Recommendations on Camera

ColaAddict said:
So if I just want a nice basic DSLR to take nice macro shots, what would u recommend?
Click to expand...


T2i is a nice body and pretty affordable. It also has video capabilities, which is nice for whatever reason. The T3i is virtually the same camera, with the added benefit of an articulating screen. If you are only planning to post photos online, you can't go wrong with a Canon 20d. Magnesium body and full features. Canon has a few nice macro lenses, I would try to grab one around 100mm. This will allow you to get right in close to subjects that are a little out of reach. 50mm might limit your reach.
 
Siebo said:
+1 My understanding is that full frame just has a bigger field of vision as in the picture below showing the difference. But I am new to this, please enlighten me. If your given a single photo, what do you look for?

View attachment 12196
Click to expand...


That's true. Shooting from the same exact location, a full frame and crop sensor are easily told apart. I was making it a point that nobody on the forum (or anywhere for that matter) could look at a single photo and tell me it was shot with a full frame or a crop sensor. Loss of subjects in the frame can easily be corrected by changing the focal length. For example, I can achieve the same image on a full frame 16mm photo, with a crop sensor and 10mm lens.

In the image you posted. I can change out the lens on the crop sensor and achieve the same image, or even just move further away with the same lens.

On the flip side to all of this. Crop sensor gives you more reach. This is great for wildlife photography. My 55-250mm becomes an 88-400mm. A lens with that range on a full frame will cost you big bucks. 99% of amateur and wildlife photographers use a crop sensor for the extra reach it gives.
 
ColaAddict said:
So if I just want a nice basic DSLR to take nice macro shots, what would u recommend?
Click to expand...

Nino, any camera will do a good job for you including Point and Shoot Camera (they all have Macro feature), depending what you like and feel. I like new camera if I have money. Tangency has a good hand and I believe he is still want the Nikon D800 if he got money although he took many nice pictures with his old Nikon camera. I did say "Technology War".
 
Sorry Joe, I agree maybe I was not clear. I am asking the same thing. Given what you said, how could you tell with a single photo?
 
Joe Lydon said:
That's true. Shooting from the same exact location, a full frame and crop sensor are easily told apart. I was making it a point that nobody on the forum (or anywhere for that matter) could look at a single photo and tell me it was shot with a full frame or a crop sensor. Loss of subjects in the frame can easily be corrected by changing the focal length. For example, I can achieve the same image on a full frame 16mm photo, with a crop sensor and 10mm lens.
Click to expand...

That's what I meant.. And that's what Mai even mentioned.. "Wedding shooting with full room" ...
 
FishBeard said:
You like having it good for you, was it necessary to have, I think not.
Click to expand...

So first u put words in my mouth... Now u tell me what's necessary for ME?

And just an FYI... For me.. Yes it was necessary... Bc I was making $ on it...

Sorry reef junky... Back to our regularly scheduled prgm.
 
reefjunky, if xti is broken, go with either t2i or t3i and canon 100mm macro. b&w and adorama good sites for camera peeps.
 
ColaAddict said:
Mai. What do u like for LEDs. Hard to take pics with LEDs with just point and shoot camera
Click to expand...

Nino, for LEDs some time you have to turn off (or dim) the Blue Leds for Point and Shoot Camera (the same with DSLR camera). Most of the blue leds is camera killer, till now I am still not master how to took good White Balance with too much blue.
All my corals picture I took with off the blue (or less blue) and lot of white leds.
 
rosko23 said:
So first u put words in my mouth... Now u tell me what's necessary for ME?

And just an FYI... For me.. Yes it was necessary... Bc I was making $ on it...

Sorry reef junky... Back to our regularly scheduled prgm.
Click to expand...

+1, If I make money with camera then I will upgrade it.
 
For what its worth, you should also be checking out the newer mirrorless cameras from Sony, Olympus, and Panasonic. I think mirrorless is the future of camera technology, and you can also get some mirrorless "pro-sumer" grade cameras that will more than suffice for the average photographer. Plus with interchangeable lenses, and a myriad of adapters, you can utilize lots of different glass. I believe someone mentioned it before, but camera bodies keep changing and technology keeps advancing, but good glass is good glass, and it always will be.

For instance, I use a Panasonic Lumix GF3 m4/3 body with an adapter to a vintage Minolta MD 50mm macro lens for most of my coral photography. $300 for the body little over a year ago, and $50 for the vintage lens, and it works like a charm, so long as you are comfortable in manual mode on your camera. There are so many great vintage lenses out there from the 35mm cameras of the 60s and 70s, and they produce some amazing results for a fraction of the price when adapted to mirrorless bodies.

Check out some of the mirrorless, nex, and micro 4/3 forums out there. Some interesting stuff. And if you think us reefers are hardcore in our hobby, wait til you see some of them! My $.02, for what it's worth :)
 
Yep, not much you can do to counter the blue LEDs. With a good camera in raw mode you can just post process white balance and light source type toget your corals to look right anyways, or add in more blue if that's the look you are going for.
 
CoralCompulsion said:
For what its worth, you should also be checking out the newer mirrorless cameras from Sony, Olympus, and Panasonic. I think mirrorless is the future of camera technology, and you can also get some mirrorless "pro-sumer" grade cameras that will more than suffice for the average photographer. Plus with interchangeable lenses, and a myriad of adapters, you can utilize lots of different glass. I believe someone mentioned it before, but camera bodies keep changing and technology keeps advancing, but good glass is good glass, and it always will be.

For instance, I use a Panasonic Lumix GF3 m4/3 body with an adapter to a vintage Minolta MD 50mm macro lens for most of my coral photography. $300 for the body little over a year ago, and $50 for the vintage lens, and it works like a charm, so long as you are comfortable in manual mode on your camera. There are so many great vintage lenses out there from the 35mm cameras of the 60s and 70s, and they produce some amazing results for a fraction of the price when adapted to mirrorless bodies.

Check out some of the mirrorless, nex, and micro 4/3 forums out there. Some interesting stuff. And if you think us reefers are hardcore in our hobby, wait til you see some of them! My $.02, for what it's worth :)
Click to expand...

Thank you for the input, that was one of the reasons i was looking at the sony cameras both the SLR and the Nex format, i was going for the SLR due to the fact that i felt there were more options with lenses till i found out they can accept different mounts to work with other lenses, but i still feel the mirrorless is still evolving. Tho i would love to have a small camera i need use a one of my buddies nex cameras and i can say i didn't like how small it was i felt uncomfortable with the camera im sure i could get use to it, but again i am use to a larger body camera. But i will def look into that a little more like i said the Sony SLR i liked cause of the mirrorless and also because of the image stabalization in the body which would allow you to not have to get IS lenses
 
Siebo said:
+1 My understanding is that full frame just has a bigger field of vision as in the picture below showing the difference. But I am new to this, please enlighten me. If your given a single photo, what do you look for?

View attachment 12196
Click to expand...

Maybe I can help explain... the main difference between cropped frame and full frame is the amount of data the sensor can capture. On a side note, typically full frame sensors are much more sensitive in low light environments and have a higher dynamic range. But let's only talk about the first point for now...

The "cropping" is most evident when you compare the same lens on both bodies. Lets use a 105mm macro lens for example (since we all use the camera on our aquariums). A 105mm lens is a 105mm on a full frame sensor and has a working distance of a few feet. When compared to a cropped frame sensor the DX sensor magnifies the optics (I believe by 1.6) Your new 105mm lens now acts as a 150mm. Handy because you pay top dollar for greater working distances in macro work! Meaning... you can stand father back to get the same 1:1 shot and not scare your subject.

Now in landscape photography the same is true but this time benefits wide angle glass. Typically in landscape work, you're trying to capture vast scenes. We will use the other end of the lens spectrum for this example. Lets take an 18mm (which looks like your example) On a FX body you would be able to capture the entire scene while on a DX body the 18mm is now ~28mm in essence cropping your photo.

It really depends on what you're trying to accomplish and how you intend on using your camera.
 
Reefjunky24 said:
Thank you for the input, that was one of the reasons i was looking at the sony cameras both the SLR and the Nex format, i was going for the SLR due to the fact that i felt there were more options with lenses till i found out they can accept different mounts to work with other lenses, but i still feel the mirrorless is still evolving. Tho i would love to have a small camera i need use a one of my buddies nex cameras and i can say i didn't like how small it was i felt uncomfortable with the camera im sure i could get use to it, but again i am use to a larger body camera. But i will def look into that a little more like i said the Sony SLR i liked cause of the mirrorless and also because of the image stabalization in the body which would allow you to not have to get IS lenses
Click to expand...

Yeah, one of my friends, and professional photographer, is a die hard Nex-7 user. He got me into the mirrorless world, and it is certainly still evolving, but I have no doubt that it is the future. I agree that they can be kind of weird to get used to due to their size, but you should definitely check some of them out in person. The Nex series is probably the highest quality technologically of the bunch, but also one of the smaller bodies. See if you can find anywhere that has the Olympus E-P3 or Panasonic GX1, where you can actually hold them and see how they feel. Both have a bit more bulk, and heft to them than the nex, however the Nex sensor and its OLED EVF definitely help sony stand out amongst them.
 
tinman said:
Jeff can you elaborate a little more on this please
Click to expand...

Ill try...

The camera gathers light in three different ways: Aperture, Exposure time, and ISO. To take a properly exposed photo you will need a balance of these three variables. For this example we will be talking about ISO. If aperture and exposure are equal you can lighten or darken a photo by adjusting your "film sensitivity" aka ISO. By increasing the ISO value you will in essence add exposure to your photo. Increasing ISO comes at a cost. The higher your ISO value the more noise is added to your photo (this can appear undesirable). With higher end cameras you are paying for the camera sensors ability to have less noise at higher ISO values.

Regarding tonal range... this is a little more complicated but in short and to oversimplify, sensors handle the values in between white and black differently. With higher quality sensors you will have more more steps of gray. In photos this can be perceived as smoother gradients and more accurate rendition of color. The perception of color is very subjective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top