Good info thank!

For high-iso grain though, a good digital will be able to go to higher ISO than film without grain though, won't it? I thought this was a big advantage of digital over film.

The other reason I like (or at least I THINK I will like digital, I have no experience with any SLR yet) is the lcd screen for previewing pictures, and the ability to take 1500 pictures on a single card and only develop the pictures I like. Plus the easy photo editing.

I think I would miss some good pictures with film, because I am too cheap to buy that many rolls of film and use them!

digital doesn't get grain on high iso? yes and no.

With film, there's a thing called reciprocity failure. Where once your exposure is past a second and a half, each additional second of exposure you have to double your exposure time. Think of it as an exponential curve, and remember that increased exposure time means more grain. And you'll notice that second, red curve, density. That's basically how much information is recorded. The longer the exposure, the less information recorded. You'll get a washed out image that requires you to "push" your film, and develop it longer, further decreasing image quality.

here's a chart showing what happens.
http://www.esopenko.com/images/filmgrain.gif
(c) Kodak

Digital has no reciprocity effect, so long exposures have the possibility of less grain, but unfortunately, digital's grain pattern is much more noticable, and very anti-aesthetic compared to film's grain pattern. And digital normally can't do exposures longer than 15 seconds, because areas of the CCD will overheat, and you'll get "hot spots" on your photograph. Usually around the corners, and little white spots will show up in the photograph.

But you'll almost never need to go past 15 seconds for longer exposures, so either will look pretty good. Digital will never look as good as film though in the darker regions of your photograph.

A good, and quick stress test you can do with a digital camera in store is to switch the camera to fully manual mode, and set the exposure to "bulb." That's where the exposure is as long as you hold the button for. (If you don't know how to do that, ask the sales associate to show you how. If they won't show you, or if they don't know how and won't ask somone how to do it, walk away and go to another store; they've just failed their customer service test lol.) Then take like a 6 second exposure with the lense cap on, and review the black picture. Zoom in real close with the camera's preview function, and look at the nasty grain, because black is the hardest part of an image for a digital camera to photograph. Look for a camera where you find a good grain pattern, if grain is an important issue for you.

And yeah, you're exactly right about the benefit of being able to shoot thousands of photographs. I went the route of digital before film, because the time involved with developing every single roll of film before you see whether you messed up or not is kinda crappy. And camera's screen is a nice review of whether your focus was good or not, and whether you got the correct exposure. Oh and if you're shooting in RAW format, which I'm sure you eventually will, you'll be lucky if your card holds 150 :). A photo looks horrible when JPG compression has to deal with grain.

.oO(I wish they'd hurry up and bring JPEG2000 out...)

Wow, so much to learn, thanks for the insights.

I am taking a full 3 credit class on digital photography in January, so hopefully this will make more sense after that!

I'm getting a 6 gig card, how big are RAW files about?

With my camera each raw file is 13.88 meg. I get 151 pics to a gig.

RAW files are "unprocessed" images at the native resolution of the camera, and image size depends on ISO and how each picture is exposed. You can then open a RAW file with the camera's software or Photoshop, (if the RAW format for your camera is supported in Photoshop), and tweak exposure, whit balance, saturation, colour balance settings and more. What used to be an art in the darkroom is now able to be previewed on a screen before "post processing" a RAW file to a final image file such as a TIF or JPEG.

Why do I know this? Because photography is another passion of mine besides reefkeeping. I carefully researched and purchased a Canon 20D system this spring. While all the other company's are offering some innovative "prosumer" products at some fantastic prices, I chose Canon because of their proven technology and commitment to their higher end stuff... I had a Digital Rebel before I bought this system and had to sell it a couple of years ago, so I had a practice run at buying this stuff which made this time around much easier AND more expensive. Avoid kit lenses and consumer grade zoom lenses. While a 28 - 300 zoom might sound like a wonderful all-in-one lens, good luck getting consistently clear, sharp images, especially if you have less than sunlight to shoot in. I paid around $7500 for my system and primarily bought it off eBay. I compared local, and national companies, but in the end saved more than $5000, (that's right five THOUSAND), by doing it over a 3 month period looking for the deals on eBay. After getting my first high end lens I was hooked on the expensive glass and that's all I have.

Just for the availability and variety of accessories I really recommend Canon or Nikon. Their products are relaible, the technology proven, and ask any pro and they'll tell you nothing compares when it comes to their glass. Even the Zeiss glass used in Sony's camera's is a "consumer" grade. Canon by all accounts has the best noise/ISO ratio and I prefer their CMOS as opposed to CCD sensor technology as their pixel density is the best in the business. The Fuji S3 could also be an option, they have probably the best dynamic range of all DSLR's and take Nikon glass... just a little clunky to use IMO.

All I can say is that if you intend to be into photography in any serious way at all, be it pro or amateur, don't look for the bottom buck solution... your results will suffer and you will only end up frustrated... I hope this gives a little insight.

Reeferaddict which lenses would you recommend? I also have a Canon 20D system. I have a few lenses for it but I think the 2 that I am happiest with (and yes they were definately the most expensive) are my 75-200 and a 100mm macro lense. I am looking for a wide angle lense and after a while go cross eyed trying to read and understand all of the info out there. Care to make a recommendation on a good zoom and wide angle lense for this camera.

oh oh ... and a fisheye lense. :mrgreen:

Yuck Yuck Yuck - everyone is a comedian:biggrin:

Reeferaddict, I will do some research on the 20D, looks like a nice camera, very similar to the Nikon D70s I am about to order.

What lenses do you have, and recommend for the 20D? I will have to start with some cheap kit lenses, but eventually want a 100mm macro, a 12-24ish zoom, 18-70ish, and a 70-300ish.

This is the zoom lens that I have for my Canon - I also have a 70-300 lens but the far superiour pictures come from this lens
http://http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-EF-...QQcmdZViewItem

The 20D carries a bit heftier price tag than the D70s, just out of my price range, I get $1500 to buy everything for now, including shipping, exchange, brokerage, etc.

I can get away with that for the D70s, but not the 20D :sad:

sounds like a joke but really its not. :wink:

http://www.bugeyedigital.com/moreinf...rfe180pro.html
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...s/fish15mm.htm

Rory - You'll be very happy with the D70s... IMO not quite a 20 or 30D but a very good camera for the price none the less... and Nikon's kit lenses actually fare a little bit better than Canon.

Ruth - I bought my 20D with the 17-85 IS kit lens, a decent all-round lens, and I have also acquired a 28-70 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 300 4.0L IS, 135 2.8 Soft Focus, and for wide I went with the 10-22 3.5-4.5. The 10-22 is an absolutely amazing lens for wide stuff. I couldn't recommend anything else after having owned this lens. I have compared it to the 17-85 and there simply is no comparison... I'll go through some of my images to post so you can have a look later this week. (Maybe some tank shots? haha)

I went all Canon this time as I had bought a Tamron 90 2.8 for my previous camera, (Digital Rebel), and it gave me an error on my 20D. I had it rechipped, but since sold it as I want all my lenses to be compatible with any future bodies I may get. (D1s Mark II) Right now my macro solution is a set of extension tubes I use primarily with the 135 prime lens. As far as I'm concerned you have the best macro lens Canon makes, (not counting the 180 3.5L) as long as you have the USM version. I really DO recommend going with manufacturers lenses for compatibility reasons along with the fact that they really hold their value as well. I'm so happy I went this route. With my previous system I was buying $300 - $500 consumer lenses and always wanted "one more lens"... Now that I have these, I have no desire to go out & get another lens as I know I can't get any better. Well... I DO desire a 600 f4... but that'll cost almost as much as my reef tank!

There ARE some awesome 3rd party lenses out there, but a little hit & miss with quality and compatibility issues, so another reason to stay with manufacturers lenses be it Canon OR Nikon... One thing about Nikon though, they have clearly shifted their focus to the consumer line as evidenced by the D50 commercials that are continuously on TV, while Canon has held the course with it's commitment to the "Prosumer" line they started with the Digital Rebel and 10D.

More important than the number of pixels is the size of the CCD sensor. You can have 11Meg pixels on a 1/2 inch sensor and have poorer quality than a 6Meg pixel on a 2/3 inch sensor. For the 11Meg pixel camera just means they could stuff more or smaller pixels into a smaller size sensor. Better quality is achieved with large number of pixels on a large sensor.

We used to have a coolpix 990 and have a D70s.

Here is a good link http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml

Doug

Sensor size on the bunch of cameras we are looking at are identical I believe, or all very close. That is why I am not worried about the D70s haveing only 6 megapixel compared to the others with 8 or 10.

Notice the lenses that reeferaddict likes are 2.8L . A faster len's is what you will always want and need. 3.5 to 5.6 will only cut it for outdoor shots and especially on the long zoom at 5.6. The slower f4 L are nice but you will need high iso capabilities for indoor shots w/o flash. F2.0 and faster will kill the old pocket book in a hurry but I can garantee faster is better and anybody considering a DSLR should take this into consideration. Price what len's you need first. Body's will come and go.

Exactly - and when you compare Canon's stable of lenses to Nikon's these days, it just doesn't come close. I can trade my 20D up and forward anytime now that I have the high quality fast glass. The other thing that 2.8 offers is lightning quick auto focus, even in low light... the difference between my Rebel with consumer glass and my 20D with Pro glass is hard to describe, you almost have to feel and see it for yourself to understand, which is really pronounced with the Image Stabilizing lenses. You frame your object and watch it in a shaky screen, push the shutter release button down halfway and the image miraculously "goes still" so to speak. It will be interesting to see how Sony's built in IS is going to work and what type of new lenses they will design. When I shot film I shot a Maxxum 9000 - Minolta used to make some pretty good gear, so it will be worth watching to see if Sony can extend that into the digital market.

I agree that the faster lenses are definately superiour from my limited experience.
For a point and shoot camera I have ordered a Fuji Finepix S9000 9.0MP as there are times when I don't want to mess around with a larger camera.

The "pro" glass from Canon does seem to be a bit faster than the Nikon equivilents.

But the Canon "kit" lenses are weaker than Nikon's, so I am torn, because for quite a while I will only have kit lenses, but eventually want to invest in pro lenses, so what to do!

I could get the rebel XT, but it feels a bit small in my hands.

Hmmmm, researching a bit more, with a vertical/batter grip on the Rebel XT, that might be a nice camera.

If I was to buy two lenses of decent quality, would these be good choices:

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens
Canon EF 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 DO IS USM lens

I know these are not as fast as 2.8 or 3.5, but price is a problem.

These are very similar to the Nikon lenses I was going to get, but both of these have image stabilization in them, wheras the Nikon ones I was thinking of, do not.

I have the 70-300 lens that you are referring to and would not recommend it. The picture quality is just not there.
I think you would be better off to go for one good all around lens with an F of 2.8 or lower. JMO

Ruth, which telephoto lense would recommend then?

I think I posted a link to the one I prefer on a previous page on this thread. 70-200. Of course the one I would really like is a 600mm IS lens but right now that is a bit out of my price range.
http://http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-Tel...QQcmdZViewItem

I got my 20D with the 17-85 lens for $1500 landed off eBay - the deals are out there - just watch for positive feedback. IS gives you up to 3 stops more of hand held ability, and I notice a larger percentage of keepers. There's nothing wrong with the Rebel XT either... I had the original 300D and was quite satisfied with it - what I did wrong in that system was to buy cheap glass. I had the battery grip with the 300D, (as I do with my 20D), and coupled with that, the Rebel felt like a pro camera in my hands. I think they key is the glass, which is why I went this way, now when I want to upgrade to a full frame camera I have the lenses that will deliver image quality I demand.

I really think your decision is subjective. Analyze what you want to shoot - then buy accordingly. If you'll never shoot sports or in low light, then you won't need 2.8 lenses. The caveat of big aperature glass is the learning curve required to use them as the depth of field is paper thin, especially when the subject is close, making the lenses seem "soft" when the aperature is wide open. Once you use them and discover the "sweet spot" of the lens though, you won't be able to go back to consumer lenses. Primes are almost always faster and give much better image quality than zooms, even the 135 soft focus at $300 gives as sharp if not sharper images than my $1800 70-200 2.8L IS... all I can say is research research research... dpreview and Fred Miranda are probably the best two sites to do this.

*** A note about buying on eBay ***

I bought my whole system and never had a single problem. Don't use UPS for shipping across the border. Their brokerage fees are outrageous, $58.00 minimum... USPS charges $8.00... Hong Kong or Far East eBay retailers will mark your shipments as "gift" or "commercial sample" so you don't have to pay GST or PST, and there is no duty on digital cameras or accessories. I found that buying accessories like filters, remote shutters, and flash accessories was cheapest this way - close to 50% savings over even Adorama. Again I stress to watch for positive feedback, and don't buy anything without using Paypal.

The 70-200 f4 is widely regarded as the "best bang for your buck" and has "L" glass to boot... can be had for around $5 - 600 used - $7 - 800 new.

I guess that is an option, going with the 20D and just the 17-85 lense instead of the Rebel XT with 17-85 IS plus 70-300 IS.

But I think I would miss the telephoto too much, and the difference between the rebel xt and 20d is going to take me a long time to notice. By the time I could say that I should have bought the 20D, then I will just buy the latest and greatest body, which will be better than the 20D.

Did you go with Canon battery grip, or 3rd party?

That would the the 30D... lol

I went Canon all the way. Their grip also has vertical controls on it so you don't have to fumble for buttons if you're shooting in portrait orientation. It was actually one of the deciding factors as I really like having the dual controls and grip. Nikon doesn't make a grip, and the 3rd party grips for Nikon are cheaply constructed and don't have the vertical shutter release.

If you really want to go that route and will miss the zoom I can fix you up with a decent Sigma 70-300 4-5.6 for $100. It has a crack on the barrel, (purchased retail at a discount that way), but is optically clean and works perfectly. It was one of the cheap zooms I bought with my previous system and wasn't a bad lens, especially for $100.

I am definately leaning more towards Canon now, especially with the vertical grip information.

Good info on the sigma, i'll let you know once I figure out what the heck I am ordering. (will be within the next week or two so I get it in time for my honeymoon)

What about flashes for canon? Do you have one you recommend? There is a knock off brand Sakor

They Canon EF 70-200mm F4 L USM, does this have image stabilization though? I will be doing mostly handheld photography, more than tripod.

My use of the camera is for aquarium pictures, and nature pictures primarily.

Rory - the 70-200 f4 L doesn't have IS... that being said IS will do nothing for your aquarium shots as it compensates for camera shake not subject movement. Same goes for nature shots. IS is AWESOME when you are shooting a static subject at 200 mm and want to hand hold using a shutter speed of less than 1/200. No matter what, get a tripod, I recommend a Monfrotto 055 with a ball or grip head. Don't waste your money on a cheaper one, these ones fold and splay into any configuration you can imagine and pack nicely.

I went with the 580EX and 430EX flashes. Again on the expensive side, but ETTL II works superbly and the through the lens communication totally takes the guesswork out of flash photography. If you get a 3rd party flash, Sigma is the only one worth it's salt, the rest are junk... ask away, anything I can do to help & I will.... I read up for a month before I bought and had the added experience of buying a sub par system before that to know what I really wanted. :mrgreen:

I appreciate the help, thank you so much.

This may be a dum question, but why do you need two flashes?

The IS on the 17-85 will help with hand-held aquarium pictures won't it?
For nature shots, I mean walking/hiking, and I see landscapes and animals I want to shoot, won't the IS be a help there?

The price difference between the 70-300 IS and the 70-200 F4 L is very little, which would you recommend then, the 70-200 even though there is no IS? My other lense would likely be the 17-85 IS.

Maybe I am missunderstanding what IS really does, can you explain?

Do you have any experience using extension tubes for macro photography without an actualy macro lense?

Yup I would be willing to sell my lens as well for a good price if reeferaddicts deal falls through. I think you would be way better off to just save up and buy better quality lenses though.

Ruth, how much would you want for your lense?

The only dumb question is the one you never ask....

I got two flashes because they work as a master/slave combination so that you can have one off camera to provide lighting from a different angle to cut down on glare and provide fill flash etc. Straight on flash photography throws harsh shadows and highlights that scream "FLASH SHOT". I also got an ST-E2 flash transmitter so I can use both units off camera as slaves wirelessly. Both are about the same except the 430 will only act as a slave and the 580 is more powerful and will act as a master or a slave.

OK... on to IS...

When you are shooting, to eliminate blurry photos due to camera shake the recommended shutter speed is 1/focal length. So if you are shooting a 300 mm lens your shutter speed should be less than 1/300. This has absolutely no bearing on "stopping motion" in your photographs, this is just to eliminate blur due to shaky hands including the most steady of hands. If you have IS you can take the same shot at 1/30 or 1/60 allowing you to use a smaller aperature so you can get a larger depth of field or to be able to get the shot using available light instead of using a flash.

Here's where IS conflicts with moving subjects - To "stop motion" in a photograph you have to use a shutter speed of at least 1/60 or 1/125, even higher if you have a fast moving subject. As you can see, IS will let you shoot at shutter speeds lower than that even with a long lens, but the lower shutter speeds will make anything moving in your frame turn out blurry. I would learn to shoot without IS ... experiment with it on the 17-85 lens and you will quickly learn when to use it and when not to. Having said that, I would definitely go with the 70-200 4L. The lens is PRO quality, excellent build and more dust and weather resistant, as well as having flourite elements and low dispersion glass as all "L" lenses have. All these factors add up to superior contrast, sharp and fast autofocus, and almost a total elimination of flare. I have to warn you though, "L" glass is almost as addictive as reefkeeping!

As for macro, I don't yet have a true Macro lens. I am leaning towards either the EF-S 60 2.8 macro or the one Ruth has the EF 100 2.8, but now I see Sigma has come out with a 70mm 2.8, and I used to have a Tamron 90mm 2.8, a very sharp macro lens indeed! I think I will stick with Canon though as both those lenses are compatible with Canon's ring lights and serious macro work will require a flash so you can shoot at smaller aperatures to have greater depth of field. The shots I put up of the Powder Blue tang were using a 135 2.8 prime with an extension tube. The extension tubes work great with a prime lens to get macro shots. All they do is lengthen the distance between the lens and the film plane to allow for a closer focusing distance. For example the lens I used for those shots normally has a minimum focusing distance of 4 feet or so, slap on an extension tube and I can focus down to 4 inches or so but lose the ability to focus to infinity. As you can imagine, lighting an object only 4 inches from the front of the lens can provide some lighting challenges, especially with a flash head that sits up on a camera's hot shoe so far away from the lens... this is why I have flashes that can be mounted off camera and why I'll eventually get a Macro Ring Light flash unit.

BTW - the built in flash on the 20D will be adequate for probably close to 75% of your flash shots, and you can get cheap slave units to augment that until you can afford a bigger flash...

No need to commit here - I was just offering up a cheap way to 300mm... :idea:

Great info, well explained, I actually followed it all!

Ok, so a flash is not necessarily a "must have" accessory to start. That might help offset the thousands you are going to cost me in L glass now. :mrgreen:

Of course I do have some further questions now!

1. Can you describe how you take macro shots of your tank? Is your lens right up the glass? Are you handheld or tripod? Do you use flash's or is the aquarium light enough? Can a macro extension tubes be used on a zoom lense, or just a prime?

2. If you were just starting, and wanted to take some nice macro shots of your tank, have a decent travel/walk-around lense, and also have a decent telephoto for outdoors, which 2-3 lenses would you recommend?

I think I am leaning towards a Rebel XT, the savings compared to a 20D or 30D I will put towards better glass. I figure in a year or two, if I am able to max out the Rebel XT and it is holding me back, I can upgrade to the latest and greatest body, and use my existing glass. Whereas paying more for a body will mean worse glass, so down the road upgrading will be even more $$. Sound like a decent plan?

And this all started off with "honey, our digital camera doesn't have enough zoom"!!! Just like reefkeeping, "honey, those clownfish sure look cute".

Rory you won't regret the XT, in fact you may never feel the need to upgrade...

There are many ways to do Macros depending on what you're shooting. I really try to shoot with available light as you get much more natural looking shots. That being said, even with the amount of light we shower our tanks with, it pales in comparison to shooting outside, even on an overcast day. Your camera's metering system will quickly make that apparent. Using a flash pointed directly into the tank will give you reflections as well when using a flash so what I do when using flash is to set my flashes up at 45 or so degree angles to the tank glass to eliminate glare. You will need to compensate for the awful colour of a flash with your white balance settings, or shoot in RAW mode so you can post process this later on. If I am shooting a coral, I tend to set up on a tripod, frame the shot and use a remote shutter release, using as small an aperature as I can along with the fastest shutter speed possible. Up to 800 ISO gives me great results, even when blowing images up to huge sizes. (I have a printing business so I can make prints up to 4 feet wide - original image quality is important and has been of no concern using either my present 20D or my previous 6.3MP Rebel). When shooting fish or any other moving target, I ixnay the tripod, hunt and chase them along the front of the glass and shoot lots of shots hoping to get "the one".... this is the biggest advantage digital has over film IMO. As for distance, it really depends on your lens and composition you are looking for. You CAN lean right up against the glass as you are focusing beyond it anyways. Extension tubes work better with primes and are pretty much useless at focal lengths less than 50mm. You CAN use them on some zooms, but usually only at it's maximum focal length.

There is no ONE way to do Macro work... it all depends on lighting & subject along with the desired depth of field and working distance. The closer you are to your subject the more light you will need and less depth of field you will have. For example let's say you are shooting a coral with a 135mm lens and a working distance of 2 feet using an extension tube. Your normal tank lighting will allow you to shoot at 1/160 at ISO 800 and f4... Your depth of field might only be 1/4 of an inch, so if your coral is 2 inches from front to back and you focus near the front, only 1/8 of the coral will be in focus... if you want more depth of field you will have to add more light, stop down the lens, and/or increase the working distance between the film plane and the subject. You may need to use a lens with a longer focal length and increase the working distance if adding more light and/or stopping down isn't an option... sorry if I'm going in circles here... just trying to point out that there is more than one way to skin a cat when it comes to taking pics... the beauty of digital is being able to see right away if you got the shot or not... :biggrin:

If I could only have 3 lenses on a budget... hmmm....

1). The 17-85 is a great economical beginning... gives you a decent wide angle, and probably the best "kit" lens Canon makes. IS is a bonus as well...

2). The 70-200 4.0L unless you can afford the 70-200L or the 70-200L IS. These 3 lenses are the most popular and highly regarded in Canon's line.

3). Any prime 2.8 or faster between 50 and 150mm. Once you see the sharpness and contrast of a prime - not even an expensive prime, you won't use your zooms as much. "L" quality primes are even better yet.

Once you have those, don't bother buying another lens unless it's a 2.8 or faster... the exception being the 300 4.0 IS... another GRAND... lol.

Thanks so much!

Are there any particular retailers you would recommend? US or Canada or Ebay etc?

I got my camera and lens kit at Robinson's Online Store on eBay... they're actually in Calgary. URGalaxy or Hong Kong Direct on eBay both gave tremendous service. Use Adorama to price compare, and look for private deals from sellers with positive feedback. Look for auctions that end at weird times, and not during peak periods like weekday evenings and weekend afternoons. eBayers can be wierd, and start bidding wars, so be patient, it took me over 2 months to round out my system. Identify what you are going to buy, buy one item at a time and bid once only specifying your maximum bid. Set your price and eventually you will win as long as your price is realistic. Americans are particularly hard to deal with, every private deal except one I did with an American cost me extra on this side as they are hesitant to send anything across the border and declare as a gift or sample, not that they are obligated to do this, but all the Hong Kong sellers are masters at minimizing customs costs. Whatever you do... use Paypal to pay and complete the transaction on eBay... you have buyer protection that way...

I bought the olympus e-500, for a novice like me with little experience ( except from my sister who is a photo journalist) it's awesome, its basically a point and shoot camera out of the box and takes awesome pics. Im playing around with all the manual controls now. Overall im am very satisfied with my purchase. I was oing to buy the rebel xt but it felt like a toy in my hands and i just couldn't get over that. the olympus worked out to $1050 with tax. The two kit lenses are awesome and even though there's no image stabilization it isnt a problem. Low light is a slight issue, but after messing with the white balance and flash settings i seemed to have solved it. Have taken 96 pictures so far, and battery life is amazing.

hope everyone finds a camera they love and don't overcomplicate the simple, go out, take some pics and have fun

tb

well lets see some of those pics already.