kien's 150g Room Divider Mixed Reef & Stuff

[rishu_pepper]

Originally Posted by kien

You're right, there is a pretty big difference in price between the two. To be honest, it's not the camera that makes the picture (even though technically speaking the camera body does make the picture ). I'm sure you and many people have heard this many times before, but what makes a bigger difference in photo taking is the quality of the lens. That's where you want to spend your money.

I actually have no preference between the two camera bodies (for reef photography). In fact, a few years ago I had an even older, cheaper, smaller Canon Rebel (entry level Digital SLR) that I used to take photos with. If I still had it today I would use that camera with one of my prized lenses and still produce the same images.

If someone asked me for my recommendation I would say get the whatever camera body you want. For general photography (including reef photo taking, etc), they are all virtually the same. A $300 DSLR vs a $3000 SLR. Then get a really good lens. My 24-104 mm and 28-75 mm lenses are both very good lenses. If I put either of those lenses on a $300 entry level DSL or a $3000 high end DSLR they can/will take the exact same picture.

Sorry but I must disagree on this point. Let's say you put your 24-105, an L (professional grade) lens onto a Rebel (few hundred bucks), compared to a current gen full frame camera like a 5DMkIII ($3000), there will be a marked difference in the image produced, whether it's a picture of a person's face, landscape, or a fish and coral.

The differences in image quality such as resolution, dynamic range, noise reduction, etc. can be easily distinguished by any person. Not that I don't agree with your point in investing in lenses, that's definitely the right way to go, but with today's technology you cannot discount the camera body's importance as well.

I speak of these things with experience as I've gone through many camera bodies and lenses in the past 5 years. Currently due to work I just use a 5D2 and 1D3, with the 24-105 and 70-200 f/2.8 IS mkII. I don't have much of a preference for these lenses, they do weddings well, but if I had money to burn I'd buy all my prime lenses back. Prime >>>>>> zoom lens.

[kien]

Originally Posted by rishu_pepper

Sorry but I must disagree on this point. Let's say you put your 24-105, an L (professional grade) lens onto a Rebel (few hundred bucks), compared to a current gen full frame camera like a 5DMkIII ($3000), there will be a marked difference in the image produced, whether it's a picture of a person's face, landscape, or a fish and coral.

The differences in image quality such as resolution, dynamic range, noise reduction, etc. can be easily distinguished by any person. Not that I don't agree with your point in investing in lenses, that's definitely the right way to go, but with today's technology you cannot discount the camera body's importance as well.

I speak of these things with experience as I've gone through many camera bodies and lenses in the past 5 years. Currently due to work I just use a 5D2 and 1D3, with the 24-105 and 70-200 f/2.8 IS mkII. I don't have much of a preference for these lenses, they do weddings well, but if I had money to burn I'd buy all my prime lenses back. Prime >>>>>> zoom lens.

Yes, you're right in that there are major difference among the camera bodies. There is absolutely a reason why a camera is $3000 vs $300. What I was trying to do was simplify the discussion and put it in the contexts of taking reef pictures. You don't need 1D to take reef tank pictures that are identical to what I photographed. You can achieve the same results with a Rebel. I know because I have.

For example, taking a picture of a particular coral (say my Frogspawn or that Red Planet that everyone liked) at F4, IS0200 and 160 shutter speed will look virtually the same on any DSLR today.

I didn't intend to discount the camera bodies entirely. I am aware of the differences because I have owned quite a few myself being a former portrait and wedding photographer. It's just that I get asked ALL the time, "what camera are you using?" or "what camera should I get?" and I try to answer that question in a more relateable manner without going into the nuances of photography like dynamic range, noise reduction, etc :-)

[Wretch]

Originally Posted by kien

Yes, you're right in that there are major difference among the camera bodies. There is absolutely a reason why a camera is $3000 vs $300. What I was trying to do was simplify the discussion and put it in the contexts of taking reef pictures. You don't need 1D to take reef tank pictures that are identical to what I photographed. You can achieve the same results with a Rebel. I know because I have.

For example, taking a picture of a particular coral (say my Frogspawn or that Red Planet that everyone liked) at F4, IS0200 and 160 shutter speed will look virtually the same on any DSLR today.

I didn't intend to discount the camera bodies entirely. I am aware of the differences because I have owned quite a few myself being a former portrait and wedding photographer. It's just that I get asked ALL the time, "what camera are you using?" or "what camera should I get?" and I try to answer that question in a more relateable manner without going into the nuances of photography like dynamic range, noise reduction, etc :-)

Well that settles it then. It doesn't matter what camera you get. So then what lens should we get.....?

[kien]

Originally Posted by Wretch

Well that settles it then. It doesn't matter what camera you get. So then what lens should we get.....?

The one that takes awesome pictures. Serious, didn't you read ANYTHING that I wrote?

[kien]

[rishu_pepper]

Originally Posted by kien

The one that takes awesome pictures. Serious, didn't you read ANYTHING that I wrote?

LOL this ^

If one is really hardcore about reef pictures, probably the Canon 100mm f/2.8 L macro lens would do wonders.

For wider shots like FTS, something like a 24mm/35mm prime lens would be great.

Currently if I were on the market for a camera body, Canon 6D would probably be my choice. Full frame >>> crop. Or a used 5D2 is still a great camera.

Last couple years I've really enjoyed using the Fuji X100s as a non-work camera. Beautiful image quality and affordable price, with a small body/footprint that you just can't get with a DSLR.

[kien]

Originally Posted by rishu_pepper

LOL this ^

If one is really hardcore about reef pictures, probably the Canon 100mm f/2.8 L macro lens would do wonders.

For wider shots like FTS, something like a 24mm/35mm prime lens would be great.

Currently if I were on the market for a camera body, Canon 6D would probably be my choice. Full frame >>> crop. Or a used 5D2 is still a great camera.

Last couple years I've really enjoyed using the Fuji X100s as a non-work camera. Beautiful image quality and affordable price, with a small body/footprint that you just can't get with a DSLR.

Yes, I do love the 100mm macro lens as well! Awesome lens that I used to use a lot to take reef photos.

A lot of photography is dependant on your particular needs. Everyone has different needs. I owned a Canon 5D Mark II for a couple of years while I used it as my primary camera. With it I owned and used the very nice but expensive 24-70mm L F2.8 and Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS L lens. Although that particular kit took AWESOME photos I did not enjoy using it. I am an asian with small t-rex arms so for me lugging around that kit was HEAVY. I rarely ever took it out during family outings, instead favouring my smaller 40D with a lighter 17-50mm Tamron lens. When the new 6D came out I immediately sold my arguably better 5D Mark II in favour of the 6D simply for the fact that it was easier to use. Getting a 6D over the 5D mark II wasn't an upgrade. Most people would probably consider it a downgrade. Still, I often favoured my 40D. In addition I have since sold both my 24-70 F2.8L and 70-200mm F2.8L IS lens and got the F4 version of it instead. Again, another downgrade but I use it more now because it is much lighter and easier for me to carry around to say, the zoo with my wife and kids.

Currently I am in the market for a new camera and am actually looking for an even smaller and lighter body while not sacrificing some of my favoured workflow features on my existing camera bodies.

As for Full Frame vs Crop, again, this is highly dependant on your particular needs. For me, even though my 6D is full frame, after it has left Lightroom I crop it down to a 10 megapixel image anyway because quite frankly, I find them (10 mega pixels) good enough for 99.9% of my needs. It's good enough for the web and good enough to print photos with. I have only ever once generated a full frame (24 mega pixel) image out of my 6D and that was for a client who wanted to make a poster once. 24 megapixel images are massive and while I understand the need for them and the benefits of them, I don't think everyone needs 24 mega pixels. They take up a lot of space and take a long time to process. All of my clients received 10 megapixel files for their use and they were more than happy with them. Don't get me wrong. I'm not disagreeing with you. In many respects full frame is better than cropped. It's just that I don't think everyone *needs* it :-)

At the end of the day, I could and did afford some high end equipment but learned that I didn't necessarily need them. My needs were different. A 5D mark II with a 24-70 F2.8L lens (while totally AWESOME), did me no good if it frequently sat on my desk while I took pictures of my kids at the park with my iPhone. I guess that was part of my point earlier about when people ask me for my recommendation or what camera I use. When I tell them I use my 6D or 40D they go researching and discover that those can be fairly expensive cameras so many people think that's what they need (those expensive cameras) to achieve similar results to what I've posted in my thread. Well, that's not correct. They don't need to buy an expensive full frame 6D or even a 40/50/60D to achieve similar results. If they want to photograph fast paced sporting events or model shows or make billboards, then yes, they will probably need to buy those more expensive cameras, but those have not typically been the people asking me for my recommendations :-)

[rishu_pepper]

Well put. The reason I favour full frame over cropped is two-fold: shallower depth of field and better ISO performance. For me, that's worth the price difference.

With the emergence of the Fuji X100T, the X100S can be had for a relatively low price on the used market. The Fuji gave me what I wanted: a compact, discrete camera that rivals, if not betters DSLR image quality. I took the Fuji on our honeymoon last year and I did not feel crippled in any way, and took some fantastic photos while not being encumbered by a heavy DSLR.

Macro-wise, it is acceptable. The shutter lag of course is the one disadvantage but it really isn't that bad once you get used to it.

Another good camera I have had experience with is the Olympus OM. More flexibility than the Fuji but a bit more bulky and I daresay the Fuji has better IQ.

Another thing people often miss is the importance of a good tripod. Instead of spending all the budget on body/lenses/etc., a nice tripod can do so much more for photography. Definitely a worthwhile investment and the technology never goes out of place, unlike cameras and to a lesser extent, lenses.