Narrowing the dslr field

biodegraded

New member
My revived aquarium adventures have pushed me over the threshold and I am looking into dslr (I currently use a Canon S95). I am starting "from scratch" as the last time I had slr kit was in the 70s. I'm slogging through specs but I could benefit if the more experienced here could narrow my camera and lenses search field.

My priorities
One of the Big Two: Nikon or Canon.
Main use will be natural history stills: corals, fish, plants, rocks, etc, shot in raw.
Macro! This will be over half of its use.
Some telephoto. (I'll gear up on this after macro.)
External flash.
Need reasonable weather and especially dust protection. (The Great Basin is dusty!)
A reasonable kit lens for general walk around use when I don't use the S95.

Irrelevant to me
Features for sport or action shooting (fast auto focus and such).
Portraiture.
Video anything.
Image stabilization (I'll be using a tripod most of the time).
Wide angle.

Everything else (full frame, ISO, etc) is undecided. My price range is $1.5-3k for a body and stock general purpose lens. I expect to drop $1k or more on my first macro lens (probably in the 100 mm category) and same on flash and whatnot. These prices give an idea of my level of interest: significant, but nowhere near pro or even enthusiast. I would be much obliged to get model suggestions for me to especially focus on (no pun intended) in my research.
 
My revived aquarium adventures have pushed me over the threshold and I am looking into dslr (I currently use a Canon S95). I am starting "from scratch" as the last time I had slr kit was in the 70s. I'm slogging through specs but I could benefit if the more experienced here could narrow my camera and lenses search field.

My priorities
One of the Big Two: Nikon or Canon.
Main use will be natural history stills: corals, fish, plants, rocks, etc, shot in raw.
Macro! This will be over half of its use.
Some telephoto. (I'll gear up on this after macro.)
External flash.
Need reasonable weather and especially dust protection. (The Great Basin is dusty!)
A reasonable kit lens for general walk around use when I don't use the S95.

Irrelevant to me
Features for sport or action shooting (fast auto focus and such).
Portraiture.
Video anything.
Image stabilization (I'll be using a tripod most of the time).
Wide angle.

Everything else (full frame, ISO, etc) is undecided. My price range is $1.5-3k for a body and stock general purpose lens. I expect to drop $1k or more on my first macro lens (probably in the 100 mm category) and same on flash and whatnot. These prices give an idea of my level of interest: significant, but nowhere near pro or even enthusiast. I would be much obliged to get model suggestions for me to especially focus on (no pun intended) in my research.

That seems like a pretty good price range to work with for a spectacular set-up. I can only speak to Canon as that is what I have used.

First I would decide between Full Frame or Crop Body. For macro work, the crop bodies are going to allow you a bit more room to crop down and really hone in on your subject's details. A full frame body will lose some of that capability at the same focal length lens, but you could go longer than a 100 mm macro lens and make that back up. The FF bodies are going to give you better image quality.

If I were you, looking at the upper end of your budget ($3k), I'd pick up some used gear.

- Either Canon 7D or 60D (crop) or 5DII (FF), both 7D and 5DII are weather sealed (not sure about 60D). Used in Ontario they run from $1,000 to $1,400, I'm sure in the States you'll get them cheaper. Edit: 60D will likely be less, maybe $600-$700.
- Macro lens - 100 mm Canon or Tamron 90 mm for crop, maybe a longer lens for FF - e.g. Tamron 180 mm (the macro lens above 100 -105 mm start to get pretty pricey).
- Walk around lens - maybe a medium length zoom lens - e.g. 18-135 lens, or even a 70-200 f4 used - this lenses have IS but I think you would use them more for walking around as opposed to tripod photos. You could always get a prime lens too for relatively cheap in the 30 mm to 50 mm range.
-Flash - get a Speedlight for Canon (e.g. 400 or 500 series with wireless slave function) - there are cheaper options out there too that also would corded or cordless.

If you are buying everything new you may have to go to more entry level products as opposed to the "serious amateur" gear as above, but I bought a Rebel XS start kit and quickly sold it within in a year to upgrade. Since you have the budget, I'd start with something good to begin with.
 
Last edited:
I should add that the flash recommendation above was a general flash - for dedicated macro work outside of reef shots, you'll need a special flash set up (of which I know nothing about).
 
In the Canon line, I had suspected the 5D Mark II might be a strong candidate for my uses. I will very thoroughly investigate that model. If I go Canon, I will also go with their lenses. (Ditto if Nikon.) I agree IS would make sense for a walk around lens. For macro, their 100 mm seems the proverbial no-brainer for my first lens in that category.

Thank you for the detailed reply. Much obliged. :)
 
Also, I don't know of an indepent "geek" shop left in metro SLC. Ritz has assimilated all. :( Meaning I don't have a shop to hang out at and test drive (and support).
 
I have a 5DMII, and although I don't currently have an aquarium up and running, it's served me wonderfully for aquarium and general macro work in the past. The image quality is excellent, and having 21MP to work with is quite nice as well. With the 5DMIII out, you should be able to get a good price on the MII. Then again, you could go for the MIII, but honestly, I don't think it would add much that you really care about. From what I've read on the MIII, it looks like Canon was basically trying to make the MII into a viable action/sports camera. Specifically, a couple of the big things they did were adding a better autofocus system and more frames per second. The 7D would also be a good choice or possibly even the new 6D (which looks very much like a repackaged 5DMII to me).

For lenses, the 100mm macro is certainly a go-to. The non-IS version is also very well in your budget. The 70-200 is usually a good starting place for telephoto, unless you need something longer. Of course, you'll want to figure in the sensor "crop factor" which you may or may not be familiar with. For a full frame sensor like the 5D has, it's just like you're used to on conventional SLRs. For something with a smaller than 35mm sensor, like the 7D, your lenses are going to have an equivalent field of view to a lens 1.6x that focal length (e.g. a 100mm lens is visually equivalent to a 160mm lens on a full frame camera). Also, don't completely dismiss the 3rd party brands. Sigma, Tamron and even Tokina make some very good lenses that can sometimes fully match or even exceed the performance of their Canon equivalent. Though, I admit, my lens collection is almost entirely Canon, with the exception of one Zeiss lens. Here's a good resource for lens reviews and comparisons: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/

For flashes, it depends. Canon's speedlights are pretty awesome general purpose strobes. The 430EX is probably the best bang for the buck. It allows manual control in addition to fully automatic (ETTL) and allowing you to add Flash Exposure Compensation, and high shutter speed sync. The next step up is the 540EX, which in addition to adding more power, can act as a Master for other 540s or the 430EX (possibly the 420EX as well, but I can't remember). Canon, Sigma and a few other companies also sell some nice ringlights (I have the Sigma) which can work well for macros. Of course, since you often have plenty of time to set up macro shots, you also have the option of going for a more generic flash without all of the automatic features and saving yourself quite a bit of money.

Anyway, that's Canon. . .I'm sure someone will pipe in with suggestions for Nikon before very long. . .
 
I'm sure someone will pipe in with suggestions for Nikon before very long. . .

Hello

I agree with the Canon guys about staying above the amateur cameras. Same with deciding on FF or CF. That being said, a used D300 will run you about 900. That's a crop body. A used 700, (FF), from 1200 to 1500. Neither shoot vids. A pro camera on Nikon's side tend to stay away from that. The lenses run about the same. For a grand, the 105mm 2.8 is the bomb. I like to buy my better lenses new. Though you can find some really good stuff used. I picked up a Sigma 50mm 2.8 macro off ebay for 60 bucks. It's a sweet lens.

I don't know how the flashes are with Canon. When shooting macro, the dedicated macro flash made by Nikon is sweet. It's also controlled by most of Nikon's upper end cameras.

See if you can find people local to let you hold their camera. I meet with some of the guys on Nikoncafe once and a while. We'll just pick a place to shoot, then get together and BS. We spent about 6 hours on the top of Mount Washington last year. You should know how heavy things can get. You should also know what a camera feels like, and how the basic functions work. If you get something you don't like, you won't use it.

Look on B&H dot com.
 
I currently run a 7D and love it. Having a magnesium alloy body that is weather sealed is a great touch since I shoot outdoors at beaches a lot. The ONLY downside is that its not full frame, but in reality I have no need for that anyways.

With it I have an 18-200 IS lens and a 50mm f1.8. My flash is a 430EX and has served me well for 7-8 years.
 
Jesse, thanks for bringing in some Nikon info. On the Canon side, I'm most drawn to the 5DII. Near as I can tell, the D600 is Nikon's offering in the same niche. Can you comment on the two? For now assume money is not a driving factor. It is, of course, but it's down on the list.

I am grateful for those who have replied.
 
In reality, when comparing 2 equivalent models between Nikon and Canon, I don't think you'll see any great differences. At least, not from a technical aspect.
 
Here is a comparison between the D600 and 5D Mark II:

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_II-vs-Nikon-D600

The two that caught my eye is reported better noise control at higher ISO and better image quality on the D600... that is pretty amazing given the 5DII excels in both those areas. Looks like a win-win situation either way.

If you are starting from scratch and can get either of these cameras at a similar price (and don't have any lenses yet), I'd go with the D600... looks like better performance and more features (this is coming from a Canon guy).
 
Bio, in Nikon 600 and up is Full Frame. The 600 is an entry level camera introduced last year. It's the first time Nikon produced an entry level full frame. I really can't say anything about it having never touched one. If you look at the 700, which may be available around the same general price since it's an older model, you'd be looking at a more of pro body. The pro bodies are built like tanks. The D800 took the place of the D700, but there's still 700's out there. Metal case with better weather stripping on openings. A lot heavier of a camera, but IMO the pro bodies balance better with the pro lenses. The 300 is the crop camera at the bottom of the pro line. There will most likely be a 400 coming out this year to finish Nikon's line out.

You won't find a best buy or other stores like carrying a 600. It would behoove you to find a store and take a ride to put it in your hands. With my 200, a battery pack, a pro lens and my flash system, there's close to 20 pounds of stuff over my shoulder.
 
Thanks for all the input. I have a better idea where to put my research time into than I did a couple of days ago. Much obliged!
 
Also start reading. The stickys above are good, but make sure you know the basics. Go to camera forums. Photography on the net is Canon, Nikoncafe is Nikon. There's a lot of info you can find out about whatever you choose at one of those places. Didital Photography School is a good site to learn the basics though.
 
Back
Top