digital equivalent of the T1000's needles and simple controls?


----------



## Uptown193

zchauvin said:


> Nice find uptown. Thanks
> 
> Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


Thanks bro. 

The hardest part for me on pulling the trigger on a camera is which one to go for. I already did some hw and research and really like as a P&S cam the Canon PowerShot SX230 HS 14.1 and as a DSLR camera the Canon EOS Rebel T3i. I know the price difference is huge but I think for my needs the SX230 would be fine, unless I am going to be a photographer. However, in my mind I feel if I get the T3i I can have it for a very very long time and not have to worry about anything in the future.


----------



## tetra73

Uptown193 said:


> Thanks bro.
> 
> The hardest part for me on pulling the trigger on a camera is which one to go for. I already did some hw and research and really like as a P&S cam the Canon PowerShot SX230 HS 14.1 and as a DSLR camera the Canon EOS Rebel T3i. I know the price difference is huge but I think for my needs the SX230 would be fine, unless I am going to be a photographer. However, in my mind I feel if I get the T3i I can have it for a very very long time and not have to worry about anything in the future.



No, you won't have your T3i for a long, long time, just because you have spent a crap load of money. You would want a better body and better lens. Or you lose interest in it after a while. I have been reading up on the Fuji X10. Very impressive little camera. Must better than most point and shoots. Is about $600.


----------



## houseofcards

Agree with tetra. If you go SLR you'll end up probably spending more in more lens and eventually changing the body. I went from a XSI to a 60D, pretty quickly. Another thing you should be aware of if you simplly use the the T3 in auto mode you might be disappointed in the pics. What I mean is you might not see any improvement over P&S. So be prepared to learn more about photography.


----------



## zchauvin

Thus why I didn't buy one. Too many to choose and I know squat about cameras 

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk


----------



## Uptown193

Awww man you guys just made my decision easier or worse, I am confused more now. I think I will just go with the simple $210 Canon 230HS. I do not think I need another hobby in my life, my fish tank and Corvette is already keeping my bank account low. 

Have your guys seen the Canon PS 230HS? This link gets you to the conclusion out of the 6 camera tested.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q311TravelZoomGroupTest/page17.asp


----------



## tetra73

Uptown193 said:


> Awww man you guys just made my decision easier or worse, I am confused more now. I think I will just go with the simple $210 Canon 230HS. I do not think I need another hobby in my life, my fish tank and Corvette is already keeping my bank account low.
> 
> Have your guys seen the Canon PS 230HS? This link gets you to the conclusion out of the 6 camera tested.
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q311TravelZoomGroupTest/page17.asp



Photography is one of those things that either you get it or you don't. Once you catch the "bug," like most of my hobbies before and now, you want better photos. You want better gear. 4 years ago I started out with a Canon point and shoot. $250+. I was telling myself I didn't need a DSLR and etc.  Unfortunately, the shots weren't better than my older 4mp Olympus point and shoot as soon as you use a higher ISO 400 or higher. Then, I switched to the next higher end point and shoot, the S3. Kind of like a DSLR and point and shoot combined. The ISO image quality was still crappy. Then, jumped to the Rebel XTi. Here, I am getting useable ISO800 shots. Downhill from there. XTi was too entry level. Then, got a Canon 30D because everyone said that it is a prosumer body 4 years ago. 30D to 1dmarkII. Then, finally, 1dmarkIII.


----------



## Uptown193

.


tetra73 said:


> Photography is one of those things that either you get it or you don't. Once you catch the "bug," like most of my hobbies before and now, you want better photos. You want better gear. 4 years ago I started out with a Canon point and shoot. $250+. I was telling myself I didn't need a DSLR and etc.  Unfortunately, the shots weren't better than my older 4mp Olympus point and shoot as soon as you use a higher ISO 400 or higher. Then, I switched to the next higher end point and shoot, the S3. Kind of like a DSLR and point and shoot combined. The ISO image quality was still crappy. Then, jumped to the Rebel XTi. Here, I am getting useable ISO800 shots. Downhill from there. XTi was too entry level. Then, got a Canon 30D because everyone said that it is a prosumer body 4 years ago. 30D to 1dmarkII. Then, finally, 1dmarkIII.


Yea that is crazy and the reason I wanted to get the more expensive camera was because I was thinking that it will give me better quality shots, but that is not necessarily the case. Since I am not looking to make this a hobby right now in my life I think I will just go with the Canon 230HS because the photos and HD video I saw on review were quite impressive for such an inexpensive camera. I know me, if I do get the higher end camera (SLR) I will start buying new lens and all the toys for it and before I know it my planted aquarium and Vette hobby will be second or even last. To many expensive hobbies out there these days. Whatever happen to building plastic model cars.


----------



## Uptown193

Look at some of these photos form the Canon 230HS what more can you possibly need form a $200 camera. These are incredible. Forget the $1,000 camera unless your making it a hobby. But a simple P&S this is all one needs.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-m...3YCGM/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_0?ie=UTF8&index=0


----------

