Olympus E-420 and General DSLR Questions

xJake

xJake

Active member
I've been mulling over what to do with my Christmas money for the past few weeks, and I was having the hardest time deciding. I've always wanted to take awesome photos such as the ones that seem to have become so commonplace on these forums, and I think that I finally have the desire and (more importantly) available funds to get into the photography hobby with my first DSLR.

I've never had the money to spend on a good-quality camera, but it seems all of my interests have turned toward the field of marine/aquatic biology. I've been going to all these great aquariums (with a trip to the Georgia Aquarium coming up on MLK weekend), and I'm working with some amazing animals at the BGSU Marine Lab and the Toledo Zoo Aquarium. I'm having all these great experiences and see these amazing animals on a regular basis, but I really have no way of sharing my experiences with others the way I'd like to. So, in conclusion, I'm quickly realizing one simple fact - I need a good camera!

I don't really play video games like I used to, and I no longer have a personal reef tank. So, I don't really have anything immediately 'pressing' to spend my Christmas money on. I usually get about $500 for Christmas, and I have $300 leftover from my summer job. So, I have about $800 total to work with. Additionally, I should have some student loan money left over for this next semester (Spring '09) which I don't really want to use for this, but I probably will if it so requires.

I've done my research on cameras, and I think that the Olympus E-420 would probably give me the most useful features for the money that I have to spend. The important features that I think (from what I've read) I'm supposed to be looking for are live view, image stabilization, and dust reduction. I've looked at other cameras in the same price-range, and they simply don't compare to the number of features that the E-420 offers.

This camera has all three of these key features, and it's at a decent price. Obviously I'm new to the DSLR camera world, and I don't really know exactly what I'm looking for. I'd like to just order the body along with a nice starting lens to get going with some aquarium macro-photography (and the obligatory carrying case, memory card, and tripod of course). So, to my point, I have a few questions for you guys, and I'm hoping you can help me out.

1)Is this camera a good choice for aquarium photos? If not then please explain your reasoning and recommend your choice.

2)Does anyone have any direct experience using this camera? If so, please share.

3)Is the "Olympus" brand known for good quality, product durability, and decent customer service? I recognized the name right away, but I don't know much about the company and I can't seem to find much either - outside of reviews for their current products.

4)Can anyone recommend a compatible-lens that would work well with this camera for use specifically with aquariums? I'd also like to be able to take everyday "point-and-shoot" photos, but my top priority is aquarium photography for now.

Also, if anyone could point me to some informative online literature specifically regarding aquarium photography (outside of Marc's site) then I would appreciate it.

I know you guys probably get these types of posts all the time, and I doubt it's any less annoying than what I try to deal with on the other forums. Obviously I'm a bit of a novice at this, but I don't mind asking for help. So, I'd appreciate any input you could offer - don't be afraid to share your opinion (let me know if I'm making a bad choice!). Thanks in advance for your help! :D

Edit:
I forgot to include the link to where I'm planning to buy the camera body.
http://www.buy.com/prod/olympus-evo...era-w-2-7-lcd-dust/q/loc/33409/207910369.html

I've ordered with buy.com before, and I'm confident that I won't have any issues with them. If you know of a place with a better offer or some kind of "package deal" that would work for what I want then please let me know.

Also, here is the link to Olympus' E-420 web-page: http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product=1372
 
Last edited:
The short version:
At first glance I think this camera seems okay. When I bought my DSLR I researched Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, and Olympus. In the end I choose Canon for its superior lens selection. Most people choose Canon or Nikon, but the other three (and others as well) do offer quality products. This camera has a 2x crop factor which will either work for or against you. In most cases, such as reasonably close subjects or those in poor lighting requiring high ISO speeds, probably against you. However if you are into birding or similar long range photography this should be a great asset.

The long version:
You will have to wait a few days until the holiday season calms down and I have time to do any hardcore research for you. sorry =(
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14012408#post14012408 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by TitusvileSurfer
The short version:
At first glance I think this camera seems okay. When I bought my DSLR I researched Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, and Olympus. In the end I choose Canon for its superior lens selection. Most people choose Canon or Nikon, but the other three (and others as well) do offer quality products. This camera has a 2x crop factor which will either work for or against you. In most cases, such as reasonably close subjects or those in poor lighting requiring high ISO speeds, probably against you. However if you are into birding or similar long range photography this should be a great asset.

The long version:
You will have to wait a few days until the holiday season calms down and I have time to do any hardcore research for you. sorry =(
Click to expand...

Thanks. Yeah, I understand things are probably a bit crazy for people with the holidays. I've got plenty of time to kill, as I'm on winter break until 1/12. So, take your time. I appreciate any help you could give me. The 2x crop factor sounds like it would be working against me most of the time, so I think I'll keep shopping around. I was looking at Canon and Nikon originally, so I may have to take another look.

I guess an easier question to answer is: What body and lens combo would you recommend for what I'd like to do and for my price range?

If you missed it in my OP, the range I'm working with is about $800; up to about $1000 (or possibly $1200) with left-over student loan money, but I would like to avoid using this extra $ if possible (I'd like to have some spending money :D ).
 
Last edited:
On the Canon side (what I know best), I would recommend a used Rebel (Xti/400D, Xt/350D, ect.) with a 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens. I'll try to give you a nice detailed report when I can find the time.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/com..._eos400d,canon_eos350d,canon_eos300d&show=all
Check out the "In depth review" of these cameras in the above link. It is pretty in depth. They claim this camera handles noise fairly well so that may not be much an issue after all.
I also recommend http://www.bhphotovideo.com/ as an alternative to your purchasing source (not that the one you have is bad...this one is just IMO the best).
 
Last edited:
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14012533#post14012533 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by TitusvileSurfer
On the Canon side (what I know best), I would recommend a used Rebel (Xti/400D, Xt/350D, ect.) with a 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens. I'll try to give you a nice detailed report when I can find the time.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/com..._eos400d,canon_eos350d,canon_eos300d&show=all
I also recommend http://www.bhphotovideo.com/ as an alternative to your purchasing source (not that the one you have is bad...this one is just IMO the best).
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out.

Edit:

So, I guess I never really even considered buying 'used.' A used body and an awesome lens sounds a lot better than trying to budget for both. I read that in the sticky, but I didn't take it seriously. So, I probably made this post a bit prematurely.

Any good online places specifically to buy used (besides Ebay and the obvious)? i.e. they always seem to have something good in-stock, they have a reliable system in place for 'used' buyer protection, etc.

I have so much to learn... I guess I'll get back to reading and doing more research... Thanks for the help! :)
 
Last edited:
There's nothing wrong with the Olympus. I had a gal in a recent workshop that had one, really liked it and used it to make wonderful images. (If you read Arizona Highways Magazine you may have seen some of them.) It actually has a lot of things going for it. Because it's based on the 4/3 system, and has a 2x crop factor, the lenses contain a lot less glass. That makes them smaller, lighter and sometimes less expensive than just about any system. The 2x crop makes wide angle a bit of a challenge but they have lenses all the way down to an effective 14mm if you're willing to pay for it.

The downside is that the smaller sensor doesn't resist noise as well but if you stay below ~400 ISO it does pretty well. The other caveat is that you don't have the same number of options that you'd get with a larger brand like Canon or Nikon.

If you haven't looked already, take a peak at the sticky at the top of this forum.
 
Yeah I do like the 4/3rds system. Some engineer really had an "aha!" moment when it was conceived. It is a great step forward for cost effective DSLR photography. If you are more concerned with quality than cost, a 1:1 5DmkII would blow a 4/3rds camera out of the water though.
 
My personal opinions and notes of the Olympus E-420:
For illustrations, I will be comparing the Olympus way of doing things with Canon's, simply because I know Canon inside and out which makes things easy on me.

The Olympus DSLR system is very interesting from an engineering standpoint. Everything about it is geared for one purpose: delivering the most bang for the buck. It physically can't provide the maximum quality achievable in higher end Canon DSLRs, but pound for pound, dollar for dollar, the Olympus should put on a better show. To the budget conscious photographer, this entire line of cameras is made specifically for you. Now saving money by comparison is all well and good, but if you are more concerned about quality of the end result, there are better options from other companies.

One of the most expensive aspects of any digital camera is the image sensor. This is the "film" itself, and IMO is the single most important factor of what makes or breaks a camera. Ignoring all other factors, an image sensor alone could vary a camera's cost by thousands of dollars.
A "full frame" sensor, such as that in the new Canon 5Dmk II, imitates 35mm film and measures 36 x 24mm. An "APS-C" or "1.6 crop factor" sensor, such as that in the new Canon 50D, measures 22.2 x 14.8mm. *If you multiply 22.2 or 14.8 by a factor of 1.6, the result is close to the figures of a full frame*.
This 1.6 multiplication is both a blessing and a curse:
1) The smaller sensor will make the camera much less expensive.
2) The smaller sensor will "cut off" the edges of the image which would have been seen by a full frame sensor.
3) If an APS-C sensor and a Full Frame sensor have the same amount of pixels, the APS-C will "magnify" the image by a factor of 1.6. This makes wide angle (i.e. landscape) more difficult vs. a full frame camera.
4) The larger full frame sensor is higher quality. The pixels have more elbow room to work with and usually each individual pixel will be of a higher quality. In the end the full frame will deliver an overall higher quality image.
5) If you are shooting a bird flying through the sky, cutting the edges off of the image to make the bird larger will decrease the clarity of the bird itself. In such a case the smaller sensor with an equal number of pixels should deliver a superior image, it already cuts off the edges while still cramming all of the pixels in the smaller frame. The main thing to understand is that a smaller sensor cuts off the edges of the picture without losing any pixels. This is a very often misunderstood aspect of digital photography, which I bet less than 1 out of 25 DSLR owners even somewhat understand.

Okay, a “Full Frame” sensor measures 36 x 24mm and an Olympus 4/3 sensor measures 17.3 x 13mm. This equates to a 2x crop factor. This makes the overall camera even cheaper than a 1.6x crop factor camera, and all of the pros and cons are amplified to an even more extreme level. If you take a picture of a coral with a 10mp Olympus camera and 100mm lens, that coral will appear twice the size of an image from a 10mp full frame camera, whether you want it to or not.
Olympus of course has thought everything out and have lenses specifically catering to a 2x crop factor camera. The goal is to make the coral actually appear the same size as a full frame camera would see it. Instead of using a 100mm lens, you can get away with a 50mm lens and achieve a similar result. Because you only need half the lens, the basic idea is that you only have to pay a little over half the price. Also because you only need half the lens, you should in theory only have to carry around half the weight through the woods.
One other thing the Olympus lens mount system excels at is being universal with other lenses. The Olympians worked very hard to allow their consumers to use a wide range of lenses with simple adapters. You may lose autofocus but you should, in theory, be able to mount lenses not specifically designed for the camera. Along with Olympus, other companies such as Fuji, Kodak, Leica, Panasonic, Sanyo, and Sigma all make lenses specifically for the 4/3 system.

A smaller sensor, by the laws of physics, will generally have a harder time dealing with digital noise. These are the spots all over the image due to high sensitivity (ISO) speeds. I personally think Olympus did a good job considering what they had to work with. The 4/3 sensors seem to suffer about and extra half stop of noise compared to Canon’s APS-C sensors.
The individual pixels of the sensor are crammed in like sardines and must sacrifice quality to get there.
Depth of field (how much of the picture is sharp vs. blurry) is determined by focal length, aperture, and distance from the subject. In many types of photography, especially portraits, a nice creamy background is generally preferred to a distracting in focus one. The smaller image sensor will have problems creating a small area of focus compared to a full frame camera. In fact the range of the image in sharp focus should double. On the bright side, it is much easier to show more of the subject in focus. A full frame camera can always choose a narrow aperture for more depth of field. A tripod may be suggested in lower light, but it is always an option. The reverse is not true for the 4/3 system.
In closing I would like to say that I like this system. It is innovative, considerate of consumers, and downright practical. Again there are other options for higher quality but if money is a concern this is where I would look. I don’t want to make this sound like a poor man’s camera either. This is an excellent system.

So far I have only talked about the image sensor. I'm going to go out and party with my friends now, but I'll try to review the camera itself tomorrow sometime.
 
I just bought the Olympus E520. There were a couple of reasons I went with it and some benefits I have found. 1)Similar to what was discussed above,bang for the buck. I know there are better cameras out there that are more expensive, but for my first jump into SLR photography I wanted to keep the costs down and was willing to make the trade off initially in quality vs. cost. If I lose interest I haven't spent as much. 2) The situations where the higher end Canons and Nikons are better are going to be in lower light situations/higher ISO shooting/actions shots, which I will do on occasion, but likely won't make up the majority of my shots. 3) Size - I didn't want to lug around a heavy camera. I wanted something a little more nimble weight and volume wise than some of the other cameras. I figured the smaller size would increase the probability of me taking it places/hiking and using it.
4) Olympus does make some really good lens that are quite affordable. Bodies will come and go over time, but as long as you can get quality lenses you will probably be satisfied to a large extent.
5) In body image stabilization compared to in lens stabilization. This adds to the bang for the buck equation, as with Olympus you pay for image stabilization once, compared to every time you buy a new lens with it built into the lens like you will with Canon and Nikon.
6)Olympus makes an underwater housing for the E520 that is very affordable compared to housings for other SLR's. Being a diver who is used to point and shoots, the option of stepping up to a SLR at a cheaper cost also appealed.

The downside to the olympus is that if I decided I wanted to buy a Canon or Nikon at some point and upgrade, my lenses aren't useable with those cameras. So if you think you will want to upgrade at some point to a Canon or Nikon you may want to start out with one of their entry level systems that will be on par with E420/E520 like the canon XSI. You won't get much argument that the Mid/high end NIkons (90D& 300D) and Canons (40/50D)are better. Its just how much better and how much do you care about the incremental difference under some conditions. You will generally get what you pay for.

On the E420 vs. E520, the E420 DOES NOT have image stabilization. For an extra $100 you pick up a few nice features with the e520 at the expense of a little more size.

For reviews of various cameras check out dcresource.com and dpreview.com They may be helpful
 
Quick update:

First, thanks to everyone for your input and suggestions. Thanks especially to TitusvileSurfer, beerguy, and blureef1 - I appreciate the input from everyone.

I spent most of my weekend reading more and more about the different camera systems, and based on this research (and the information from this thread) I decided to invest in a better lens system than Olympus. I also emailed Jay Hemdal (JHemdal) from the Toledo Zoo regarding choosing a DSLR camera, but I didn't hear back until recently. So, I went ahead and ordered a used Canon Rebel XTi for $279 on Sunday night.

The order shipped out as expected on Monday; however, I just received an email from the store I purchased it from (which I won't mention by name) saying that the package was reported by UPS as "damaged in-transit." So, they refunded my money, and I'm back to the online 'shopping arena' to choose another camera.

From my research and others' recommendations (namely Jay), I've decided to invest in the Nikon (Nikkor) SLR system. Jay pointed out to me that camera bodies need to be replaced after so many shutter actuation uses. He went on to say that the lenses are the most important thing, and that he has been using lenses that date to even before the digital age.

I was intrigued by this so I mentioned it to my parents. It turns out that my mom actually has a full set of old, film-style Nikkor F-mount lenses from the 80s. I emailed Nikon regarding the possibility of using these with a new D-SLR. They said that the lenses should attach correctly but they couldn't guarantee if they would work well with the camera - seemed like an odd answer but IMO acceptable. I was especially fine with this response since they were trying to help without any real details on my part, and I can understand that they probably want to sell more of their new "digitally optimized" lenses - as all business is about making money.

So, moving on, to get ready for the arrival of my new camera, I decided to begin practicing with my old P&S (point-and-shoot) Kodak Easyshare. I'd like to post these photos en masse, but I've never done so on RC. I know there is some kind of limit on the number of photos per post, but I don't know what it is - if anyone could let me know.

It turns out that my Kodak P&S wasn't so crappy after all, and what was causing it to take such horrible photos was a protective film that had been put on the front of the camera's lens for shipping. Duh! I felt completely stupid when I found it...

I had tried taking macro photos with my Kodak before, and they always turned out blurry and out of focus - even when it was supposedly "in-focus" on the preview screen. I just figured it was the camera or maybe something I was doing, but it turns out I was wrong.

Actually, the camera is pretty awesome for how cheap it was ($50), and it takes decent-quality macro photos when the subject isn't moving around without stopping (i.e. pretty much any reef fish I tried to photograph).

The only major issue I found was with any lighting greater than 10000K in color temperature. This lighting caused everything to be covered in a blue "wash," and most of my photos turned out dark and colorless (besides blue of course).

I was able to easily correct this issue in Photoshop by simply reducing the blue-levels and increasing the other color levels. I know, "PS is cheating," but I tend to look at it as more of a way to 'correct' the photos rather than to enhance them - which I would justify by the fact that I used a less-than-great quality camera. Besides, I don't know of any major publication or photographer that doesn't use Photoshop on almost every image they produce.

Anyway, I'm getting ready to post a few hundred of my usable practice photos, and I'm typing out my posts in MS Word first so that I can just copy/paste each post into my new photo thread without the hassle of typing everything as I go.

So, to my point... I feel dumb for even asking, but I've been trying to narrow down what the exact limit is for the number of photos in each post and I've been having no luck finding that small piece of info. So, if you could please clue me in as to what the limit is. I apologize if this is something that is already posted somewhere else - which would make me feel even more stupid/ignorant (especially if it's in a really obvious place).

Anyway, thanks again for everyone's help. I need to get back to sorting photos and adjusting blue levels in Photoshop. I've got 400 down and 2300 to go. Wish me luck! :D
 
As a Canon man I perked up a little when you mentioned buying a used Xti. Then I read about UPS and their shipping issue. All I can say is be thankful it was reported “damaged in-transit”. Recently one of our members claimed UPS stole the contents of his box twice. In the end B&H, where he purchased the camera from, refunded his money and he ended up happy.

Then I went on to read about your Nikon decision, which I hope will work out very well for you. Already having access to a range of lenses right from the start will be a dream come true. I am curious as to exactly which lenses you will have though. You should list them all here. I want the LONG version of the name. For example: "AF Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR". When Nikon told you they “should attach correctly but they couldn't guarantee if they would work well”, without more information that is about the answer I would have given you. Just how well the lenses work will depend entirely on the camera you choose. Autofocus is probably going to be the first perk to drop. Aperture control may be next. Of course I am just speculating, but you may not be able to control the aperture setting of the lens. This would mean you could only shoot with the lens wide open i.e. f/2.8 or whatever the widest increment is. While I shoot with my lenses wide open on a very regular basis, being forced to do so would be annoying and reduce the creativity factor of the camera by 90%. We will have to first figure out exactly what lenses you have. If these lenses aren’t all that great anyway, perhaps having them will be more of a novelty than actual work horses. If these lenses were high quality then, chances are they still are and selecting a camera for the sole purpose of working well with them sounds like an exciting endeavor.

Now your Kodak Easyshare scandal made me laugh. Oh man I got a kick out of it. I keep an Easyshare (it was a Christmas present like 5 years ago) in my bag always. If I am out with a friend who doesn’t have a camera, I’ll hand it off to them while I run the big guns. Few of my friends know what aperture or shutter speed is and frankly they couldn’t care less, so keep it in the bag for them. Honestly I wouldn’t bother posting all the pictures you got from it. I am assuming for a $50 camera that you weren’t really telling the camera what to do anyway. So if the camera did something right or did something wrong…there isn’t much you could have done to change it. I suggest you post your 5 best photos and your 5 worst. This way we can tell you what the camera did and you can learn from that. If you post 100 pictures, I can tell you right now I won’t spend more than 1-2 seconds looking at each one. 1/4 of the way down the list I’ll probably start scrolling through even faster unless something happens to catch my eye. So post 10, 5 good and 5 bad. 3 good and 3 bad would be even better. The fewer pictures you post, the more time I will be willing to spend on each one. Make sure you post the original blue version as well (the original and corrected Photoshop version counts as 1 picture…but be sure to include the original). Don’t post 100 pictures because…honestly…unless this is a thread where you are documenting your tank from the ground up or there is some other reason to have 100 pictures, nobody will want to look at them.
 
Last edited:
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14044826#post14044826 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by TitusvileSurfer
As a Canon man I perked up a little when you mentioned buying a used Xti. Then I read about UPS and their shipping issue. All I can say is be thankful it was reported “damaged in-transit”. Recently one of our members claimed UPS stole the contents of his box twice. In the end B&H, where he purchased the camera from, refunded his money and he ended up happy.

Then I went on to read about your Nikon decision, which I hope will work out very well for you. Already having access to a range of lenses right from the start will be a dream come true. I am curious as to exactly which lenses you will have though. You should list them all here. I want the LONG version of the name. For example: "AF Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR". When Nikon told you they “should attach correctly but they couldn't guarantee if they would work well”, without more information that is about the answer I would have given you. Just how well the lenses work will depend entirely on the camera you choose. Autofocus is probably going to be the first perk to drop. Aperture control may be next. Of course I am just speculating, but you may not be able to control the aperture setting of the lens. This would mean you could only shoot with the lens wide open i.e. f/2.8 or whatever the widest increment is. While I shoot with my lenses wide open on a very regular basis, being forced to do so would be annoying and reduce the creativity factor of the camera by 90%. We will have to first figure out exactly what lenses you have. If these lenses aren’t all that great anyway, perhaps having them will be more of a novelty than actual work horses. If these lenses were high quality then, chances are they still are and selecting a camera for the sole purpose of working well with them sounds like an exciting endeavor.

Now your Kodak Easyshare scandal made me laugh. Oh man I got a kick out of it. I keep an Easyshare (it was a Christmas present like 5 years ago) in my bag always. If I am out with a friend who doesn’t have a camera, I’ll hand it off to them while I run the big guns. Few of my friends know what aperture or shutter speed is and frankly they couldn’t care less, so keep it in the bag for them. Honestly I wouldn’t bother posting all the pictures you got from it. I am assuming for a $50 camera that you weren’t really telling the camera what to do anyway. So if the camera did something right or did something wrong…there isn’t much you could have done to change it. I suggest you post your 5 best photos and your 5 worst. This way we can tell you what the camera did and you can learn from that. If you post 100 pictures, I can tell you right now I won’t spend more than 1-2 seconds looking at each one. 1/4 of the way down the list I’ll probably start scrolling through even faster unless something happens to catch my eye. So post 10, 5 good and 5 bad. 3 good and 3 bad would be even better. The fewer pictures you post, the more time I will be willing to spend on each one. Make sure you post the original blue version as well (the original and corrected Photoshop version counts as 1 picture…but be sure to include the original). Don’t post 100 pictures because…honestly…unless this is a thread where you are documenting your tank from the ground up or there is some other reason to have 100 pictures, nobody will want to look at them.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the old film lenses would be more of a novelty project than anything. I've played around with them in the past, using my mom's old film camera, but from what I remember, I could never figure out how to use them correctly. It's been a few years, so I'm definitely willing to try them out once my mom figures out where she has them boxed away. I don't think I'd like to order a camera body specifically for use with the film lenses, unless the compatibility with Nikon/Nikkor is so broad that it wouldn't make a difference.

What I'm probably going to do with the Easyshare photos I took is just post the ones that I like the best (about 20-25 or so in total) with the before and after PS versions (side-by-side) like you mentioned. A large number of them turned out awesome, but I'll only actually post my favorites and then put a link to my public photobucket gallery if anyone is interested in seeing the rest. I'll probably then post these 20-25 over a period of a few days

The photos aren't of any of my personal tanks, and some of the animals I was able to shoot are rarer than what many hobbyists are used to seeing. I'm also not supposed to mention where I took the photos as a condition of me being allowed to post them online (so please don't ask).

After reading/researching about SLR cameras, I looked through the settings on my Kodak ES and quickly found myself thinking, "Oh, I know what that is. I didn't even realize you could change that." So, as a result, I actually was adjusting the few settings I could to help improve photo quality.

So, as an example, for still shots of coral, I would adjust the shutter speed or "ISO setting" to "ISO80" (the lowest speed). For attempting to catch a constantly fast-moving fish I would change the speed to "ISO400" (the highest). For shooting a fish that would sit still for short intervals and then keep moving, I would lower the speed from "ISO400" to one of the slower speeds to get a better-looking shot. I definitely was able to pick-up on the subtleties of changing the shutter speed, and I don't think my photos would look anywhere near as good.

Also, I adjusted the [rather arbitrary] exposure (aperture) settings to keep the photos from getting washed out by the tank lighting, which tends to happen quite regularly when shooting under metal halide lighting - as I quickly discovered.

I wish my ES had manual focus (as the auto- didn't recognize anything closer than about 6 inches), but unfortunately it's so streamlined that they must have thought it would confuse people and just left it out. So, I was forced to rely on the camera's pretty terrible auto-focus feature. I did have some degree of manipulation with the focus, but it wasn't anything major. Basically, I was able to select from several different points in on the preview screen on which to focus, but it just wasn't the same as manually adjusting the lens to achieve that "sweet spot."

Finally, IMO, the most important thing I did was to use a 5-gallon bucket as a sort of "tripod" (which by-definition of having only one leg was actually a "monopod"). This allowed me to keep the camera rock-steady, and it definitely increased my confidence.

So, basically, I wouldn't give the camera all of the credit, as I was consciously adjusting the settings I could. It definitely did play a significant role though, and I can't really claim otherwise.

Anyway, I've got more photos to go through and upload to photobucket. Then I have to decide which ones I'm going to post. I'll start a new thread for that, and then I'll be sure to put the link here.

More importantly, I now have more time to mull over which camera I'm going to buy. Mostly I'm interested in getting a Nikon/Nikkor system because they're so specialized in optical devices, and their lens system has remained so compatible over the greater part of the past century. Also, Nikon comes highly recommended from several people that I've gotten advice from.

Sorry to disappoint you with not getting the Canon - I know you must be so distraught :lol: . I was feeling a bit of "buyer's remorse" anyway, as I never thought to check what the shutter actuation was on the used XTi I ordered - which Jay pointed out to me. It was pretty convenient that the whole UPS situation happened, and I'm thinking I'll take that as an omen that I shouldn't get the Canon - such excellent reasoning and logic on my part :) . So... back to Photoshop...

BTW, here is a quick preview of the photos I took - it's one of my favorites:
102_1706PS.jpg
 
Last edited:
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14045492#post14045492 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by xJake

So, as an example, for still shots of coral, I would adjust the shutter speed or "ISO setting" to "ISO80" (the lowest speed). For attempting to catch a constantly fast-moving fish I would change the speed to "ISO400" (the highest).
Click to expand...
That isn't shutter speed. ISO is something completely different. They are somewhat related though, as one effects the other. I don't think you can adjust your camera's shutter speed directly.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14045492#post14045492 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by xJake

Also, I adjusted the [rather arbitrary] exposure (aperture) settings to keep the photos from getting washed out by the tank lighting, which tends to happen quite regularly when shooting under metal halide lighting - as I quickly discovered.
Click to expand...
Same thing, I don't think you have the capability to change the aperture. Regardless aperture has little to do with a photo being washed out by lighting. You may have been thinking of white balance?


<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14045492#post14045492 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by xJake

I wish my ES had manual focus (as the auto- didn't recognize anything closer than about 6 inches), but unfortunately it's so streamlined that they must have thought it would confuse people and just left it out.
Click to expand...
Yes manual focus on a point and shoot is usually inaccurate and awkward. Because the lens is so tiny, you generally push a button telling a motor to focus in or focus out for you. The result is generally worse than auto focus whether you know what your doing or not. I think your camera wouldn't auto focus closer than 6 inches because it is impossible to focus on anything closer than 6 inches with your camera. Manual focus wouldn't have changed that.
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14045492#post14045492 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by xJake

Finally, IMO, the most important thing I did was to use a 5-gallon bucket as a sort of "tripod" (which by-definition of having only one leg was actually a "monopod"). This allowed me to keep the camera rock-steady, and it definitely increased my confidence.
Click to expand...
Monostool? Nice work at any rate.
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14045492#post14045492 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by xJake

Sorry to disappoint you with not getting the Canon - I know you must be so distraught :lol:
Click to expand...
Hehehe. Yeah a little. If you think Nikon sounds like a better deal, more power to you. I wish Nikon the best of luck because if they do well it keeps Canon on their toes which means better/cheaper products for me. I don't necessarily follow your logic on the lens scenario though. My main reason for choosing Canon over Nikon above all others was that Canon had the better lenses.

Some of these photos you are talking about sound interesting. I am intrigued.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14045626#post14045626 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by TitusvileSurfer
That isn't shutter speed. ISO is something completely different. They are somewhat related though, as one effects the other. I don't think you can adjust your camera's shutter speed directly.


Same thing, I don't think you have the capability to change the aperture. Regardless aperture has little to do with a photo being washed out by lighting. You may have been thinking of white balance?



Yes manual focus on a point and shoot is usually inaccurate and awkward. Because the lens is so tiny, you generally push a button telling a motor to focus in or focus out for you. The result is generally worse than auto focus whether you know what your doing or not. I think your camera wouldn't auto focus closer than 6 inches because it is impossible to focus on anything closer than 6 inches with your camera. Manual focus wouldn't have changed that.

Monostool? Nice work at any rate.

Hehehe. Yeah a little. If you think Nikon sounds like a better deal, more power to you. I wish Nikon the best of luck because if they do well it keeps Canon on their toes which means better/cheaper products for me. I don't necessarily follow your logic on the lens scenario though. My main reason for choosing Canon over Nikon above all others was that Canon had the better lenses.

Some of these photos you are talking about sound interesting. I am intrigued.
Click to expand...

I was just sort of guessing at the terms. Thanks for the corrections. I thought they weren't the same thing at first, but then I second-guessed myself and changed it. So, I guess I have some more learning to do.

All of the information regarding ISO that I was reading kept referring to film speed, but I really have no idea how that applies to a digital camera. In turn, I got confused and thought that it was shutter speed. I'm guessing the setting probably changes the image sensor to respond in a similar fashion to the different film speeds.

The "exposure (aperture)" setting turned out to be "exposure compensation" which definitely isn't the same thing. When I said "washed out" I think the term I was looking for was actually "overexposed" - where the image is sort of overwhelmed by the presence of high-level light.

When I was talking about the camera not being able to recognize anything closer than 6-inches, I was referring to the fact that the camera would use the autofocus motor in an attempt to focus on what I wanted. It would reach perfect focus on subject, and then it would go too far past it and go out of focus again. I tried to get it to properly focus hundreds of times, but it didn't seem to want to cooperate with me.

I did manage to successfully take a couple of extreme close-ups (<6" away), but in order to achieve this, I had to either back away from the tank and then zoom in (which increased the vibration noise and isn't even a true close-up) or find a subject with some sort of high-contrast background to take the picture in front of (i.e. the white-bottom of the tank) which allowed the autofocus to successfully find and focus on the subject.

Actually, I just happen to have one of the extreme close-ups open in PS. Here's a photo of some Duncanopsammia axifuga:

102_1791PS.jpg


I'll be posting the rest tomorrow, as I need a few hours to let them upload to my photobucket account (which I'll do overnight tonight).
 
You will need to look up:
Shutter Speed
Aperture
ISO
These are all different but each effects the other two. If you move the ISO up, the camera is forced to change either the aperture or the shutter speed to compensate, based on the exposure compensation you have selected. When you use exposure compensation, you are telling the camera to use too much (or too little) shutter speed or too much (or too little) aperture. You can't pick which one though.

Don't forget to list all of your lenses. I am very curious to hear about them.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14047137#post14047137 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by TitusvileSurfer
Don't forget to list all of your lenses. I am very curious to hear about them.
Click to expand...

Oops! I forgot to list them. My mom told me they're the original AI (automatic indexing) series circa 1977 and she bought them used in 1981 as a formerly aspiring photographer (she's now a psychologist). I found the case with them all together, but it looks like there may be 2 or 3 missing. Here's what was in the case:

Nikkor 20mm f/2.8
Nikkor 24mm f/2.8
Nikkor 28mm f/2.8
Nikkor 35mm f/1.4
Nikkor 50mm f/1.4

She thinks she had a 105mm, but she said she may have lent it to a friend and never got it back. The 35mm is pretty well-worn, but that would make sense since she used it the most.

I found this chart: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm#dslr so it definitely looks promising.

Also, I've been looking at deals like this on Ebay: http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-D80-Digit...0366&_trksid=p4295.c0.m299&_trkparms=240:1308

Are these too good to be true? I mean... a new D80, 5 lenses, and all the accessories for less than $1000? That just seems unreal, but they have a 99.4% positive rating.
 
Wow. Those are very nice. It will probably take you a while to build up an arsenal of current lenses that will be better. If I was in your shoes, I would go out of my way to specifically buy the camera that will work best with them. Those are not cheap pieces of glass. Of course, using these lenses means you need a D200 or better. Unless you are a photographic genius, which no offense I don't think you are, you will get little use out of these lenses with a D80. Not being able to meter off of anything would be a nightmare, although it would be better than no selectable aperture. With the AI lenses you select the aperture on the lens itself. Basically the camera won't tell you if the picture is going to be too dark or too bright, leaving you to guess. You could buy a hand held meter for a D80 though. If I had those lenses and a D80 I would try it out just to see and then give up. Yes I do think that e-bay deal sounds too good to be true and I wouldn't trust it. Buy a used D200, D300, or (really nice) a new D700. You already have 5 (or 6) good lenses. I guarantee your mom's lenses are better than whatever trash is in that value pack.
 
Last edited:
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14047931#post14047931 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by TitusvileSurfer
Wow. Those are very nice. It will probably take you a while to build up an arsenal of current lenses that will be better. If I was in your shoes, I would go out of my way to specifically buy the camera that will work best with them. Those are not cheap pieces of glass. Of course, using these lenses means you need a D200 or better. Unless you are a photographic genius, which no offense I don't think you are, you will get little use out of these lenses with a D80. Not being able to meter off of anything would be a nightmare, although it would be better than no selectable aperture. With the AI lenses you select the aperture on the lens itself. Basically the camera won't tell you if the picture is going to be too dark or too bright, leaving you to guess. You could buy a hand held meter for a D80 though. If I had those lenses and a D80 I would try it out just to see and then give up. Yes I do think that e-bay deal sounds too good to be true and I wouldn't trust it. Buy a used D200, D300, or (really nice) a new D700. You already have 5 (or 6) good lenses. I guarantee your mom's lenses are better than whatever trash is in that value pack.
Click to expand...

Awesome. I'll be on the lookout for a used D200 or better. I actually looked up what "no meter" meant just after I posted, so I knew right away that I'd probably have to go with one of the higher-end cameras if I wanted to stick with the older lenses. I think it's obvious, even to me, that I'm no photography genius - hehe. Also, I was only looking at the D80 because that's what came up when I searched Ebay; I haven't actually decided what camera I'm going to get. The Ebay pack just looks too much like a scam, and I don't want to risk getting ripped off, so as per your comment, I'll avoid it.

I guess it all depends on what I can find within the next couple weeks, but I'm strongly considering buying one of the cameras that will be compatible with the lenses I already have. I'm pretty fickle when it comes to most things, so I may end up taking another look at the Canon if I can't find the Nikon I want at a decent price. Anyway, thanks for your advice. I'll be sure to keep you posted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Emanuel92
What lighting for S. haddoni and E. quadricolor?
2
Replies
20
Views
775
Hong Kong
Hong Kong
Justin Hill
Help! Recover camera photos after SD card crash?
Replies
10
Views
713
midnightbast
M
T
220G Tank Setup - Flow/General Advice Needed
2
Replies
23
Views
1K
The Reef Addict
T
S
Top cross frame broken on 50 gallon glass bow front tank
Replies
2
Views
260
SantaMonica
S
S
Thinking about starting again!
2 3
Replies
59
Views
2K
Reefing102
Reefing102
Back
Top