Best camera for coral macros?

[plancton]

What is the best camera+lenses that I can buy to take really good pics of my corals etc. Macros and stuff?.

I have a canon powershot and have tried everything and the polyps always show very blurry and the colors are never right etc. I want something pro.

And in order to achieve it do I really need a tripod?.

 

[t5Nitro]

canon xs, xsi, t1i, etc + 100mm f/2.8 macro.

 

[plancton]

Is any of these good enough?:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage...p=&qp=&list=n&iht=y&usc=All+Categories&ks=960

 

[tskinner]

Either would be good with the addition of the 100mm 2.8f macro lens

 

[plancton]

The macro lens seem to be more expensive than the camera itself, does that make sense?

 

[Hookup]

you need a tripod 99.999% of the time

The bodies listed above a good bodies, you can get better if budget isn't an issue, just most people do not want to spend the kind of money a full-frame sensor costs... let alone large format.. haha...

It's about the dedicated macro lens... that's what makes the biggest difference...IMO

 

[firsthesitation]

Agree with body choice and the lens that is being recommended. Be prepared to learn everything there is to know about lighting, aperture and shutter speed if you dont already. I really learned fundamentals of photography trying to get good pictures of my corals and still learning.

 

[TWallace]

The macro lens seem to be more expensive than the camera itself, does that make sense?

Yes, that's fairly normal for the lower end DSLRs. My Nikon D90 cost me $700 (used) and the often recommended macro lens for this camera is the Nikon 105mm VR which retails for $890. However, I use a used Tamron 90mm manual focus macro lens that I got used for $60. It's nice and sharp, but lacks auto focus and metering on my camera (neither of those limitations drastically affect it for aquarium photos).

 

[t5Nitro]

Check this place out for equipment:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/542180-REG/Canon_2756B003_EOS_Rebel_XSi_a_k_a_.html

There is an XSI for 70$ less than best buy's site.


Here is the lens:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/194451-USA/Canon_4657A006_100mm_f_2_8_USM_Macro.html

Canon lenses have been going up and up in price. If you're going to buy a camera/lens, now may be best before the price goes up more. Maybe it'll drop (in X amount of years that you could've been using the camera).

Some people recommend used equipment. If you're like me, I would never buy used equipment. I just have a thing for brand new. :lol2:

Just noticed you're in MX. Not sure if BH will ship there or not. Maybe the end cost is cheaper to go to a local best buy; I know they just built one in MX (forgot the city).

 

[zhangg3]

Sorry for the newbie question, but can the 100mm f/2.8 macro also be used to take day to day pics in addition to taking macro pics? I am also looking to get into dslr and trying to decide if I can just buy body only for one of the dslr and just use the 100mm f/2.8 macro or if I need to get another lens for that purpose. Thanks!

 

[t5Nitro]

It can be. It's a pretty far range for day-to-day pictures though. If you bought a crop body the lens is 160mm.

 

[zhangg3]

thanks, I didn't buy anything yet, still researching...just so many options out there.

 

[JohnM99]

The lens is actually a long term investment - it will be worth approximately what you paid for it even in 5, 10 or 15 years if it is Canon or Nikon. On the other hand, the body is disposable - worth very little a few years later, may not even last.
A good macro lens is never a bad idea!

 

[ducklabdad]

Right now if you check around you can get a really good buy on the canon 100mm 2.8 macro as they just issued a 100mm 2.8 IS L model which a lot of folks are "upgrading too" so there are a good # of used ones out there.

If you are going to shoot from a tripod mostly you will not really need the IS (Image Stabalized) L but if you want the "newest" and "Bestest" then the newer model will be what you want, but it is more money, about $400.00 more than the non IS non L model!!

 

["Umm fish?"]

And just to throw this out there: It's not necessary to have a macro lens to take macro photos. What's the difference between the Canon 100mm macro and any other 100mm lens?

1. The Canon lens is designed to give you 1:1 (whatever you are taking the picture of is life-sized on a 35mm sensor) at it's closest focusing distance.
2. The glass inside the lens is really, really sharp. (That's what costs so much.)

Having a macro lens makes it really convenient to get pictures at 1:1. The good glass is also really, really nice. But can you take a normal lens and get 1:1? Yes. You need to move the lens away from the camera a little bit. The easiest and cheapest way to do that is to buy some extension tubes. ALL they are is a hollow piece of aluminum that moves a lens away from the camera sensor. The nice ones (you want the nice ones) have electrical couplings that pass information from the camera body to the lens and vice versa.

The usual rule of thumb is that you need 1mm of extension tube for each mm of your lens: a 100mm lens would need 100mm of extension.

Now, you will lose some light but lack of light is the major problem of macrophotography anyway, so you'll be fighting that issue whatever you do.

Are there other ways to do macro on the cheap? Yep. If you are interested, let me know.