# I want to buy a DSLR camera but I need help



## dodohead (Jan 11, 2010)

well you cant go wrong with a canon or nikon

with the list of pictures you want to take, theres no "all in one" lens.. unfortunately. 

if you want quality, you gotta shell out the big bucks. fortunately, youre willing to. for family and landscape pictures, a wide type lens would be fine. 17mm to.. 70mm maybe. fishing action shots.. if youre talking bout taking a picture of the fish jumping out of the water like in the magazines, you need reach.. probably in the 70mm to 300mm range. aquarium shots.. u gotta get a dedicated macro

i guess before i start mentioning lenses and bodies, how much do you want to spend for a dslr body? and for the lenses?


----------



## !shadow! (Jan 25, 2010)

l'm no camera expert so i'll try to be as helpful as l can. You can go wrong with either cannon or nikon for starters. Those two are the most popular from what i've heard and read. 2nd it's more about the glass(lense) than the camera but sure the camera is important too. l've heard you'll eventually spend more on them than the camera itself which was hard for me to believe until l got my dslr and started doing shopping on amazon. Speaking of amazon that is a very good place to go look at reviews for both brands and lenses. There are lenses for everything from macro, portraits, and so on but i'm clueless about that so I won't steer you into that direction. Entry level dslr's would be nice to start off with and once you get the hang of it you can move on from there down the road unless you're like me and wanna spend big $ to avoid buying a better camera down the road. first party lenses are ,more often more expensive than 3rd party such as sigma, tamron, tokina and so forth but often have better resale value. However they are cheaper so that's pretty much the trade-off. There are some 3rd party lenses that are better than 1st party it's just a matter of searching for them. Hopefully that helps somewhat.

lol you beat me to it dodo


----------



## dodohead (Jan 11, 2010)

good stuff shadow.....

and yeah.... dslr bodies come and go.. but lenses for the most part last a lifetime. there are upgrades to lenses now and then, but good glass is good glass. 

i was searching through old pictures ive taken with my old 6mp canon 10d which was probably made in 2000 or something. i had a pretty decent 70-200mm F4 lens on it and the quality was still pretty good. if i had used my canon 40d, the colors and the image mightve been a little sharper but the details were there. photoshop can help clean up the picture as well. really good lenses are great investments and hold their value. in fact some of my lenses have increased in value. when i bough them, they were maybe $1400 new. now they're around $1800 new.. which means the used values go up as well =D


----------



## DrLav (Dec 20, 2010)

dodohead said:


> and yeah.... dslr bodies come and go.. but lenses for the most part last a lifetime. there are upgrades to lenses now and then, but good glass is good glass.
> ... really good lenses are great investments and hold their value.


I couldn't agree more. A DSLR is most likely obsolete shortly after you purchase it. Spend your money on the best lenses you can get. Nikon and Canon are both good. Zoom lenses are more convenient but there are some sacrifices made in optical quality, especially with the consumer grade lenses that are most affordable. I'm not as familiar with the Canon line but good zoom lenses from Nikon are all well over $1000. Prime lenses tend to be smaller, sharper and more affordable. Both make a very good and affordable 50mm f/1.8 lens for under $150. For action shots and everyday snapshots you'll need coverage in the 24mm to 100mm range. There are a lot of zooms that are in this category. Nikon has a 24-120 mm f/4 that looks good but costs $1300. A flash is useful but takes some practice to get natural looking shots so I'd hold off on that until you decide you really need it. For aquarium shots look for something with a reasonable reproduction ratio. Macro lenses are 1:1 or better so anywhere from 1:2 to 1:4 should be OK so long as the closest focus distance is not too close. If the closest focus distance (which gives the greatest magnification) is 10 inches and the camera body/lens is 6 inches it means you can only focus on object that are within 4 inches of the glass. The Nikon 24-120 lens I mentioned has a 1:4 reproduction ratio at a closest focus distance of 1.5 feet. The lens is 4" long so you can focus on objects ~14" into the tank.

As far as camera bodies go, choose the brand/model that fits your hand. Find the one the feels best to you. Are the buttons and dials easy to reach? Does is make sense which to turn or press without looking? The camera body that fits your hand best is one you will more like use and get to know. Don't worry about megapixels. Any DSLR on the market now has plenty to spare. I have a 10 MP Nikon D80 and I've made several 30"x20" prints that look great. So unless your making billboards MP doesn't matter.

Lastly spend some time experimenting with your camera. Digital files are cheap and easy to delete. Unlike film days when you had to pay for each shot, with digital you can play around and try new things. Learn what your camera can do and it will become and intuitive tool.

Good luck with your camera search.


----------



## dodohead (Jan 11, 2010)

whoa all that sounds a little overwhelming! we dont wanna scare him!

theres some decent pro glass lenses for around $500 for canon.. and they make a nice macro lens for around $450. most dslr bodies have a built in flash which should hold you over for a while. i barely use flash, i try to make use of the available light. 

fixed focus lenses are sharper and all but i think zoom lenses offer more flexibility in a dynamic situation. 

but i agree.. check out the different camera models and figure out which ones best for you. i personally think nikon bodies are too small. i like fat heavy camera bodies.


----------



## VaultBoy (Nov 11, 2010)

Wow... thanks for the responses... i have literally just started researching cameras and have not had anything better than phone cameras and a ~6mp point and click digital. i am looking to spend up to about $1500 and hopefully get Camera, 2 lenses macro and longer range, bag, strap, sd card and a spare battery. I have never really considered this before and didnt realise the amount you can spend on this gear!

Are the lenses a universal fit as far as mounting on a camera body? what is the "f" rating on the lenses? I didnt particularly like the idea of buying a used camera but since a few peole mentioned that a camera is a camera its the glass that makes the diff, is it a good idea to buy a cheaper/used camera and spend more on lenses?

will a 17 - 50mm lense and a 55 - 200mm lense be suitable for most of the pictures i want to take? i should clarify my first post, by fishing action shots i mean photos of my mates and i fishing and then the fish we caught, most of the fish we catch around here dont really jump out of the water until they are in the boat, but it would be nice to be able to take pics of birds and seals etc. on the rocks about 50 - 100m away so what would that involve?

thanks for your help so far


----------



## dodohead (Jan 11, 2010)

lenses arent universal if you mean you want to put a canon lens on a nikon body. 

F stops on the lens means how big the maximum aperture hole is on the camera. the smaller the number, the bigger the hole, the more light can go in. bigger the hole, the more shallow depth of field the image will be. for example, F2.8, a picture of a birds eye will be focused, but the beak will be blurry. (subject focused, foreground/background blurry) the smaller the number, the more expensive the lens.
on the other hand, a big number like F22 means the lens hole will be tiny, less light means you have to have the shutter open longer. and basically everything will be focused... foreground, background and subject

well figure out what kinda camera you want first, and you can go from there. start with 1 lens.. u dont have to buy everything at once. remember, you get what you pay for. a simple kit lens would probably keep you happy for a while. you can learn and mess around with it. then u can decide what kinda pics you want to take and figure which lens to go with from there. actually... canon or nikon.. go to a camera shop and play with the cameras and ask questions, get opinions.

17-50mm and 55-200 is a good range, but theres plenty of bogus lenses in that range that are really horrible.. gotta do your homework on it. i had the canon 70-200 f4 lens. i paid $450 for it.. and it was truly worth it. not too heavy, pretty good pictures for the price vs the 75-300mm lens i had which was horrible. i couldnt sell it fast enough and i paid $350 for it. 

50m-100m away is pretty far for a 200mm, i dont think thats enough.


----------



## dmxsoulja3 (Dec 22, 2010)

Canon 7D, you get that 28-135 IS as the kit lens which is great walk around lens and covers alot of ground, then from there if you wanted to get specific get a Canon 50MM F1.8 II for 100 bucks, or if you want to go long go 55-250 IS for about $250 dollars.


----------



## astex (Aug 13, 2009)

When I was doing research for my purchase, I ran across the below site. The articles are all written in understandable terms and he has some great reviews of cameras.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/index.htm

HTH,
Bridget


----------



## DrLav (Dec 20, 2010)

Ken's site is OK to start with but he sometimes contradicts himself so take it all with a grain of salt. I suspect that even the kit lenses that come with most mid-range DSLR's will be a good working solution for you. Definitely an improvement over a cell phone camera and point n shoot. If you really get into photography you'll want better lenses but as you've seen the cost can be insane. It's easy to get carried away with technical specs and reviews. Online many of the folks that review lenses are zooming in to 500% normal size and looking at details you'd only see on six foot prints. For Nikon lens reviews take a look here. http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html It's fairly objective and provides a good overview and most current and past Nikon lenses. 
I think a D90 kit might be a good solution for you with the kit lenses that come with it (18-105mm). B&H has a kit on sale right now for under $1000 here. Learn to use the camera, save your pennies and upgrade when your skills and interest are ready. (I'm not pushing Nikon in particular it's just the line I own and I'm most familiar with - Canon is equally good IMO).


----------



## jcardona1 (Jun 27, 2008)

I wouldn't be so quick to discount a good camera body. If camera bodies were a waste of money, pros would be walking around with D40s attached to a $10k lens  I have a Nikon D90, and I'm working my way up to a D700. Once you get to know the features each model offers, you'll realize why it's worth the money to upgrade. With that, I would recommend buying a used body over a new one though. My D90 was used, as will be my D700. 

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the most important thing when it comes to aquarium photography, and any photography; a Speedlight. A speedlight will give you far better results when used with your basic kits lens, than using a nice expensive macro lens alone. 

My recommendation: Invest your money in 1-2 speedlights first, then upgrade your kit lenses. Most DSLR kits will come with an 18-55mm and 55-200mm lens. These will be great to start off with. These lenses are tack sharp and give you great results when used with a speedlight. I don't even take pictures without my speedlight anymore. I use it for anything and everything. Indoors, outdoors, all the time. It will really transform your pictures. Once you get more serious with lighting, you could add modifiers to your speedlights like softboxes, reflective umbrellas, shoot-through umbrellas, etc etc. 

For my D90, I use the 17-55mm f/2.8 and the 70-200mm f/2.8. Both very expensive lenses, but they are not needed when you are just starting out. 

Before giving recommendations, we need to know your budget.


----------



## jcardona1 (Jun 27, 2008)

Sorry, just saw your budget is $1500. If you choose Nikon, I would definitely recommend a D90. It's a great camera, and has two important features that you won't find in the lower models (3100, 5000): internal focus motor and built-in Commander mode). 

The D7000 is the replacement for the D90. It's nice, but a used D90 will save you a lot of money is you buy it used. That leaves you more money for speedlights and lens upgrades. 

Canon, I can't help you there. I don't know the models too well


----------



## Da Plant Man (Apr 7, 2010)

I am 100% a Nikon man (Get it? A mix between Canon and Nikon!).

Provided it's in your budget, a nikon d90 would be best, the kit lens are okay, but you could upgrade once you play around with the features and feel you need an upgrade. I am saving up for one right now


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

haha you Nikonians are so quick to recruit newbies aren't you 

I agree 110% on what jcardona1 is saying about flash photography. Especially with aquarium photography, flash is BEST hands down. 

For me I like my DSLR to have decent video capability (especially now... it's the new wave) as well because I like to take snippets during vacation and on family outings. These video segments can later be edited into nice short artistic videos using readily available video editing software. I own a Canon 60D which has 1080p (24fps) capability. Canon has yet to perfect auto focusing for video but it not like it's a dedicated video camera. It's a very nice/fun feature for some folks. Video is def making a big move onto DSLRs, moving forward. Just look at the 5DMKII. Now that's the camera I want . 

Don't ask me anything about Nikon cause I don't know that brand .


----------



## dodohead (Jan 11, 2010)

from what i read, he mostly wanted pictures of average everyday stuff. i didnt get the impression he wanted a macro set up. 

and whats with the flash for aquarium macro photography? i guess im cheap. i just put 3 light fixtures over my tank to brighten it up. i guess it doesnt look real? i dont really use flash that often, so i'm not sure about spending the dough on multiple flash units

i'd recommend buying a new camera since this seems like its a 1 time purchase for a really long time. might as well start off with something new and something you know the history of. 

if you dont mind used, and since everyones recommending nikons already, i'd recommend a canon 40d. theyre excellent cameras for around $450, great colors, good low light capability. get a kit lens 18-55mm and a 70-200mm f4 lens for around $500 and youre good to go.


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

dodohead,

You need to get into it. I felt the same way you did before I started shooting with remote flash. Old habits die slow, I know . 

OP,

The 40D is a rock solid camera! I'd recommend it to anybody who's barely getting into photography especially because of the price tag. Just make sure you get an actuations (camera ODO) reading before buying since these cameras have been well seasoned.


----------



## dodohead (Jan 11, 2010)

speedie.. if only i had the dough........ i'd have a 1d mark IV too


+1 on the shutter count... mines got 85,000 and my 10d probably has over 100,000


----------



## jcardona1 (Jun 27, 2008)

dodohead said:


> and whats with the flash for aquarium macro photography? i guess im cheap. i just put 3 light fixtures over my tank to brighten it up. i guess it doesnt look real? i dont really use flash that often, so i'm not sure about spending the dough on multiple flash units


Give one a try for aquarium photography, then let's talk  

Unless you're running over a 1000w+ of metal halide lighting, odds are you do not have enough light for aquarium photography. Give this a try: set up all your extra lights, and try shooting at 1/200th, ISO 100, and f/16. What do you get, a pitch black image??? 

You don't need a macro lens, I actually use my 70-200mm for aquarium photography. If you want extreme closeup of inverts, then a macro lens will help. For fish only, not needed. 

These were taken with a wireless overhead speedlight. They look pretty real to me!


----------



## jcardona1 (Jun 27, 2008)

And here's how Jason Baliban takes pics of his tanks. Notice the two overhead flash units? Look like Alienbees i think


----------



## jcardona1 (Jun 27, 2008)

dodohead said:


> from what i read, he mostly wanted pictures of average everyday stuff. i didnt get the impression he wanted a macro set up.


Even more of a reason to invest in some speedlights! 

I find myself rarely shooting in available light only because very rarely is available light good enought to give me an exposure I like. I use speedlights all the time now, even in bright outdoors sunlight to lift the harsh shadows an contrast you get on a face. 

Here's a few examples of how I've used speedlights. Some of these results you simply could not get if using just one speedlight, or natural light, or even the dinky on-camera flash unit. 

1 light, mounted on the camera, pointed right at the subjects. I was working fast here, in the water, and avoiding the waves! Otherwise I would have gone for an off-camera flash pointed from the right









Speedlight on camera, bounced directly behind me into an overhang









This one I really like. 1 speedlight, on camera, straight at subject, using a plastic diffuser cap. The plastic diffuser works great outdoors. This is the only time I'll use the cap









Sometimes the natural light is perfect like I said. This was no flash, wide open at f/2.8. Focus on the most important thing, the EYES. Gives a nice portrait. But this is best used on single-person portraits









1 speedlight, on camera, bounced straight into the ceiling. This was a public aquarium, and the room was very very dark. The bounced flash gave a nice look on the faces, and I didn't get any reflection on the glass









Here's another example when natural light was good. Sun was just about to disappear behind the mountains. Sun was directly behind me, shining right at the subjects









Mother-in-law HATES this pic, but I love it lol! Dark room, one speedlight in a 16" softbox from the right









Ok, now the multiple speedlights

Here's I used a speedlight in a 16" softbox from the right, and another on the left going straight into the ceiling. See the difference in the skin tones and faces? 









16" softbox from the right, speedlight on the left into the ceiling









Speedlight bounced into a gold reflective umbrella, from the left










Speedlight and shoot-through umbrella from the left









Speedlight and shoot-through umbrella directly in front of subject









Anyway, photography is all about lighting. In photography, you don't take pictures of subjects; you photographt the light that is falling on those subjects.


----------



## jahmic (Jan 30, 2011)

Tons of useful info here, so I don't think I need to repeat any of it. I will say that I'm a Nikon guy (used to shoot Canon), and currently own a D80. The D90 had just come out when I picked up my DSLR. As others said, it's a great camera. The one thing I definitely prefer about the D90 over the D80 is this:

It allows you to use through the lens metering (in other words, auto-exposure) on ALL of the old Nikon lenses. Buying new glass is great, but if you want to experiment with some different focal lengths, and types of lenses, the D90 is much more versatile, especially for a beginner photographer. It allows you to pick up used older lenses for under a couple hundred dollars and see what you like and don't like while you're still figuring things out. Nikon's quality of glass has been good for decades, as long as the lens is in good condition, you're golden.

That being said, you could easily pick up a good DSLR for a decent price with how quickly they become "obsolete"...people are always upgrading. Find a deal with a kit lens, shoot around a bit, and see what you prefer to shoot, and what focal length you like shooting the most.

Personally, I shoot alot in the 105mm range between my portraits and landscapes. Sometimes I waver...but not often. My next lens is probably going to be a Sigma (they make great lenses for all the major brands at a much more affordable cost)...I'm specifically looking at the 105mm f2.8 macro lens. It's tack sharp, and will allow me to shoot portraits, landscapes, and the occasional macro shot when I feel like it. Just because it's a "macro" lens doesn't mean that all it's good for is close-ups...don't forget that. Going by what you mentioned you wanted to shoot...something like that may even be a good choice for yourself. That lens goes for about $450 new...couple that with a used D90 that I'm sure you could pick up for $500 at this point (probably even WITH the kit zoom lens), and you have an extremely versatile setup for under $1000. roud: Add a shoe-mount flash, and you end up having all of your bases covered as far as what you mentioned to shoot. I actually own 2 Quantaray flash units that I got brand new when Wolf Camera started shutting down some stores locally...I got a ridiculous deal on them. Point is though...if you shop around, you can gear up pretty inexpensively until you find your niche. Just take it slow, start out with a body and a kit lens, and go from there.

BTW...you can never ask what DSLR and lens to buy and get a consensus :biggrin:


----------



## dodohead (Jan 11, 2010)

jcardona.. point is taken, however, 90% of the time i shoot at over 1/500th of a second, so flash wont help me much. 

i typically put 100w over a 10gallon. i take pictures of shrimp so i need a macro. i wouldnt put it at f16, i'd stick to something faster. F5.6-F8. 

my camera priorities are... fast frames per second, 70-400mm zoom range, not macro, flash, wide angle. 

and those are nice pics.. maybe someday


----------



## VaultBoy (Nov 11, 2010)

OMG my head is spinning... but thanks for all the helpful answers!

I have done a heap of reading since yeaterday and all i really know now is that i know nothing when it comes to cameras  i am looking at the Nikon D90... i think, i havent played with any in the shops but on paper it sounds like the one for me. Brand new with 2 kit lenses 18 - 55 and 55 - 200 they are worth about $1200 - $1300 here, and i have seen the body only for as little as $650 is it better to get the kit lenses and play around or buy the body by itself and spend the rest of my money on a better lense or 2? I just dont want to end up with 2 lenses that i never use.

I should also mention that i would love to take macro shots but i can probably wait until i get used to shooting with what i have, that said i would like to be able to take good close up shots of fish etc. but not so worried about the super fine macro detail.

Thanks again for your replies, I have a hell of a lot more researching to do.


----------



## jahmic (Jan 30, 2011)

IMO...if you can get a GOOD deal on a D90 with a kit lens, then go for it. 1200-1300 for that camera with those 2 lenses isn't something that I would do personally though. If you go with the body only, you can pick a better lens for SURE...whether it be a prime lens (meaning single focal length) or a versatile zoom that fits your budget. The main thing about going with the 2 kit lens deal is that 1) the price is higher 2) you just end up with 2 "decent" lenses and 3) if you want a zoom, you can get a single zoom lens that's just as (Ok...almost as) versatile and save some cash.

Case in point: Nikon makes an 18-135mm zoom lens as well that just about covers that entire focal range of those 2 lenses you mentioned. It's actually the lens that came with my D80 when I purchased it. You should be able to find the D80 with that lens for a few hundred dollars cheaper than the setup you mentioned. The money saved there you can eventually put towards another lens when you get there. Now...is an 18-55mm going to be sharper than an 18-135mm lens? Probably. Will you really be able to tell much of a difference? Probably not. Unless it's a professional grade zoom lens...a zoom is a zoom IMO. They all have a noticeable amount of distortion when you compare them to a prime lens...but the differences are indiscernible when you compare quality across kit zooms IME.

And actually...since you mention wanting to take good close up shots of the fish without super-fine detail...

For about $100 Nikon has a 50mm f1.8 lens (that others already mentioned) that will do just fine getting close shots of the fish under decent lighting. Couple a cheap but VERY sharp prime lens like that with a kit zoom for your everyday shooting while your learning and you have an inexpensive setup that will probably make you happier in the end...TBH...I never understood the point of an 18-55mm zoom...but that's probably just me and how I shoot.

And don't get me wrong...I don't want to come across as being 'anti-zoom lenses'...in fact when I hike all I carry is my 18-135mm lens. But I just don't see the point of having more than one zoom in the bag, unless one is a serious telephoto, taking you up to the 300mm range which would be useful for sport / wildlife photography. If a single lens can do the job of 2 lenses...I'd just rather carry that single lens.


----------



## dodohead (Jan 11, 2010)

in my opinion, having just a cheapy 18-55 is good enough for learning purposes. those 55-200 type lenses tend to be pricey. i'm not sure about nikons, but canons in that range they sell at the store arent so great and i wouldnt spend the money on them. i really think u only need one lens to mess around with and learn. when you get better u can pick up new lenses. 

when my friend got her 55-250 or whatever lens with her canon rebel, it was only +100 more so i told her might as well just get it and sell it for more to reduce the cost of her rebel.

you know the hardest decision for me was... nikon or canon. i went the canon route because i like the vertical grips you can mount on the bottom of the camera that holds a 2nd battery and has a 2nd shutter button. 

i dont buy cheap lenses. i buy good lenses at cheap prices. i know i can always sell my lenses off if i dont like them because theyre higher end, in demand lenses. you can sell lower end lenses but they generally dont hold their value and there will be a big loss from the price you probably paid. 

all cameras in the same price range are generally the same. they take pictures, they may or may not have video. its the little things that'll make you decide which camera to get. if you hold a camera, you might get that instant feeling of you dont like it. the more you play with the cameras at the store, the more you'll start to get a feel of what you like or dont like. all the technical stuff with ISO, Fstop, shutter and aperture priority, you can learn later


----------



## Eden Marel (Jan 28, 2010)

Cool pics Jose!! I like them, makes me full of jealous! I want a dSLR toooo, too bad I don't have job.


----------



## jcardona1 (Jun 27, 2008)

Ok, here's some more of my pennies 

With lenses, good info again posted. I'll give you my point of view. Everybody's opinions and needs will be different. You need to assess your own needs, and what you're looking to achieve. 

Me personally, I love zoom lenses. Prime lenses are amazing, but they aren't for me (50mm, 85mm, 105mm, etc). Reason being, I like the flexibility of a zoom lens. I can't always get closer or back up from the subject. I need to be able to zoom in and out. With that said, I would strongly stay away from the zoom lenses that cover a wide range (like the 18-200). When you have such a wide zoom range, image quality suffers. I bought the Nikon 18-200 and I HATED it! Sold it within a few weeks. Images were way too soft. You don't need to be a pro or a pixel counter to want maximum image quality, that's why I bought a DSLR in the first place  

I wanted two GOOD lenses for my kit. I wanted a mid-range zoom lens that I could use as a walk around lens on a daily basis for all my needs, and I wanted a telephoto lens when I needed to go out further.

The best mid-range zoom lens for the Nikon DX crop sensor cameras is the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8, period!! This is an amazing lens. Great color rendition, and very sharp wide open at f/2.8. Not only that you get the great pro build quality. This lens is built like a tank, and is very heavy. I wouldn't trade it for anything! But, it comes at a price. This lens retails for about $1,400. 

For my telephoto lens, I chose the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8. Another amazing pro lens made by Nikon. There really is no need to comment on its image quality. When a lens goes for $2,200, you know you're getting your money's worth. 

My opinion, unless you're ready to spend $1k or more per lens, don't plan on upgrading your lenses just yet (exceptions are marco lenses, which cost a little bit less). The main reason people go to good lenses is build quality, and a big, constant aperture. My lenses are metal, and can maintain a constant aperture of f/2.8 at all zoom levels. Cheaper kit lenses are plastic, and will decrease the aperture as you zoom in. Once you get to know photography, you'll see how this is a bad thing if you're shooting in low light (but that's a whole separate discussion!). 

The 18-105mm that is normally sold with D90 kits is a great lens, and will serve your needs well. 105mm isn't always long enough, so something that goes out to 200mm will be nice too, again, depending on your needs. Some kits will also come with the 18-55mm and 55-200mm. These are great starter lenses. But they aren't worth very much. You may be able to sell them for about $100/$150 respectively, if you're lucky. 

But I'll warn you though, once you go pro lenses, you'll never go back. My 17-55mm is 10x the size/weight of the 18-55mm, but I love it. Here's what they look like on my D90:


----------



## jcardona1 (Jun 27, 2008)

And some more size comparisons for you:

18-55mm on left, 17-55mm f/2.8 on right (different cameras)










70-200mm on left, 55-200mm on right


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

Good info guys. I couldn't dissagree more. 

Just wanted to put this out there... Canon also has a EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 (crop body) lens that is Pro Quality with a constant 2.8 aperture. Their 70-200 f/2.8L IS is one of the BEST lens a PRO can have. Price tags are a tad cheaper than Nikons


----------



## jcardona1 (Jun 27, 2008)

speedie408 said:


> Good info guys. I couldn't dissagree more.
> 
> Just wanted to put this out there... Canon also has a EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 (crop body) lens that is Pro Quality with a constant 2.8 aperture. Their 70-200 f/2.8L IS is one of the BEST lens a PRO can have. Price tags are a tad cheaper than Nikons


Yeah that's another thing I've noticed, comparable lenses tend to be a little cheaper with Canon. Choosing Nikon or Canon is all personal preference. There is no saying that one is better than the other. Me personally, I chose Nikon for their outstanding rep in the optics world, from cameras, scopes, binoculars, etc, etc. 

Before I bought my DSLR I already had some Nikon optics, but in a different form, on my bambi gun  So of course, I had to stay with the Nikon theme


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

jcardona1 said:


> Yeah that's another thing I've noticed, comparable lenses tend to be a little cheaper with Canon. Choosing Nikon or Canon is all personal preference. There is no saying that one is better than the other. Me personally, I chose Nikon for their outstanding rep in the optics world, from cameras, scopes, binoculars, etc, etc.
> 
> Before I bought my DSLR I already had some Nikon optics, but in a different form, on my bambi gun  So of course, I had to stay with the Nikon theme


I feel you man. I chose Canon because when I was a n00b like the OP here, I went to the local Camera shop and tested out all the different cameras they had available at the time. I just couldn't grasp the menu options on Nikon and Canon just seemed a bit more user friendly at the time so I chose Canon and stuck with them since. I've seen great pics from Nikon shooters so I'm all for both Companies. We need competition to keep consumer prices down anyway right.


----------



## jcardona1 (Jun 27, 2008)

speedie408 said:


> I feel you man. I chose Canon because when I was a n00b like the OP here, I went to the local Camera shop and tested out all the different cameras they had available at the time. I just couldn't grasp the menu options on Nikon and Canon just seemed a bit more user friendly at the time so I chose Canon and stuck with them since. I've seen great pics from Nikon shooters so I'm all for both Companies. We need competition to keep consumer prices down anyway right.


Haa! I was the same with Canon, funny how that works. For some reason I didn't like the menus at all. And then the shooting modes. I saw Tv, Av, P, M, C, B...I was like what the crap is all this? I felt Nikon made it easier there: S = shutter priority, A = aperture priority, M = manual, P = program auto. 

Then there's the cute little icons with the flower, candle, mountain, person. I couldn't tell you what the heck those are for. Can't wait till I go FX with my D700 where it won't have those silly little shooting modes. I should take a permanent marker and black them all out haha


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

hahaha Alright enough derailing. Let's just agree that we love our Brands  I learn something new everyday with my camera. With all the bells and whistles available gearwise, the possibilities are endless once you learn how to properly use each peice of equipment. For all newbies, I'd say to take baby steps and start with entry level DSLRs instead of going full fledge pro or semi pro bodies. This will only enable the beginner to start at a much easier learning curve in return they'll likely stick with photography. I've seen many folks who go out and buy the best DSLR out and end up collecting dust because it's such a huge learning curve process. Glass is def the better investment early on. My 2 pennies.


----------



## jahmic (Jan 30, 2011)

pretty nice lenses you have there jcardona :drool:

Like I said...definitely a difference between pro zooms and the standard kit zooms. Since I can't afford the pro zooms I stick with my prime lenses when I want sharp images.

One thing I do need to mention though. My first camera was a Canon SLR with a 50mm prime lens. Like you said, it does limit your ability to frame a shot if you can't always move back, or get closer to your subject, but I found that learning with a prime lens did come with one nice advantage. It served as a great learning tool, slowing down the process of taking the picture. It made me really stop and think about the framing of each shot I took...and I think it helped my composition a TON when I first started out. I'm sort of old school though...it took a long time for me to switch to digital.

In fact, one of my most enjoyable photography projects involved a Hasselblad large format (4x5) camera that I used for an outdoor, urban portrait session. All natural lighting. Lugging that camera around, shooting in natural light, and then having to take notes to make sure that I pushed or pulled the developing accordingly when I got back to the darkroom COMPLETELY changed my perspective on photography. I did the entire series as a "one shot" portrait session, and trusted myself. In the end, I ended up with the most amazing set of photos I've ever taken.

I love the convenience of a zoom...but I often feel like it allows me to be a little too lazy. A couple twists and it's "ok that looks good" *click*. Having to move back and forth and really analyze the subject when I'm shooting with a prime lens has definitely produced some amazing images for me. Like you said though...everyone has their own style.

I still shoot all my portrait sessions with my standard SLR in black and white...slowly transitioning into digital on that end too, but it's gonna be a while before I commit 

Sorry to thread-jack a bit OP. haha.


----------



## VaultBoy (Nov 11, 2010)

Dont apologise for the thread jacking.. its all good info for me, i am not a complete n00b when it comes to photography my pop taught me to use a broken SLR when i was a kid... but that was a long time ago, and since then all i have used is a digital point and shoot and phone camera, now i am well and truly fed up with taking crappy photos, and having to take 20 shots of a fish tank to pick the good one(read best of a bad bunch).

Thanks everyone for your input/opinions. The points i have taken from this discussion:

1. Baby steps, start small and work up to a better, more capable setup.
2. A lot depends on personal preference and different styles of photography.
3. Good stuff costs big money
4. I really need to play with some more cameras and probably take a short course/workshop to get to know what im doing a bit better.

jahmic. you made an interesting point about using a prime lense... and im now leaning towards this option as far learning goes it sounds like a good way to go, approx how near and far can you focus a 50mm prime lense? Will i be able to shoot fish in a tank and take family photos? if this is the case then this lense will keep me happy for long enough to learn how to use it properly before i move onto a bigger/better zoom lense also.


----------



## Notydino (Feb 22, 2011)

Since this is a fish forum.

You camera needs an external flash and a flash cable to take aquarium pictures.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk


----------



## dodohead (Jan 11, 2010)

i like prime lenses as well, i think my dream lens would be a 300mm 2.8L IS, but the problem is, i lose the ability to zoom and sometimes you just really need it. primes just arent as versatile as zoom. if you're in a studio, its a controlled environment then its great.. if youre outside, sometimes u cant walk to where you need to be. 

one time i was taking a picture of a Ferrari 458, and i had my 100-400mm lens on, i had to put my lens at 100mm and stand like 60 feet away to get the car in the viewfinder.. if had a 300mm prime, i'd have to stand way further back and i was running out of parking lot. 

i'd recommend a cheap kit zoom lens over a prime simply because its able to take a larger variety of pictures. my 50mm F1.8 doesnt take good macro shots in the tank. its good for portraits though. its not designed for pictures far away. i'm talking 20ft+ or 6m or whatever.


----------



## shane3fan (Nov 2, 2009)

I know this isnt the highest quality camera--but what are yalls thoughts on this camera for the price?

http://moofi.woot.com/moofi/paranoia


----------



## dodohead (Jan 11, 2010)

shane3fan said:


> I know this isnt the highest quality camera--but what are yalls thoughts on this camera for the price?
> 
> http://moofi.woot.com/moofi/paranoia



i read a review on the camera.. its an ok camera. the biggest complain was, when you look through the viewfinder, theres different focus points. the points normally light up to tell u which spot the camera is focusing on. this camera doesnt do that which is sorta odd, even a point and shoot does that.

it has built in image stabilization on the body which is kinda cool. 4.7 frames per second is kinda nice for the price.. it uses AA batteries which can be a good thing or bad thing. good cause ni-mh rechargables are cheap, but they dont last as long as lithium, and sometimes you gotta do quick battery changes and its sorta hard fiddling around with 4 batteries when youre in a rush. 

i guess its an ok camera, i wouldnt say its junk, but.. i personally would stick with nikon or canon. thats just me


----------



## ShortFin (Dec 27, 2005)

Vaultboy,
If you want to try prime lens get the 35mm instead of 50mm because of the crop factor. 50mm was meant for film and full frame dslr. 

The 50mm will be (50 * 1.5) 75mm on a Nikon and I believe Canon would have a crop factor of 1.6. The 35mm would be around 52mm.

For brand wise I would go with the 2 big companies: Canon or Nikon.


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

The Canon T3i is coming out towards the end of March. If you like video and the slick swivel lcd screen  It's a much more affordable alternative to the 60D.


----------



## dodohead (Jan 11, 2010)

speedie408 said:


> The Canon T3i is coming out towards the end of March. If you like video and the slick swivel lcd screen  It's a much more affordable alternative to the 60D.



swivel screen??? ahhhhhh :thumbsdow


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

LOL stop your hating already dodohead. It's the wave of the future. Trust me.


----------



## dodohead (Jan 11, 2010)

haha i cant help it... flip out screens belong on video cameras.. not dslr's... next thing will be nightvision.... that would be kinda cool actually..


----------



## Joel A (Mar 28, 2010)

The nikon d90 is a fantastic camera and you can get it for a steal right now... what you'll learn is that its absolutely true when people say lenses are what really matters... ive yet to notice any deficiencies of the camera body, but i've noticed plenty about the kit lens it comes with.. good to get you started.. but for fish tank photography you'll probably want a dedicated macro lens, or at least something close to 1:1... 1:2 or 1:4. personally im yet to really master fish tank photography, its unlike other types of photography because of the lighting, I find a custom set white balance works best... I've gotten some decent photos of the fish and what not inside the tank, as good as I really can without a better lens at least... where im getting quite frustrated is trying to take a good full tank shot.. I find its tough to get completley accurate auto focus.. and I find I get a lot of washed out results... the best scenario is probably manually focusing on a tripod, I find I usually need 2/3 if not more stops of negative exposure compensation, custom white balance settings, no flash unless its off camera, possibly even post processing photo stitching. I also like to bracket the photos and shoot raw... two things I don't always do with other types of photography...


----------



## Joel A (Mar 28, 2010)

An flip out screens are a gimmick.. I suppose I could see a few situations where it might be useful, but generally speaking people who use live view are the same people that leave the camera on fully automatic the whole time and don't know how to get much of anything out of their equipment.


----------



## TickleMyElmo (Aug 13, 2009)

Don't even get me started on recommendations, or camera threads in general,....I won't shut up :hihi:






Nikon Rules!


----------



## NyteBlade (Aug 19, 2006)

speedie408 said:


> The Canon T3i is coming out towards the end of March. If you like video and the slick swivel lcd screen  It's a much more affordable alternative to the 60D.


I have a T2i. It's an awesome camera. Maybe when the T3i comes out, you can nab a T1i or a T2i for cheaper? Some sucker who wants a swivel screen will probably be selling one, right dodo?


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

Joel A said:


> An flip out screens are a gimmick.. I suppose I could see a few situations where it might be useful, but generally speaking people who use live view are the same people that leave the camera on fully automatic the whole time and don't know how to get much of anything out of their equipment.


Call it what you want. I can shoot video/photos from any angle your imagination can think of while you're lying on your belly/back on some dirty ass floor trying to get that perfect shot. Oh and wth is "fully automatic"? :icon_lol: Never even heard of it. :wink:


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

NyteBlade said:


> I have a T2i. It's an awesome camera. Maybe when the T3i comes out, you can nab a T1i or a T2i for cheaper? Some sucker who wants a swivel screen will probably be selling one, right dodo?


Haters!! Just cause you're both stuck in 2007. :tongue: 

Seriously though, the swivel screen is probably not for you diehard stills folk. The ability to shoot video from a DSLR is groundbreaking to say the least. If you haven't caught on yet, take a look at these normal everyday people posting their videos from Canon DSLRs: http://vimeo.com/groups/16610

Time to get with the times :wink:


----------



## jcardona1 (Jun 27, 2008)

Joel A said:


> The nikon d90 is a fantastic camera and you can get it for a steal right now... what you'll learn is that its absolutely true when people say lenses are what really matters... ive yet to notice any deficiencies of the camera body, but i've noticed plenty about the kit lens it comes with.. good to get you started.. but for fish tank photography you'll probably want a dedicated macro lens, or at least something close to 1:1... 1:2 or 1:4. personally im yet to really master fish tank photography, its unlike other types of photography because of the lighting, I find a custom set white balance works best... I've gotten some decent photos of the fish and what not inside the tank, as good as I really can without a better lens at least... where im getting quite frustrated is trying to take a good full tank shot.. I find its tough to get completley accurate auto focus.. and I find I get a lot of washed out results... the best scenario is probably manually focusing on a tripod, I find I usually need 2/3 if not more stops of negative exposure compensation, custom white balance settings, no flash unless its off camera, possibly even post processing photo stitching. I also like to bracket the photos and shoot raw... two things I don't always do with other types of photography...


The kit lens with a speedlight will do a lot more for you than a macro lens alone. Lighting is the most important thing in aquarium photography. You can have the most expensive macro lens available, without the light it's just as good as a kit lens. 

This is why I still stand by my advice of buying a speedlight before upgrading any lenses. Kit lenses are just as sharp as any other lens when shooting at f/9+, which if where you want to be at when shooting fish for maximum detail.

Full tank shots are easy. If some parts are blurry, then your aperture is too big. A small enough aperture with the right focal length will ensure everything is tack sharp from front to back. But to shoot with a small aperture you need lots of light, and again, that's where the speedlight comes in 



Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk


----------



## NyteBlade (Aug 19, 2006)

speedie408 said:


> Haters!! Just cause you're both stuck in 2007. :tongue:
> 
> Seriously though, the swivel screen is probably not for you diehard stills folk. The ability to shoot video from a DSLR is groundbreaking to say the least. If you haven't caught on yet, take a look at these normal everyday people posting their videos from Canon DSLRs: http://vimeo.com/groups/16610
> 
> Time to get with the times :wink:


Haha. I just got the T2i as my christmas present to myself. I wouldn't call myself a hardcore camera person, but as far I understand it, besides the upgraded LCD screen that pulls out, there's really not much difference. It's probably worth the difference in price to get the T3i over the T2i depending on how much you're talking. 

I've found that in indoor/aquarium photography, the live LCD is fairly useful because you can compose the shot a bit better (and see the white balance/how bad the lighting is). If I'm outside with relatively decent lighting, the glare makes the LCD almost unusable, so I just use the viewfinder on top or if the glare is really bad I just point the camera and say a prayer and shoot.


----------



## NyteBlade (Aug 19, 2006)

jcardona1 said:


> The kit lens with a speedlight will do a lot more for you than a macro lens alone. Lighting is the most important thing in aquarium photography. You can have the most expensive macro lens available, without the light it's just as good as a kit lens.
> 
> This is why I still stand by my advice of buying a speedlight before upgrading any lenses. Kit lenses are just as sharp as any other lens when shooting at f/9+, which if where you want to be at when shooting fish for maximum detail.
> 
> ...


Amen. The on-camera flash is pretty bad for most aquarium things, and without proper lighting, the camera is screaming at me about lighting (if I choose f/5.6, the camera tells me the shutter speed is something like 3 seconds, which is awful without a tripod. My next major purchase will probably be a halfway decent tripod (and light)...hard to find for < $150 or so...or a 50 mm prime lense for sharp, quick glory.


----------



## Joel A (Mar 28, 2010)

Well then I guess ill have to invest in a speedlight and see what it can do for me.. im betting there's a bit of a learning curve to using it on a fishtank but worth a try I guess. Sb700 or would the 600 suffice?


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

jcardona1 said:


> You can have the most expensive macro lens available, without the light it's just as good as a kit lens.


I agree with alot of the flash stuff you say, but this statement is not true to a certain extent. Even a cheap macro lens will out perform any kit lens in a flashless situation when referring to aquarium photography. Kit lenses can only be stopped down to max f/3.5 aperture which is not fast enough in low light situations. This is where the kit lens fall short aside from the so so optics. "Expensive macro lenses" are as fast as f/2.8 and can do so much better IME, not to mention much better optics. 

This is where a good camera body also comes into play. Higher end bodies will be able to shoot much better IQ pics in low light with less noise. Remember we're still talking about situations with no flash here. With a flash it's fair game with most lenses as you've already stated. :thumbsup:


----------



## jahmic (Jan 30, 2011)

So, just wanted to illustrate a couple things here. I reread some of the previous opinions I left, and didn't want to sound like I'm pushing the OP to gear up immediately. A nice lens helps, but with some practice and decent equipment you can still get some nice shots:























I took both of these with my D80 using my KIT lens. It's an 18-135mm zoom...not ideal for aquarium photography, but it can get the job done for sure. Both of these shots were taken by using my shoe mount flash and my remote flash cord. Flash was mounted just off to the right, above the tank at a 45 degree angle down. I purposely left both of these shots unedited (aside from some cropping)...and it took me about 3 minutes to wait for some shrimp to get into position and grab the shots. Nothing fancy at all...just "knowing your equipment"...which anybody can pick up after some practice. 

Point is...gear isn't really everything.

As speedie said, a macro will outperform a kit lens...but only WITH the right amount of light, and mostly because of the amount of detail the 1:1 magnification is able to pick up. With the right amount of flash, stopping down the aperture to 2.8 like you can with a macro isn't necessary...in reality, shooting fish at f2.8 is beyond difficult due to the extremely shallow depth of field; you are bound to end up with a dozen blurry shots before you find one that you got lucky on. In fact, the second shot I purposely took at f13 and dialed up the flash just slightly before grabbing the "action" shot as my rcs swam across the front. Reason being: I like manual focus and catching a moving target swimming around the tank and getting a properly focused image is difficult at such a shallow depth of field. I was able to switch from another subject, frame and track the shrimp, then get some rough focus in before grabbing the shot. No way I could've done that at f2.8. There are 2 ways to deal with low light: open the aperture and add more light. When you want a sharp image of a moving subject, there really is only one reasonable option.

I guess the point of all my rambling is...the more you shoot, the more you learn how to make your equipment work. No need to go out and go expensive from the beginning if you're just starting out. :thumbsup: Just shoot and shoot some more...I guess that's the one nice thing about digital (the little voice in the back of your mind isn't screaming at you to stop wasting film  )


----------



## jcardona1 (Jun 27, 2008)

speedie408 said:


> I agree with alot of the flash stuff you say, but this statement is not true to a certain extent. Even a cheap macro lens will out perform any kit lens in a flashless situation when referring to aquarium photography. Kit lenses can only be stopped down to max f/3.5 aperture which is not fast enough in low light situations. This is where the kit lens fall short aside from the so so optics. "Expensive macro lenses" are as fast as f/2.8 and can do so much better IME, not to mention much better optics.
> 
> This is where a good camera body also comes into play. Higher end bodies will be able to shoot much better IQ pics in low light with less noise. Remember we're still talking about situations with no flash here. With a flash it's fair game with most lenses as you've already stated. :thumbsup:


True, but I'm a little biased since I never shoot without flash. Both of my lenses can do f/2.8, but I never use it. Reason being, depth of field. At 2.8 the depth of field is very narrow, and most of the scene will be out of focus. I hate how fish pics look with big apertures, it produces low quality photos. 

If you're after maximum image quality, then you want three things: very small aperture for a wide depth of field, fast shutter speed to freeze the action, and a low ISO for best quality. And to do that, you need a lot of light.

If you don't have a speedlight, then of course a macro lens will do better since you can squeeze out a few stops of light more, but the results won't be spectacular until you decrease that aperture to get the entire subject in focus. 

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk


----------



## !shadow! (Jan 25, 2010)

I really like this conversation, l know i'm learning a lot on how to maximize my photo quality. I'll need to get a speedlight soon as my pictures are coming out a little like my old point and shoot. I'm still currently learning about aperture and shutter and all of that fancy stuff.


----------



## jcardona1 (Jun 27, 2008)

Here's a really good depth of field example. I took this pic a few days ago while I was messing around with my speedlight. Here I simply pointed the speedlight straight into the tank; normally I bounce the light into a plastic rain gutter. 










This is a good example because the fish are angled, and not parallel to the lens as most fish pics are. This photo was taken at f/9. If I had shot this at f/2.8 and compensated by using a faster shutter or less flash output, most of the fish's bodies would have been out of focus and blurry. I might have gotten the eyes and snout at best, but as soon as you pass that it will begin to blur out. 

In this pic you can see the fish is sharp from head to tail, impossible to do with a big aperture. The depth of field specs of this photo are (this is taken from the exif data):

- Nikon D90
- f/9
- focal length: 18mm
- subject distance: 19.7"

If you plug this in to a depth of field calculator ( http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html ), you'll see that my focal plane extends 4.2" in front of the subject, and 7.2" behind the subject. That gives me a total depth of field of 11.4". 

Now, assuming everything stayed the same but my aperture was f/2.8, the focal plane in front of and behind the point of focus would have been 1.5" and 1.8", respectively. For a total depth of field of 3.3". Huge difference! 

On a larger fish, this would mean much of the fish would be blurry. This is why you don't want to use big apertures when taking photos of fish, if you want the entire fish to be in focus.


----------



## jcardona1 (Jun 27, 2008)

Joel A said:


> Well then I guess ill have to invest in a speedlight and see what it can do for me.. im betting there's a bit of a learning curve to using it on a fishtank but worth a try I guess. Sb700 or would the 600 suffice?


There sure is! My first shots with a speedlight looked horrible! Very ugle, unnatural blast of light. It takes a lot of tuning to get a natural looking photo. I would suggest putting the flash in Manual power mode. TTL flash for aquarium photography is no good in my opinion. TTL flash works great for everything else, but not aquariums. The light output varies too much and for some reason the built-in meter doesn't handle aquariums too well. 

There's also many methods to use the flash. You could point it straight down in to the water for a harsher, direct light, or bounce it into some sort of reflector for softer light (rain gutter, styrofoam box, etc.).


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

jcardona1 said:


> Here's a really good depth of field example. I took this pic a few days ago while I was messing around with my speedlight. Here I simply pointed the speedlight straight into the tank; normally I bounce the light into a plastic rain gutter.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Agreed but I still like some shots taken without flash with a large aperture :icon_cool. It may be "low quality" in your eyes, but for some reason I like the shallow DOF, depending on the type of picture you want to illustrate. I love bokeh so I'm bias there. roud:

That's a nice shot btw! I need to get me a rain gutter to play with.


----------



## jcardona1 (Jun 27, 2008)

I love me some nice bokeh too! Do you have a longer zoom lens? I like using my 70-200mm f/2.8 lots of times. I sit back 5-6ft and zoom in all the way to 200mm. When using this lens I'm usually at f/5 or so, to get that cool blurred background effect. The long focal length gives a very limited DOF, which can work with or against you. 

In this one, it worked perfect










In this shot though, I didn't really like the effect. A smaller aperture would have given me more detail in the fish's bodies. Still a neat pic though


----------

