May I have some camera recommendations for under $500?
- Thread starter SeanT
- Start date
Many P&S cameras have a 'custom' option for white balance. If you activate that option, you can take a 'picture' of a white object in your tank (e.g. a white piece of plastic). This sets the WB to the conditions of your tank and will give an auto adjustment in camera. It won't give you the control that RAW will but, it is another option if your camera has the appropriate control.
There is also a sticky at the top of this forum on 'tips' which discusses WB options.
There is also a sticky at the top of this forum on 'tips' which discusses WB options.
Skeptic_07
New member
There are a few sub $500 SLRs available now if you wanted to go that route. You can get a Nikon D40 for $460 or a Canon Rebel XS for $490 or a Sony A200 for $500.
Reef Bass
colors and textures
None of those will shoot macros for $500. You just bought the camera back and maybe a not good for macros kit lens. You'll need a macro lens. The 100mm macro lens from Canon is roughly $500, so you're doubling your purchase price right there. Sure you can get less expensive lenses, but I'm trying to point out that you mentioned a $500 total solution price. You could certainly save money going the used route.
Skeptic_07
New member
They can all take macro photos even with the stock lens. The stock lens won't get shots as good as reefbass's avatar all the time but they will be comparable to any P&S camera. You don't have to get a macro lens for it right away if you dont want. Here is an example of what the Rebel XS can do with the included 18-55mm lens. Remember, this is a professional who took this shot, not me.
I was recently in the same situation you are in needing a camera with the same exact budget and that picture was what sold me on the SLR and also knowing that i can upgrade it in the future to get even better and more consistent photos.
There are also many more lenses than the 100mm macro referred to above. While that one is regarded as one of the best macro lenses around theres a 50mm f/2.5 that canon makes that costs $240, theres also a 60mm that i think is about $400. These are also great for portraits as well. There are tons of lenses out there, tons! there are even off brand macros for $100 but they're probably garbage and not worth the money.
All that being said, if you aren't into photography at all, and don't want to open the door to another potentially expensive hobby, a P&S camera might be a better choice for you, i just wanted you to know what else was out there.
I was recently in the same situation you are in needing a camera with the same exact budget and that picture was what sold me on the SLR and also knowing that i can upgrade it in the future to get even better and more consistent photos.
There are also many more lenses than the 100mm macro referred to above. While that one is regarded as one of the best macro lenses around theres a 50mm f/2.5 that canon makes that costs $240, theres also a 60mm that i think is about $400. These are also great for portraits as well. There are tons of lenses out there, tons! there are even off brand macros for $100 but they're probably garbage and not worth the money.
All that being said, if you aren't into photography at all, and don't want to open the door to another potentially expensive hobby, a P&S camera might be a better choice for you, i just wanted you to know what else was out there.
TitusvileSurfer
New member
I <3 The G10! I think it is the perfect reef tank camera in his budget.
Yeah...that isn't true at all. You need a macro lens which brings the total to $1000 minimum. He better be prepared to spend an additional $1000 over the origional $1000 if he wants to take pictures of wildlife, people, or other subjects besides the tank.
Exactly.
Not even close to true.
It will not get anything close to his avatar. The G10 will outpace this setup in a reef tank as well.
Sure you don't have to get a macro lens right away...or ever. But when you want to start taking close up pictures of your corals...$500 extra.
Have you taken into account the extra tools a professional might use to take a picture like this? For one I bet he is using TWO lenses at the same time. Not just the 18-55. This setup is worthless in an aquarium as well. You can't take a "macro" of anything farther away from the lens than the glass of your tank is thick.
Firstly, I wouldn't recommend the Canon XS to anybody. I think it is too striped down to make it worth-while. It is like buying a new BMW for $7000 with plastic seats, a Geo-Meto engine, a tiny frame, and after a while it just stops being a BMW...regardless of the logo. The XS is in fact the only Canon DSLR I would go so far as to not recommend.
The Canon 50mm and 60mm lenses are fine and dandy...but they are poor performers in a reef tank. The off brand lenses actually worth the money are like...$10 less than the Canon 100mm macro. The Nikon guys use them a lot. For Canon you are selling yourself short not getting the 100mm f/2.8 macro. It is really as simple as that. Nothing else compares to it for the money.
That is all well and good but I implore you to learn a thing or two about photography before you actually buy a camera. Not doing so is like buying a 150 gallon reef tank without the slightest clue of salt water aquariums. You end up with some drift wood, bio balls, a hang on the back wheel filter, an anemone, some paper test strips, no sump (you don't even know what a sump is or how it could possibly be useful), no skimmer (you don't know what that is either), some sand from your kid's school playground, and a 1-1/2 ft. long hammer head shark you caught at the beach.
The same type of mistakes apply in photography. Do it right. Do it once. Do your homework.
Last edited:
Skeptic_07
New member
Thanks for making me look dumb. I guess you did alot of research on what the best sub $500 camera was.
Some people get offended when you break down their posts and refute each point without actually adding to the overall discussion.
Some people get offended when you break down their posts and refute each point without actually adding to the overall discussion.
Last edited:
TitusvileSurfer
New member
I wasn't trying to make you look dumb, sorry.
My point is there are only two cameras at this time that I would recommend to someone with a $500 budget. They are:
Canon G10
Panasonic LX3
Either of these cameras can out-pace an ill equipped DSLR.
If you want a DSLR, and you want to do it right, $500 isn't possible. $1000 isn't practical, $2000 is believable. That is just reality. Many photography hobbyists spend $10000 or more on their DSLRs.
My point is there are only two cameras at this time that I would recommend to someone with a $500 budget. They are:
Canon G10
Panasonic LX3
Either of these cameras can out-pace an ill equipped DSLR.
If you want a DSLR, and you want to do it right, $500 isn't possible. $1000 isn't practical, $2000 is believable. That is just reality. Many photography hobbyists spend $10000 or more on their DSLRs.
xtm
Active member
Again, $500 for a camera and macro lens just aint gonna cut it. That doesn't even include a tripod which is like THE ultimate necessity when shooting macros!
Your best best would be something like a used DSLR + extension tube or macro diopter. Used Nikon D40's are all over the place for around $350 with a basic 18-55 kit lens. Add some Kenko tubes (about $75 for the set) or a Canon 500D diopter (around $80) plus a decent 'frotto tripod and you'll have something to shoot basic macros with.. but then again, you're immediately in the $700 range, even with 'beginner' equipment.
JMO.. good luck.. photography aint cheap
Your best best would be something like a used DSLR + extension tube or macro diopter. Used Nikon D40's are all over the place for around $350 with a basic 18-55 kit lens. Add some Kenko tubes (about $75 for the set) or a Canon 500D diopter (around $80) plus a decent 'frotto tripod and you'll have something to shoot basic macros with.. but then again, you're immediately in the $700 range, even with 'beginner' equipment.
JMO.. good luck.. photography aint cheap
Last edited:
TitusvileSurfer
New member
Even with that $700, getting a clean macro of some sps will be very difficult at best. You would have to move the coral right up to the glass, or remove the coral from the tank and take pictures of it laying on a table or something.
I broke down your post because I felt the information contained within simply wasn't practical. In some parts it was factually wrong. Not speaking out and just letting it go would in turn make me a bad and un-contributing member.
I broke down your post because I felt the information contained within simply wasn't practical. In some parts it was factually wrong. Not speaking out and just letting it go would in turn make me a bad and un-contributing member.
TitusvileSurfer
New member
No only the DSLRs are upgradeable with different lenses.
Basicaly you can get a decent DSLR Macro machine for about $1300 (Camera, lens, tripod)
It won't be much good for anything but coral closeups (that means not great for fish), but you can upgrade it with other lenses to make the setup optimal for other purposes.
The G-10 and LX3 are "jack of all trades master of none" cameras. They cost under $500 and with decant tripod you can pull off some amazing pictures with either. They are both point and shoot cameras though. Each comes with one non-removable lens like any other point and shoot. This lens and camera combination are paired to offer the most applications possible within its means.
The LX3 would be better for taking pictures of people and such.
The G10 would be better for taking pictures of reef tanks.
They would both do well with both tanks and people.
The DSLR can be outfitted to do VERY well with any subject imaginable, provided you are willing to buy the necessary lenses, tripods, speed lights, and other equipment necessary for what you are trying to do. Hence I say a respectable DSLR setup would take at least $2000 to become practical.
If you want to get into wildlife photography with a DSLR, many hobiest spend $3000-$12,000 on a single lens. They will often have several lenses in this price range. It just depends on what you want to do, how well you want to do it, and how much you are willing to spend. If money is no object DSLRs are the way to go no if's and's or but's. If you are willing to spend about $500...a high quality point and shoot should blow a comparably priced DSLR out of the water in almost every category.
Basicaly you can get a decent DSLR Macro machine for about $1300 (Camera, lens, tripod)
It won't be much good for anything but coral closeups (that means not great for fish), but you can upgrade it with other lenses to make the setup optimal for other purposes.
The G-10 and LX3 are "jack of all trades master of none" cameras. They cost under $500 and with decant tripod you can pull off some amazing pictures with either. They are both point and shoot cameras though. Each comes with one non-removable lens like any other point and shoot. This lens and camera combination are paired to offer the most applications possible within its means.
The LX3 would be better for taking pictures of people and such.
The G10 would be better for taking pictures of reef tanks.
They would both do well with both tanks and people.
The DSLR can be outfitted to do VERY well with any subject imaginable, provided you are willing to buy the necessary lenses, tripods, speed lights, and other equipment necessary for what you are trying to do. Hence I say a respectable DSLR setup would take at least $2000 to become practical.
If you want to get into wildlife photography with a DSLR, many hobiest spend $3000-$12,000 on a single lens. They will often have several lenses in this price range. It just depends on what you want to do, how well you want to do it, and how much you are willing to spend. If money is no object DSLRs are the way to go no if's and's or but's. If you are willing to spend about $500...a high quality point and shoot should blow a comparably priced DSLR out of the water in almost every category.
Last edited:
TitusvileSurfer
New member
Haha yeah, Digital Single Lens Reflex
The "SLR" part basically means you are looking through the lens itself via a series of mirrors and crystals.
The "SLR" part basically means you are looking through the lens itself via a series of mirrors and crystals.
Last edited:
Similar threads
