# Canon T3i?



## Da Plant Man

Here's a question, just curious, but I am looking at buying a new DSLR, my budget is around $700, and this seems like the best bang for my buck. I know much hasn't been upgraded from the T2i, but I like the swivel LCD  

Owners of this camera; does it take good aquarium shots?

Also, I am curious, google has not been helpful, how does the MM rating thing on lens work? I want to get three good lens, one macro, one 'normal' everyday, and one telephoto. Which ones would you recommend? 

Are there any cameras that are better than the T3i, yet are still in my price range? I have always loved Nikon, and wanted to get a D90, but that just didn't look like it was as adaptable as the T3i.  If I do get this camera, it means I'll have to leave the Nikon fan group :help:

Anyways, please point me in the right direction  The photography world is very confusing.


----------



## houseofcards

One really nice new feature on the t3i is that it can now trigger an off-camera flash. This means you don't have to purchase separate transmitters or cables to do this. The swivel screen is great for video or for a once in a while shot, but you probably won't use it for most of your pics.


----------



## FinalJenemba

I can actually help you out a little here as im a photographer :smile:

When it comes to aquarium shots any SLR body is fine, the lens and post processing in Photoshop is so much more important then the camera. I have always said to budding photographers, better to spend less on the camera and worry more about the glass. Also to that note, better to buy a used, older, but higher end body, than a new entry level body. Places like keh.com are perfect for this. I got my current camera, a D200, from them and it was more or less new when I got it.

Look to buy a camera "body only", as the kit lenses suck and are completely useless for aquarium photography. There are only 2 lenses you need for aquarium shots, a fast prime (I use a 35mm f/1.8 but anything 35-50 1.4-1.8 would work), and a macro lens. Pro tip on the nikons: you can use cheap old manual focus lenses on any nikon body, and some of the best macro lenses are from that era. But you will need something in the pro body line, D200/300 and up to meter with them. Honestly though I dont bother metering anymore with my aquarium shots, the lighting never changes so once you know where your settings need to be you can set em and forget em. I personally use a 55mm f/3.5 AI macro I got of KEH in BGN condition for $80 for all of my macro shots, its the best lens I own.

Anyway, I can go on for days but I have to go to work, ill add more later im sure lol. And here ill post some of my shots just so you know im not full of waffle :tongue:

All of these where taken with my $80 macro.


----------



## Da Plant Man

houseofcards said:


> One really nice new feature on the t3i is that it can now trigger an off-camera flash. This means you don't have to purchase separate transmitters or cables to do this. The swivel screen is great for video or for a once in a while shot, but you probably won't use it for most of your pics.


True, I won't use the swivel feature that often, but still. 



FinalJenemba said:


> I can actually help you out a little here as im a photographer :smile:
> 
> When it comes to aquarium shots any SLR body is fine, the lens and post processing in Photoshop is so much more important then the camera. I have always said to budding photographers, better to spend less on the camera and worry more about the glass. Also to that note, better to buy a used, older, but higher end body, than a new entry level body. Places like keh.com are perfect for this. I got my current camera, a D200, from them and it was more or less new when I got it.
> 
> Look to buy a camera "body only", as the kit lenses suck and are completely useless for aquarium photography. There are only 2 lenses you need for aquarium shots, a fast prime (I use a 35mm f/1.8 but anything 35-50 1.4-1.8 would work), and a macro lens. Pro tip on the nikons: you can use cheap old manual focus lenses on any nikon body, and some of the best macro lenses are from that era. But you will need something in the pro body line, D200/300 and up to meter with them. Honestly though I dont bother metering anymore with my aquarium shots, the lighting never changes so once you know where your settings need to be you can set em and forget em. I personally use a 55mm f/3.5 AI macro I got of KEH in BGN condition for $80 for all of my macro shots, its the best lens I own.
> 
> Anyway, I can go on for days but I have to go to work, ill add more later im sure lol. And here ill post some of my shots just so you know im not full of waffle :tongue:


Wow! Those are some good photos! Is that Lamprologus ocellatus 'isanga blue'? I used to have 8 of those 

As far as an older body goes, I would love to get an older, better one, but the person who is paying for half is my brother, and seeing as he knows little about cameras, he wants something with lots of megapixels, and that is relatively new so it can 'hold its value'. I keep trying to tell him the glass is the important, but he insists on something with a kit lens. I just want to get body only, then buy a good all around lens. But, he's paying for half, so I gotta respect that. 



Also, can somebody explain this whole "lens reverser''? It sounds very interesting.....

Thanks guys, your such a big help!


----------



## xenxes

Basically you attach your lens on backwards, but lose AF, Aperture control, etc.

See http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/lounge-introductions/163407-macro-photography-10-a.html, I was asking the same thing earlier

And wow FinalJenemba, those are some amazing shots with that old lens.


----------



## 150EH

I like buying old technogy because I don't have a ton of cash to spend on fun, So if there is a camera that I just feel like I gotta have I'll wait for it's replacement and buy a reconditioned model or even a new model with a low amount of shutter clicks, you can get some really nice gear shopping this way and you don't have to settle.


----------



## GraphicGr8s

Plant man, megapixels don't matter. To an extent anyway. I can show you some stuff from a 6mp camera and a 14 and the average viewer would be hard pressed to see a difference. More mp will allow you to crop more and/or print at a larger size. In general.

If you're only going to put them on the internet and print only occasionally 6 mp is just fine.


----------



## Da Plant Man

150EH said:


> I like buying old technogy because I don't have a ton of cash to spend on fun, So if there is a camera that I just feel like I gotta have I'll wait for it's replacement and buy a reconditioned model or even a new model with a low amount of shutter clicks, you can get some really nice gear shopping this way and you don't have to settle.


Exactly. We are pretty much broke. Until I sell a few things, we have $250. Thats not much. I am selling my PS3, so that might bring in $400-$500. Which is plenty. 



GraphicGr8s said:


> Plant man, megapixels don't matter. To an extent anyway. I can show you some stuff from a 6mp camera and a 14 and the average viewer would be hard pressed to see a difference. More mp will allow you to crop more and/or print at a larger size. In general.
> 
> If you're only going to put them on the internet and print only occasionally 6 mp is just fine.


MP doesn't matter that much to me, however he is a pilot and wants to take pictures of airplanes, etc. So a cropping might be a useful thing to him.



xenxes said:


> Basically you attach your lens on backwards, but lose AF, Aperture control, etc.
> 
> See http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/lounge-introductions/163407-macro-photography-10-a.html, I was asking the same thing earlier


Ah, okay, thanks!


----------



## houseofcards

It really depends, but MP does matter even if your only showing them on the internet. The cropping ability (as GraphicGr8S) mentioned is something to be considered. On my 60D (which is the same 18 MP as the t3i) the cropping is quite remarkable. This pic was taken actually with my 60mm Macro (only lens I had on me) the first is the original and next is the crop. 



















On a 6mp camera you would have needed an additional lens to do this and achieve the quality.


----------



## GraphicGr8s

houseofcards said:


> It really depends, but MP does matter even if your only showing them on the internet. The cropping ability (as GraphicGr8S) mentioned is something to be considered. On my 60D (which is the same 18 MP as the t3i) the cropping is quite remarkable. This pic was taken actually with my 60mm Macro (only lens I had on me) the first is the original and next is the crop.
> 
> On a 6mp camera you would have needed an additional lens to do this and achieve the quality.


Again, would depend on where you where going with it. net or print. And even then with the correct workflow in PhotoShop most wouldn't notice. And with a 10mp you'd never notice.


----------



## houseofcards

GraphicGr8s said:


> Again, would depend on where you where going with it. net or print. And even then with the correct workflow in PhotoShop most wouldn't notice. *And with a 10mp you'd never notice*.


That's way to general a statement IMO To be able to do pretty extreme cropping and not having to purchase or carry an additional lens is significant IMO and or go into photoshop and try to make it look good is also big even if your only showing it online.


----------



## GraphicGr8s

houseofcards said:


> That's way to general a statement IMO To be able to do pretty extreme cropping and not having to purchase or carry an additional lens is significant IMO and or go into photoshop and try to make it look good is also big even if your only showing it online.


Not really, in practice.This is what I do for a living and I find it true more often than not. And yeah I tend to look at printed photos through a loupe.

Suggestion, if you want to continue to discuss MP and outputs let's start a new thread and give this one back to the camera question. I'd love to discuss further if you want. But in a new thread.


----------



## houseofcards

GraphicGr8s said:


> Not really, in practice.This is what I do for a living and I fond it true more often than not. And yeah I tend to look at printed photos through a loupe.
> 
> Suggestion, if you want to continue to discuss MP and outputs let's start a new thread and give this one back to the camera question. I'd love to discuss further if you want. But in a new thread.


I don't think that's necessary, I'm just trying to give the OP the whole picture. You can't get the same crop (quality-wise) off a 6mp camera that you can off a 18mp camera, period. I'm not disagreeing that many times it doesn't matter and you can fix things in PP, but you have much more latitude with cropping on a larger mp camera. And it really doesn't matter whether you do it for a living or not.


----------



## GraphicGr8s

houseofcards said:


> I don't think that's necessary, I'm just trying to give the OP the whole picture. You can't get the same crop (quality-wise) off a 6mp camera that you can off a 18mp camera, period. I'm not disagreeing that many times it doesn't matter and you can fix things in PP, but you have much more latitude with cropping on a larger mp camera. And it really doesn't matter whether you do it for a living or not.


The only reason I pointed out that I do it for a living is I see way more photos from way more cameras in a month than most here will see in a lifetime. I stand by what I said.


----------



## houseofcards

GraphicGr8s said:


> The only reason I pointed out that I do it for a living is I see way more photos from way more cameras in a month than most here will see in a lifetime. I stand by what I said.


So which statement are you exactly standing by

This one where you say 6mp is fine:



GraphicGr8s said:


> Plant man, megapixels don't matter. To an extent anyway. I can show you some stuff from a* 6mp camera and a 14* and the average viewer would be hard pressed to see a difference. More mp will allow you to crop more and/or print at a larger size. In general.
> 
> If you're only going to put them on the internet and print only occasionally *6 mp is just fine*.


Or the one you changed to 10mp a little bit later in the conversation:



GraphicGr8s said:


> Again, would depend on where you where going with it. net or print. And even then with the correct workflow in PhotoShop most wouldn't notice. *And with a 10mp you'd never notice*.


----------



## salmon

Da Plant Man said:


> Here's a question, just curious, but I am looking at buying a new DSLR, my budget is around $700, and this seems like the best bang for my buck. I know much hasn't been upgraded from the T2i, but I like the swivel LCD
> 
> Owners of this camera; does it take good aquarium shots?
> 
> Also, I am curious, google has not been helpful, how does the MM rating thing on lens work? I want to get three good lens, one macro, one 'normal' everyday, and one telephoto. Which ones would you recommend?
> 
> Are there any cameras that are better than the T3i, yet are still in my price range? I have always loved Nikon, and wanted to get a D90, but that just didn't look like it was as adaptable as the T3i.  If I do get this camera, it means I'll have to leave the Nikon fan group :help:
> 
> Anyways, please point me in the right direction  The photography world is very confusing.


Had my T3i for about a week and am a newbie when it comes to SLR's but this is a great unit with lots of auto modes for beginners like myself. Quickly learning that additional lenses are key dependent on what your shooting, but the 18-55 it came with seems to be a decent day to day lens to start with. Haven't tried the video it so can't provide input on that. 

My next piece of glass might be the 100-400 telephoto, but that will take ages to save up for. Buddy of mine has that lens for wildlife guiding/photography and WOW does that take amazing shots. I'll try and borrow one to post.....


----------



## FSM

You don't need the latest DSLR to get great shots, and in fact with the stock camera kit alone your pics aren't going to be very good, simply because standard aquarium lighting isn't bright enough. Your first purchase after the camera should be a speedlight (I use a 430 EXII, but there are 3rd party models which work just as well for less $)

A fast prime lens is also useful, but you sacrifice depth of field if you aren't using the flash. Shooting with a fast prime vs using a flash is also a lot less consistent - you will get a lot more shots that are out of focus.

Here are two pics I took that show the difference pretty well

1. This is with a 50 mm f1.4 lens at a very wide apertureflash









same lens, smaller aperture, with above tank flash









admittedly, the first shot isn't as sharp, probably because it wasn't quite in focus or because the lens simply isn't as sharp at the maximum aperture. Ideally you have both the prime and the flash so that you aren't limited by your equipment, only your skill and patience.


If fish photography is a big factor in your purchase, I wholeheartedly recommend purchasing an older model such as the T2i and putting the savings towards a flash.


----------



## 150EH

I will tend to agree to get the most mega pixels you can afford but once your over ten or twelve you should be good, I do like to crop to get a photo that would otherwise be lost. Here is a shot I took while driving because the snow looked so cool flying through the air but I couldn't take the time to even look thought the view finder unless I am willing to wreck my vehicle.

Here is the original shot with a lot of negative space









Here it is after the crop









That is even pushing what the camera would do IMO and was taken with a 10 mp camera. I actually bought a 12 mp camera and sold it because I didn't like it, they had changed the processor and even thought it had 2 more MP the photos had a lot of grain, but most people were spending time and money on PP to remove it before posting their photos but to me it's a waste of time and I would rather not do any PP if at all possible, so read the reviews closely.


----------



## Da Plant Man

I just sold my PS3, so I am going to buy the camera as soon as the funds come through. 16.2mp, large sensor, perfect for me. 

Nikon D5100 here I come!


----------



## salmon

Da Plant Man said:


> I just sold my PS3, so I am going to buy the camera as soon as the funds come through. 16.2mp, large sensor, perfect for me.
> 
> Nikon D5100 here I come!




You sold your PS3 and your going Nikon???!!! Hopefully two wrongs make a right in this instance! :hihi:

Lol just kidding. Congrats on getting yourself a new camera!


----------



## Da Plant Man

salmon said:


> You sold your PS3 and your going Nikon???!!! Hopefully two wrongs make a right in this instance! :hihi:
> 
> Lol just kidding. Congrats on getting yourself a new camera!


PS3 took to much time. I loved it while i had it. I got it from bryfox86 on here, and trading a bunch of things for it. Trading up


----------



## audioaficionado

How the camera handles contrast (highlights, shadow detail), low light noise and color saturation is much more important than just the raw megapixel count of the sensor. However get the most pixels you can if they don't cost much more and the other more important qualities are there. I had an Olympus D460 Zoom that only had 1.3 MP, but took great pictures. Here's one.

Original file: 1280 x 960 Pixels (1.23 MPixels) (4:3) 433.00 KB 

I compressed the jpg in irfanview down to 35% so I wouldn't eat up too much server space as I don't have decent photo hosting set up.


----------



## Da Plant Man

Oh, I know megapixels don't matter too much, but I want a giant cropping ability. I am going to get my Pilots license hopefully next year, and my brother is a pilot, so we take pictures of things far away (i.e planes in the sky). The sensor size on the D5100 is actually bigger than the T3i also.


----------



## audioaficionado

The new Nikon D800 is king of the DX pixel hill right now and gets the IQ kudos too.

On sale @ only $3k for the body :hihi:

Can't wait to see what Canon has up its sleeve.


----------



## Da Plant Man

audioaficionado said:


> The new Nikon D800 is king of the DX pixel hill right now and gets the IQ kudos too.
> 
> On sale @ only $3k for the body :hihi:
> 
> Can't wait to see what Canon has up its sleeve.


BOOOO CANON. Now that I have a nikon, I have to be on their side :angel:


----------



## audioaficionado

Competition is good. Keeps the winning side from taking too many liberties with the customers pocket books.


----------



## TickleMyElmo

Da Plant Man said:


> BOOOO CANON. Now that I have a nikon, I have to be on their side :angel:


Yup! Go Nikon!

I'm realllly tempted to get a D800E, but I have to keep reminding myself it's not practical for my needs, unless of course it turns out to be equal in High-ISO performance to my D700, in which case I WILL be getting one!  Or maybe a D3s, either way works for me


----------



## audioaficionado

If you have the bux, get the D800. You won't be sorry. 
I'm sorry I don't have the bux to get These 

Nikon D800 & D800E

Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR II


----------



## TickleMyElmo

audioaficionado said:


> If you have the bux, get the D800. You won't be sorry.
> I'm sorry I don't have the bux to get These
> 
> Nikon D800 & D800E
> 
> Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR II


I know, I know, I do have the $$$, its just not a camera that I need. I do weddings, and I would take high ISO performance over megapixels any day...hence the D3s or D4 decision


----------



## audioaficionado

TickleMyElmo said:


> I know, I know, I do have the $$$, its just not a camera that I need. I do weddings, and I would take high ISO performance over megapixels any day...hence the D3s or D4 decision


*D800* =ISO 100 ~ 6,400, expandable to 50 (LO-1) to ISO *25,600* (HI+2). 

*D4* = ISO 100 - 12,800 in in full, half or third stops. ISO 50 to ISO *204,800*

*D3s* = ISO 200 - 12,800. ISO 100 - *102,400*

Hunt down some examples of all three cameras shot at those high ISOs and see how well the IQ holds up. I'd like to see them too.

Can you imagine shooting in Kodachrome @ ISO 25 LOL. Even Ektachrome was super slow in comparison to modern digital camera sensors.


----------



## TickleMyElmo

audioaficionado said:


> *D800* =ISO 100 ~ 6,400, expandable to 50 (LO-1) to ISO 25,600 (HI+2).
> 
> *D4* = ISO 100 - 12,800 in in full, half or third stops. ISO 50 to ISO 204,800
> 
> *D3s* = ISO 200 - 12,800. ISO 100 - 102,400
> 
> Hunt down some examples of all three cameras shot at those high ISOs and see how well the IQ holds up. I'd like to see them too.
> 
> Can you imagine shooting in Kodachrome @ ISO 25 LOL. Even Ektachrome was super slow in comparison to modern digital camera sensors.


Oh I've seen the samples, and everybody knows the D3s is a monster, it has to prove nothing to me, I already know hehe, so I assume the D4 will be good as well.


----------



## ktownhero

houseofcards said:


> I don't think that's necessary, I'm just trying to give the OP the whole picture. You can't get the same crop (quality-wise) off a 6mp camera that you can off a 18mp camera, period. I'm not disagreeing that many times it doesn't matter and you can fix things in PP, but you have much more latitude with cropping on a larger mp camera. And it really doesn't matter whether you do it for a living or not.


I don't think it is fair to give the guy such a hard time; what he is saying is entirely valid. You are taking one specific aspect that you might care about validly, and trying to extrapolate it across the entire concept of IQ -- which isn't totally fair. There's WAY more to the IQ of a sensor than how many pixels they squeeze into the space, and not everybody cares about extreme cropping ability. In fact, density of the pixels on a sensor is generally considered a sign of _worse_ overall image quality, which is why most seriously professional cameras have much lower pixel density than the consumer bodies. 

I mean, I would take a 10mp Canon 1D or 12mp 5D classic camera over an 18mp T3i any day of the week, regardless of how much further I can crop the T3i images. It's all about getting the right tool for the job and, in all honesty, number of megapixels is, as far as I'm concerned, one of the least significant factors somebody should worry about. It's worth considering that even a 1mp image has more pixels than you are generally ever going to display on the internet, and with modern printing algorithms you can make HUGE gorgeous prints out of shockingly low-mp images. I've cropped images down to 1ish megapixels and printed it on 14" canvas and it looks perfect. And I've printed 10mp images on 40"x60" medium in all their glory. What more do you really need?


----------



## audioaficionado

Crop if you must, but most good photographs are composed in the photographers mind before they click the shutter. Most people also try and get too much in the photographs so that it has to be cropped later to make it better and less distracting to the viewers.


----------



## ktownhero

audioaficionado said:


> Crop if you must, but most good photographs are composed in the photographers mind before they click the shutter. Most people also try and get too much in the photographs so that it has to be cropped later to make it better and less distracting to the viewers.


I was going to add this at the end of my post, but thought it might be a bit too confrontational. But, yes, the need for extreme cropping can be reduced with proper lenses and honing your ability to frame your shots.


----------



## houseofcards

ktownhero said:


> I was going to add this at the end of my post, but thought it might be a bit too confrontational. But, yes, the need for extreme cropping can be reduced with proper lenses and honing your ability to frame your shots.


What forum do you think your on? Most here are not professional or experienced photographers and certainly don't have a bag of lenses. For many cropping is a viable alternative to having to buy more lenses, etc. NO one said it's everything, but it's part of it. Most hear wouldn't even use the features of many of the pro cameras, but cropping is an easy to understand concept that produces results, let alone not have to get into a lot of PP. 

BTW why do you have to get personal with me. Your just trying to pick a fight. There is nothing wrong with my statement nor do I care if you thing so:



houseofcards said:


> I don't think that's necessary, I'm just trying to give the OP the whole picture. You can't get the same crop (quality-wise) off a 6mp camera that you can off a 18mp camera, period. I'm not disagreeing that many times it doesn't matter and you can fix things in PP, but you have much more latitude with cropping on a larger mp camera. And it really doesn't matter whether you do it for a living or not.


----------



## gnod

this just got REAL

..jk 


anyone still use film photography? just curious


----------



## Eden Marel

Not me, but my teacher does and so does one of my classmates and we're all in a DIGITAL photography class. Oh wells xD


----------



## audioaficionado

No one's saying anyone needs a bag of lenses. Quite the opposite was stated. One camera and one zoom will do it all. Maybe also a dedicated macro if you really feel you need one. Some zooms can focus quite close and could take good macro shots. You really don't even need a zoom lens as you can use your feet as a effective zoom while framing the shot.


----------



## GraphicGr8s

audioaficionado said:


> *D800* =ISO 100 ~ 6,400, expandable to 50 (LO-1) to ISO *25,600* (HI+2).
> 
> *D4* = ISO 100 - 12,800 in in full, half or third stops. ISO 50 to ISO *204,800*
> 
> *D3s* = ISO 200 - 12,800. ISO 100 - *102,400*
> 
> Hunt down some examples of all three cameras shot at those high ISOs and see how well the IQ holds up. I'd like to see them too.
> 
> *Can you imagine shooting in Kodachrome @ ISO 25 LOL. Even Ektachrome was super slow in comparison to modern digital camera sensors.*


Imagine it? I loved it. Slow yes but unequaled for color and quality. There's a reason it was the standard and every other manufacturer aspired to be as good.


----------



## GraphicGr8s

gnod said:


> this just got REAL
> 
> ..jk
> 
> 
> *anyone still use film* photography? just curious


Yuuuup! Digital can't match it. IMEO. 

However the film process must remain analog. As soon as you scan it it's no better than the ones and zeros of digital.


----------



## audioaficionado

Who still makes film and were would you have it developed?

I used to develop my own film a long while back. Had it loaded into bulk cassettes that I'd run into reusable camera cartridges.


----------



## GraphicGr8s

audioaficionado said:


> Who still makes film and were would you have it developed?
> 
> I used to develop my own film a long while back. Had it loaded into bulk cassettes that I'd run into reusable camera cartridges.


Kodak, according to the Fred Miranda site. Ilford. 

Kodak kiosks, Bentley Film processors pick up at wally World. 

I've still got all of my bulk loaders and darkroom gear. When I built my pressroom I made a darkroom. Just haven't ever had time for it though. The press is gone. Computers are in the house now and the old press room will be housing about 50 tanks.

A forum I use to belong to has many, many film shooters. More than a few who shoot nothing but film.


----------



## audioaficionado

I have thousands of slides going on 40 years old that I need to scan or lose forever. Some negatives from my earliest childhood are at risk too. Gotta get a decent film scanner soon. Perhaps even before any DSLR cameras I've been drooling over.


----------



## GraphicGr8s

audioaficionado said:


> I have thousands of slides going on 40 years old that I need to scan or lose forever. Some negatives from my earliest childhood are at risk too. Gotta get a decent film scanner soon. Perhaps even before any DSLR cameras I've been drooling over.


Can't help you with a scanner. Never really looked into them. The old Nikon 5000(?) was supposed to be excellent if you can find it.
Most of my stuff got ruined in 3 floods in my last house. Every so often I wet the prints down and separate some. Have only scanned a few. Negs and slides are history.

Only new camera I want is a 645D and lenses for it.


----------



## houseofcards

audioaficionado said:


> No one's saying anyone needs a bag of lenses. Quite the opposite was stated. One camera and one zoom will do it all. Maybe also a dedicated macro if you really feel you need one. Some zooms can focus quite close and could take good macro shots. You really don't even need a zoom lens as you can use your feet as a effective zoom while framing the shot.


Right and no one's recommending $2,000-$3,000 cameras to an OP that stated his budget was around $700. 



ktownhero said:


> I mean, I would take a 10mp Canon 1D or 12mp 5D classic camera over an 18mp T3i any day of the week..


Where there's camera of that level there is sure to be a bag of lenses. For what the OP wants do within budget the cropping ability could come in very handy. Since these thread has gone far away from the Canon t3i or equivalent I will heed the warning in your sig and not argue the point anymore.


----------



## audioaficionado

Da Plant Man said:


> I just sold my PS3, so I am going to buy the camera as soon as the funds come through. 16.2mp, large sensor, perfect for me.
> 
> *Nikon D5100 here I come!*





houseofcards said:


> Right and no one's recommending $2,000-$3,000 cameras to an OP that stated his budget was around $700.
> 
> Where there's camera of that level there is sure to be a bag of lenses. For what the OP wants do within budget the cropping ability could come in very handy. Since these thread has gone far away from the Canon t3i or equivalent I will heed the warning in your sig and not argue the point anymore.


It's a done deal for the OP. Why so angry at further discussion and differing opinions?


----------



## g33tar

Ive heard the new Nikon 40mm 2.8 micro macro is a pretty slick lens if you're looking into taking some closeup fish shots. Would work nicely on that fresh 5100, and is pretty dang cheap.


----------



## Da Plant Man

My post's always seem to go south. Keep things civil guys. I already bought the camera.


----------



## lauraleellbp

I just cleaned up this thread, cut out the personal back and forth so I don't have to lock the thread and issue out infractions, please.


----------



## g33tar

Gratz on the 5100 man. Lets see some sweet shots.


----------



## robbowal

audioaficionado said:


> I have thousands of slides going on 40 years old that I need to scan or lose forever. Some negatives from my earliest childhood are at risk too. Gotta get a decent film scanner soon. Perhaps even before any DSLR cameras I've been drooling over.


Check out Plustek 7400 or 7600 they seem to be the best around without spending a fortune for something you may only use for a short period of time. you could also recoup some cost by reselling the unit after you have finished with it.


----------



## ktownhero

houseofcards said:


> What forum do you think your on? Most here are not professional or experienced photographers and certainly don't have a bag of lenses. For many cropping is a viable alternative to having to buy more lenses, etc. NO one said it's everything, but it's part of it. Most hear wouldn't even use the features of many of the pro cameras, but cropping is an easy to understand concept that produces results, let alone not have to get into a lot of PP.
> 
> BTW why do you have to get personal with me. Your just trying to pick a fight. There is nothing wrong with my statement nor do I care if you thing so:


*sigh* ok. 

Well, I'm glad to OP grabbed a body... I am a Canon guy, so don't know too much about Nikons, but I understand that their sensors are top-notch. I'm sure it will be enjoyed thoroughly!


----------



## Aquaticfan

Well im just a poor guy. I dont have a nikon or Canon or anything like that. Hell Im horrible at taking pictures But want to learn more.. 

My current Camera is a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ18. Im sure its a decent camera and will take some ok Pics. Just dont have an idea where to start about settings and things like that. When i bought it brand new it cost me $500.00. So far ive been happy with it. One day I might just make enough money to buy a high dollar unit. If I dont spend it all on Fish stuff first. Lol


----------



## ktownhero

Aquaticfan said:


> Well im just a poor guy. I dont have a nikon or Canon or anything like that. Hell Im horrible at taking pictures But want to learn more..
> 
> My current Camera is a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ18. Im sure its a decent camera and will take some ok Pics. Just dont have an idea where to start about settings and things like that. When i bought it brand new it cost me $500.00. So far ive been happy with it. One day I might just make enough money to buy a high dollar unit. If I dont spend it all on Fish stuff first. Lol


If/when you are ready to invest in a dSLR, just remember that you don't have to buy the shiniest new toy for $800. You can get some of the older ones on the used market for incredible prices. A lot of times with the newer equipment you are paying for features you may never use... For example, I have no interest in shooting video with my SLR so I bought a used Canon XSi in perfect condition for $600 but that included a bag, three lenses, an extra battery, and a bunch of other miscellaneous accessories including an external flash. If you were to buy just the body with kit lens (which isn't a bad starting point!) you could probably find it for $300-$400.

Here is a small sample of some of the photography I've done with it: http://www.pranalli.com/photography/

As for learning, it's not as hard as it sounds. If you google around you can find dozens of sites offering explanations of ISO, Aperture and Shutter speed and with the newer dSLR cameras they have modes like Av which do half the work for your anyway, but still give you all of the creative flexibility of manual.


----------



## Elrodg

Your best option for an affordable dslr is the Nikon d40x. Great beginners camera that still has a strong engine. It's basically a d80 in a d40 body.


----------



## GraphicGr8s

He could also look at a Samsung GX10. Or the Pentax line of cameras. Most of which are as good but cheaper than Nikons or Canons.


----------



## audioaficionado

In a lot of ways the Nikon D40 is better than the D40X. More sensitive CCD sensor & shutter flash sync of 1/500 vs only 1/250 sec.


----------

