# Good Cameras for Aquarium Photography?



## Cory (May 2, 2008)

Im looking to buy a new camera to take picture of my aquariums and fish with but not being the techie type I have no idea what to pick. I have a friend who has lots of general camera knowledge who is going to help me but I was wondering if any of the good photographers here had any suggestions for a camera or type of camera I should aim for to take really great pictures of my fish. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!


----------



## Riceburner (Mar 14, 2008)

Depends on how close you want to get. But any of the DSLRs will do the job...body wise. You just have to get a good macro lens for close ups. Then add off camera flash capability...either by direct connection(wired) or optical or radio signal. It's mostly in the lenses...my lenses a worth more than the camera.

One of the most used lenses is the Tamron 90mm macro. Good bang for the buck.
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/90mm.asp


----------



## Zebrapl3co (Mar 29, 2006)

Yep, any DSLR camera that is more than 8 mega pixel will do. The main point in taking great photography is in the lens you. The stock len (the lens that comes with the camera body) sucks and will produce only average photos.
Like Riceburner said, the lens will cost more than the camera. Tamron 90mm macro is a pretty good lens. I kind of like the Canon 60 mm macro better.

*Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!*


----------



## Cory (May 2, 2008)

So the idea is to get a DSLR camera (my friend will know what that is even though I dont lol) and then buy a good macro lense to go on top of it. Sounds simple enough. Thanks guys!


----------



## Julian (Jun 29, 2008)

Simple yes, though i really depends on your budget. Consider the nikon D40 its only 6mp but a good lens on it and it still looks great.


----------



## Zebrapl3co (Mar 29, 2006)

Actually, you might want to test out several brand before you stick with one. Everybody have different hand size. Some camera fits your hand better than others. For example, I used to have a Pentax DSLR, that camera fits my hand perfectly and as a result, I have a more steadier hand and the picture comes out clearer. I then did a stupid thing and switch to a Canon Rebel, this is a slightly smaller camera and my palm don't fully come in contact with the camera body. As a result, my hands aren't as stead with it and some times when you're in an awkward position, your hands just won't stop shaking and the picture comes out blurry. To fix that, I have to use a stand, but the problem with that is, it takes time to set things up. If your target is a moving object, like a fish breeding or doing something that is a Kodac momment. You'll never be able to set it up in time.

Hm, what else ... you might want to look at some of the features that different cameras have to offer. But this is going to cost as those special features that you want are always in the high end range. One feature you might want to have is a camera that can do wireless remote flash. It's really great to pop a flash on top of the tank and start taking pictures. That takes away the problem of the glass reflecting the light back at you if you're flashing infront of the tank. This will allow you to nab pictures of those fast moving fish and ofcourse less blur.
Then there is the factor of price. Don't just look at the price of the camera body and get hook by the cheap price. Some times when you factor in the flash, and the lens and how readily available are the part. It may be more expensive. From what I've seen, Nikon and Canon have more parts and lens and flash availabe than the other brands.
If you have alot of money to burn, get a Leica. You can't go wrong as their lens is one of the top lens in the world.

*Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!*


----------



## Riceburner (Mar 14, 2008)

hmmm...wonder if we'll start having Lexar or SanDisk moments instead of *Kodak* moments....now that almost everything is digital....

having the flash on top of the tank doesn't entirely cut off reflections. It helps to not wear anything light or reflective behind the camera too. Light from the top will spill out to you and then back to the glass.


----------



## Cory (May 2, 2008)

Lol I think most of us younger folks just call it a "photo op," these days. Kodak moment will probably mostly fade out with the baby boomers lol.


----------



## conix67 (Jul 27, 2008)

Julian said:


> Simple yes, though i really depends on your budget. Consider the nikon D40 its only 6mp but a good lens on it and it still looks great.


Only 6mp? All these companies compete for *more* pixels, while 5 year old 2mp DSLR takes far better picture with better sharpness if correct lens is used with it. The optics part of camera is the most critical part that gives you good pictures.

Don't be swayed by number of pixels. It's pretty much pointless today with typical photos you take, as most lenses aren't good enough to bring out details beyond the pixel size can cover.

But Budget is where it counts. D40 is still decent, but a good macro lens will cost x2 of D40. I wish I had one of those lenses, I'd like to get one, but money usually goes to other aquarium stuff


----------



## Julian (Jun 29, 2008)

I always say spend more money on a lens than a camera if you're going to the Dslr route. A good lens you'll have for a long time. A Dslr body you might not.


----------



## Riceburner (Mar 14, 2008)

but you have to decide which brand to go with. Personally I like Nikon and Canon.


----------



## conix67 (Jul 27, 2008)

Riceburner said:


> but you have to decide which brand to go with. Personally I like Nikon and Canon.


I did not realize others existed 

You cannot go wrong with either Nikon or Canon.


----------



## shaneo (Aug 11, 2008)

quick question about cameras, i'm considering nikon d60 or d90...
ok, with the lenses... they are a range, such as 18-55 or 70-300.... what does that part mean?? variable zoom???
as opposed to the tamron 90mm, is that not a variable zoom?

what's better, variable or non-variable??

thanks,

shane


----------



## conix67 (Jul 27, 2008)

shaneo said:


> quick question about cameras, i'm considering nikon d60 or d90...
> ok, with the lenses... they are a range, such as 18-55 or 70-300.... what does that part mean?? variable zoom???
> as opposed to the tamron 90mm, is that not a variable zoom?
> 
> ...


It depends. If you have a fixed budget, get D60 and get a better lens. If you can afford it, get D90 with lenses you want.

18-55 and 70-300mm means variable zoom. usually kit lenses on low end models are 18-55. I have one from my D50, it's ok.

Tamron 90mm is fixed focal length, cannot zoom in and out. It can focus at very close range without much distortion, thus macro capability.

non-variables usually give you better quality, variable zoom lens gives you convenience. If you're planning to take a lot of close up shots, definitely get a dedicated macro lens.


----------



## Julian (Jun 29, 2008)

pretty much what conix said yea. A zoom lens is fun and convenient for sure but your image quality tends to be a tad less and the lens is a bit slower. That is until you get into zoom that cost 2000bucks. By slower i mean the maximum size of the hole the light can go through is smaller and there for it takes longer to expose your image. Thats fine (often) if you're shooting something that doesn't move, or if you're using a flash. 

That tamrom 90mm is a prime (fixed) focal length lens (90mm). It also happens to be a macro lens which most prime lens are not. Its a good lens and offer pretty good value. A lot of people go with it over the nikon 105 VR just do to the price.

Honestly it sucks but a lot of this comes down to budget. The D60 is fine and cheap , the D90 is good value and great. Both are plastic bodies but built well in general.


----------



## Cory (May 2, 2008)

A lot of food for thought. Thanks again for the info guys. Im hoping to get the camera sometime next week, I'll let you know what I go with and how much it ran me .


----------



## Zebrapl3co (Mar 29, 2006)

Actually, there is a big difference if look at the f/stops. I think Julian was on the right track but didn't hit the target right on.
Most budgeted zoom lens have an f/stop around f3.X, this is OK if you're taking picture will full day light sun. But with a fish tank indoor, you'd want a lens that offers lower (wider) f/stop. This is because you would want a faster shutter speed which will lower the blur and catch those fast moving fish and allow enought light to reach your camera so that you dont' have a blackout picture.

A good fix lenght macro lens will have f/stop around f2.x and the more expensiver ones at f1.x. These are great for fast moving fish as well as give a sharper picture.

*Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!*


----------



## conix67 (Jul 27, 2008)

Zebrapl3co said:


> Actually, there is a big difference if look at the f/stops. I think Julian was on the right track but didn't hit the target right on.
> Most budgeted zoom lens have an f/stop around f3.X, this is OK if you're taking picture will full day light sun. But with a fish tank indoor, you'd want a lens that offers lower (wider) f/stop. This is because you would want a faster shutter speed which will lower the blur and catch those fast moving fish and allow enought light to reach your camera so that you dont' have a blackout picture.
> 
> A good fix lenght macro lens will have f/stop around f2.x and the more expensiver ones at f1.x. These are great for fast moving fish as well as give a sharper picture.


There's a problem with this too though. With large aperture (small f/stop), depth of field is shallower, and objects not in exact focus all get blurred.

In my opinion a good lighting system/technique combined with HIGH ISO capable body with low noise will give you better chance at taking sharp pictures of fishes.

You want enough lights, and high enough f/stops but highest possible shutter speed to take picture of moving objects with reasonable depth-of-field level.

If all others are fixed, and you can vary only f/stops and shutter speeds, your only choice is to lower f/stops. For that bright lenses do work, but they are usually more expensive.


----------



## tobalman (Mar 31, 2006)

Get the newer model Nikon D5000 (BODY) at Henry $870, it has alot of features much similar to Nikon D90 such as 720p HD movie mode, Low light shooting high ISO up to 3200, D-light etc... but the lens mount is similar to D40/D40x and D60 so you should get the lens with AF-S. Such as,

Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor

Henry do Price Match, they event willing to lower their price compare to the competitor.

Happy shooting.



conix67 said:


> It depends. If you have a fixed budget, get D60 and get a better lens. If you can afford it, get D90 with lenses you want.
> 
> 18-55 and 70-300mm means variable zoom. usually kit lenses on low end models are 18-55. I have one from my D50, it's ok.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cory (May 2, 2008)

$870 is a bit.. err way out of the price range I envisioned lol. The camera would have to make me breakfast, walk my dog AND do all of my weekly water changes for me to pay $870 .


----------



## conix67 (Jul 27, 2008)

If the price is concern, you can consider ones that come close to DSRL in features. Here's a good source of camera reviews

http://www.dpreview.com/

Nikon CoolPix L100 or P6000 would work for you. They both have manual controls, macro capability, etc. Beyond that I do not know how close they are to a DSLR camera.

One distinctive advantage of DSLR is speed - power on, focus, shoot - all happens in a very short time. there's no shutter lag, so you can capture what you want, not seconds later.


----------



## Julian (Jun 29, 2008)

as much as i know nikon i personally don't recommend the P6000. the Canon G9/10 would be a better pick if you want something like that.


----------



## Riceburner (Mar 14, 2008)

Cory said:


> $870 is a bit.. err way out of the price range I envisioned lol. The camera would have to make me breakfast, walk my dog AND do all of my weekly water changes for me to pay $870 .


lol...just shows you how relative things are...I'd consider that a starting point for photo gear.


----------



## Cory (May 2, 2008)

If I were going to use it more than once in a blue moon it might make sense, but from my perspective buying a thousand dollar camera would be like buying a disposable car .


----------



## Julian (Jun 29, 2008)

thats fair and i can understand it. As someone who can repay the gear i buy from using it buying a lens that costs more than most low end camera bodies doesn't seem like a big deal. But you need to find something that you feel you'll be getting good value from, thats the most important thing.


----------



## Riceburner (Mar 14, 2008)

maybe a P+S that has macro capability and adjustable flash(or deflect it so it's not hitting the tank). Then get an external flash with a slave and use that set up.


----------

