interested in photograhpy
- Thread starter tinnghe
- Start date
TitusvileSurfer
New member
Any DSLR will work just fine.
The lenses are the proof in the pudding...not to mention they could make up 9/10 or more of the expense.
The camera doesn't matter nearly as much...unless your going to buy a 1DsMkIII or 5DmkII...but you better have top of the line lenses or those cameras will pout.
The lenses are the proof in the pudding...not to mention they could make up 9/10 or more of the expense.
The camera doesn't matter nearly as much...unless your going to buy a 1DsMkIII or 5DmkII...but you better have top of the line lenses or those cameras will pout.
Last edited:
dendronepthya
Premium Member
This may be over your head, but it is vitally important that you think about the type of photography you are interested in. Based on that, you can figure out what lenses you really want and then decide which camera system to invest in. Lenses range from expensive to super expensive and will be the bulk of your expenditures.
I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about. If I was all about portrait photography, there are a number of options, but I would lean towards Canon because in my mind they have the two best portrait lenses out there in the 85mm f/1.2L and 135mm f/2L. Canon would also be a great choice for long telephoto primes like the 300mm f/2.8 or 400mm f/2.8 for birding.
When it comes to zooms, Canon is great, but I would lean more towards Nikon. Their 14-24mm f/2.8 is unmatched. Their 24-70mm f/2.8 is newer than Canon's and might edge it out in image quality (which is saying a lot because the Canon is wonderful). Same goes for the 70-200 f/2.8. Lots of folks think the Nikon offering is better. Nikon also has a 200-400 f/4 zoom that Canon has not built. So like I said, if you wanted a suite of zooms covering the range from 14-400mm, Nikon really has it covered.
Having said all that about Canon and Nikon, it's probably important to consider the size of these lens systems. Both are huge. If you want a lower profile camera and lens system, Olympus has a really nice small camera and a fairly well received group of lenses for their four-thirds mount.
I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about. If I was all about portrait photography, there are a number of options, but I would lean towards Canon because in my mind they have the two best portrait lenses out there in the 85mm f/1.2L and 135mm f/2L. Canon would also be a great choice for long telephoto primes like the 300mm f/2.8 or 400mm f/2.8 for birding.
When it comes to zooms, Canon is great, but I would lean more towards Nikon. Their 14-24mm f/2.8 is unmatched. Their 24-70mm f/2.8 is newer than Canon's and might edge it out in image quality (which is saying a lot because the Canon is wonderful). Same goes for the 70-200 f/2.8. Lots of folks think the Nikon offering is better. Nikon also has a 200-400 f/4 zoom that Canon has not built. So like I said, if you wanted a suite of zooms covering the range from 14-400mm, Nikon really has it covered.
Having said all that about Canon and Nikon, it's probably important to consider the size of these lens systems. Both are huge. If you want a lower profile camera and lens system, Olympus has a really nice small camera and a fairly well received group of lenses for their four-thirds mount.
TitusvileSurfer
New member
I think an Xsi, 100mm f/2.8 macro, and a nice mid range zoom such as a 17-55 IS or 24-70 would suit you fine. For the top down shots you should consider a polarizing filter and/or a "photobox".
hummermaniac88
New member
I did a mistake getting a Olympus as my first camera and now I found out that Nikon and Canon are just simply better. I would suggest getting a low model Canon or Nikon and get lense for the bodies, when you develop a preference for a specific body, you can just swap the lenses over....
dendronepthya
Premium Member
The Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro is a gem. Just about any of the bodies will take a good pic with that lens.
dendronepthya
Premium Member
My friend has an Olympus E-420 and it takes pretty good photos. I am not a huge fan of it only because I like full frame, and the Olympus is like an ultra-crop with a 2x effective multiplier. They don't have a ton of lens options either which is a concern.
hummermaniac88
New member
+1 buy the bigger brands...you'll be happier in the long run.
Patrick12
Crypt Assassin
I have a Nikon D90 and it is awesome. Canon has some great lenses and you can do awesome with them and Canon is better for action photography. Nikon is the king of lenses. They are by far the leader and viewed by most as making the best lenses. Their camera bodies are fine, but not as good as Canon's. So all in all, going with either one is gonna get you taking the best pics possible. I spent a month studying and trying to decide. I finally decided on the Nikon because of the lenses. Good luck.
hummermaniac88
New member
The thing I find about taking photos of reef aquariums, its dark. So in order to have decent photos with a fast shutter speed you need to hike up the ISO and the with the ISO high on the D90 it begins to get grainy. Canon on the other hand, the 5D, is clear and crisp with ISO is at 3200. I know the 5D is in a different league but still, quality is quality!
dendronepthya
Premium Member
Yes, the high ISO performance of the new generation of full-frame cameras is impressive. I upgraded from a camera with a borderline unuseable ISO 1600 to a 5D mk II that I would not hesitate to use at ISO 6400. Throw in the advanced post processing tools available like noise ninja and you can be taking some very clean shots ultra low light.
hummermaniac88
New member
Im use to doing car photography, therefore lights and strobes are an option. With reef photography I cannot use strobes or flashes without making the picture unatural. A camera that can produce good pictures in High ISO is a big thumbs up!
dendronepthya
Premium Member
LOL. Yeah, it's so mean to talk about stuff like that. Seriously though, unless you are looking at 100% crops, it is very difficult to guess what ISO images are taken at based on the noise you are seeing. Between ISO 1600 and 5000 it all looks very clean. ISO 6400 may be a little more noticeable if there are a lot of dark areas, but in no way does it look bad.
Lenses... yeah, I'm struggling with that a bit too. I want to buy up the holy trinity of 35, 85, 135 L-lenses, but that's going to involve a bit of savings. I'm also hoping Canon releases an "IS" version of the 135mm f/2.0L.
Lenses... yeah, I'm struggling with that a bit too. I want to buy up the holy trinity of 35, 85, 135 L-lenses, but that's going to involve a bit of savings. I'm also hoping Canon releases an "IS" version of the 135mm f/2.0L.
Reef Bass
colors and textures
That's quite a lineup of lenses on your wish list there! Those lenses on your back would be phenomenal.
Again I'm amazed at your description of how low your high ISO noise is. I consider my 50D fairly low noise, at least for not full frame cameras, but the noise becomes discernable around 800, obvious around 1250 and an issue for me by 1600.
Again I'm amazed at your description of how low your high ISO noise is. I consider my 50D fairly low noise, at least for not full frame cameras, but the noise becomes discernable around 800, obvious around 1250 and an issue for me by 1600.
TitusvileSurfer
New member
I don't know...my main reason for shooting Canon is because I believe they have better lenses than Nikon. The lower quality Nikon lenses are better than the lower quality Canon lenses I'll give you that. I think Canon's cream of the crop is better than Nikon's though.
dendronepthya
Premium Member
Nikon cream of the crop lenses are more expensive than Canon's by a few hundred dollars on average and not all of them can say they are better.
