These are from the Canon 18-55 kit, essentially identical to Nikon's kit lens:










Don't blame the camera for crappy photos.

Well that's a lot closer than I thought it could get. Are you sure those weren't with your macro lens?

oops, yeah, that last one was. i removed it

No offense, but this doesn't show anything. Just because you can take acceptable image of one type with the camera does not mean that you are proficient with all. There are a number of issues I can see with the tank images that are not the fault of the camera. First you are taking pictures through curved glass, that is like taking a coke bottle and trying to use it as a filter, you are going to have blurry images. Second it does not seem that the proper focus point was chosen as many of the subjects are out of focus (while something else is in focus). Finally something that may also be an issue is that this is a "low light" situation and for the best results you should use a tripod to give you the necessary stability.

I use a nikon d3000 with the stock lense, and I can get far better performance from it than those pictures, even on close ups.

but this one wasn't!



i knew i had one of that guy with the kit

(that one really is a 50% crop)

oh, my bad OP

my advice should have been

"just be a better photographer"

Like I said I am not a pro and have more experience taking pictures of landscapes and objects with natrual ligting (outdoors) and can usually get decent results with said situations.

Restrictions such as a glass barrier ( tank ), indoor lighting are not my strong point and I honostly have had some better tank pictures with my PS than the with the DSLR however to my defense I was trying to get as close as possible to theo bjectives to show what happens when you are trying to take extreamly detailed cloes-ups with said lens. Yes I could of taken my time, got out the tri-pod and backed up a bit and gotten more acceptabe photos but that wasnt the point here. Yes you can take a lot better pictures with that lens, but for the nice close up shots that will show the hairs on a hermit crabs feelers in high detail he will need a better lens.

Again I am not expert. If someone has the same kit and can take better pictures of something smaller in the mid section of their tank and show some good detail please post, that isnt a smart ass reply either. This thread is designed to help the poster get a camera and lens that will do what he wants and that is take detailed close ups of his zoas and hermits and such so please help him make a selection and post images taken with equipment in his price point that will do what he wants.

Anyone can reccomend that he spend $700 on a camera and another $2000 in lens but thats not what he is looking to do on a $600 budget. I personally think he does need to expand his budget a bit but not by much.

But hoe much closer to that hermit crab can you get with that lens is what I was trying to show. I know the pictures sucked but like i said taking a clear picture really close isnt eary with that kit lens.

on his budget, and staying within nikon, he could rock a D50 w/ Tamron 90 and get the results he's looking for on a $40 tripod

Actually, that is the point. Show the OP the limits of the lens with GOOD photography. You don't have to give him your blurry out of focus junk - just show how close you can get to the subject, and let him decide if thats the kind of photo he's looking for. Bad photography doesn't illustrate anything about the ability of the lens.

These were taken with the Canon equivalent of the Nikon kit lens. This was back before I knew what I was doing (though I at least had enough sense to use a tripod for the coral shots ) They were handheld, probably AV mode with a wide open aperture and ISO 400.








So it's capable, but it won't replace a macro lens by any means.

Whoops the zoanthid shot is cropped at 50%

Nikons suck

thats funny. did you teach em?

I seem to me that it's mainly the lenses and the person who is shooting the picture. I've had tons of people tell me the D40 is a great camera to start off with. I may grab a D60 just because it only seems to be a small amount more and I can't find the D40 w/ 2 lenses.

you just dont seem to take anyones advice...So why did you even start this thread. So far everyone who has put some input into it..its basically like you didnt even read anything and keep wanting to buy the same thing.

Well I set one rule, within $600. From what I can see people are saying I need to spend double that price. There is also a lot of bs in here. I've posted on other forums and haven't seen this much crap b4. So don't blame me if it's hard to filter out what's crap and not. I want something fun and easy to use, that i can still get decent pics with. obviously it's possible with a D40, due to the evidence.

well your not going to get what you want for 600..you want to take close up's of hermit crabs..So you would need a macro or get extension tubes..its ALL going to put you over..getting into a DSLR is NOT cheap..I think maybe you should go for a good P&S that does all you want..macro and all. Looking for the D40 with 2 kit lens is a waste..those 2 lenses they will bundle with it would be crap. Save longer or look for used stuff.
No wonder you thought Ken rockwell was good..Your just as hard headed and make no sense

i was looking at deals and came across this:

http://www.buydig.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=OME520KT2

opinions? I'm trying to be more open. Lets just forget the macro stuff, i want something good for the money that wont kill me but still allow me to take pics of thing close and far.

Late to this thread, but I saw mention of a D50 and I must say...my D50 rules. Fantastic performance and image quality, long battery life, and now it's cheap! I'd take a well looked after D50 over a new D40 any day. My only complain is that there's no support for SDHC. But what do you want for a camera from '05 right?

http://photography.shop.ebay.com/Digital-C...d=p3286.c0.m282

can get one for under 400...and thn can look into a tamron 90, tokina 100, or sigma 105 macro lens..and might put you over 600 by 50bucks or so

also, OP, macro lenses work well as primes, so its not like you could only take close ups if you had a macro lens

99% of "true" macro lenses are primes, I think what you meant to say is that macro lenses work for things other than just taking "macro" photos.

sure

if you want a good starter setup..buy a body..Whatever one you want..and then look into the Sigma 17-70 2.8-f4.5 it is a GREAT lens..and has HSM focus motor so its very fast and quiet. Also it probably has one of the best macro ability of a zoom lens..its magnification is around 1:2.3
http://www.adorama.com/SG1770HNKAF.html?se...nfo=sigma+17-70
that lens would be the closest thing to get as a nice close up lens and a very good walk around universal lens.

I have a dream....

that one day....

people will stop buying kit lenses

As stated before... its who is BEHIND the camera... not the camera itself. You can put a novel in front of a child... but that doesn't mean he can read it.

I own a nikon d3000. After manually setting much of the settings... I think photos are starting to come out OKAY. I wouldn't say they are stellar, but I've seen much much worse.

All taken just with stock lense... no tripod... by hand, no flash either.






also i find shooting corals and your aquariums at F7.1 or higher reduces all the "halo effect" around the corals. however, depth of field can suffer.

these were taken by me, with a CANON using a 2.8 100mm macro





learn the settings, learn how to handle the camera... MANUAL focus is your friend, etc. Also... I personally like the Nikon better. If i had a better lense for the nikon, im sure the first set of pics would be better.

In the End, i can safely say, get a nikon d3000 or d5000, or something (you dont need to overspend) and use the rest of the money to A.... get a good book, or B, get a decent lense, AND learn how to use it . many valuable resources online.
-dan

yea, but they didn't actually suck or anything like the other guy's pics.

If you are ever browsing the Adorama site and would like to see some pics of a used unit, drop me an email and I'll arrange it!

:mindblown:

Some folks can take great shots with a pinhole camera, and others can't do crap with a camera worth a fortune. After some frustrations while shooting a "just above a point and shoot" (it will shoot manual) Olympus C-4000, we decided to jump into DSLR's and got a Canon T1i with the "sigh" stock 18-55mm lens. Its been quit frustrating. Shooting landscapes and people shows it's capabilities, but shooting my tanks just doesn't cut it. But slowly, slowly the pics are getting better. And my wife just announce she wants to finally get her dive license so she can use the canon underwater. Only after I get the results with it I'm getting with the Olympus will I sell the underwater setup. While not great I know, and at the risk of ridicule, I'll post one shot I like from diving, and face it, underwater shots are definitely more challenging than tank shots.
Bottom line, with any camera it takes either (or preferably both) talent or perserverence to get good shots.

talk about service!

the adorama folks are super nice. i've cherry picked some really nice profoto stuff out of there used dept.

I swear they have a homing device or something

Im going to test the theory sometime

wow, that's pretty trippy. start looking for black helis with the adorama logo

Aww, c'mon. It's too easy. Just do an advanced search with a name like adorama over the past seven days and you can see every time it's mentioned.
And I'm sure there are hella more elaborate search functions the average Joe can use to do the same thing. Don't take no jack booted thugs in black ninja outfits.

but jack booted ninja thugs are so much cooler than cube slaves doing web searches and pr maintenance.

Well I've decided I'm probably not going be buying anything from adorama.com. Mainly because I get hit with tax because I live in NY I'm kinda pissed about it, because I found some great priced on Used Nikon's.

Thank you guys for teaching me about what Macro is. I Have a p&s Cannon SD550 and it allowed me to take decent macro pics with my macro function. My only problem, is that it never focuses when zoomed in.

here are my pics, nothing special... but I thought I'd share:

Um, holy crap, hi

You can take your pics further still.

Turn off your pumps and let all the particulate in the water column settle. Use a tripod to get the clearest possible picture. There's a link at the top of this subforum that lists everything that can be done to improve your aquarium pictures with any camera

If your camera won't focus it means that you're probably inside the minimum focusing distance. Just back up a little bit till it eventually focuses.

how is this as a kit, i'm looking into canon also now

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Digital-75-300...2887&sr=1-9

waste..get the body..that Lens is one of the worst canon lenses made..most of those kits are usually filled with junk to drive up the price

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-XS-Digital-18-...3418&sr=1-1
just go for that..as much as I dont like Kit lenses..this IS version has really stepped up in the IQ area and is actually pretty good.

lol... Well I'm set on the Sigma 17 - 70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC HSM Macro AutoFocus Wide Angle Zoom Lens, and I just need to decide D40, D60, or D80... I'm still trying to figure out the advantage of the D80 over the D60.


unless I can find a canon body and a similar lens for around the same price.

then just get a Body..with No lenses and no extras.

is the Canon EOS Digital Rebel XSi better than the Nikon D60 & D80? and why?

lol

I like my 75-300

It's very soft past 250mm though. It's only a $100 lens on it's own though.

well after looking back I'm going with the Canon EOS Digital Rebel XSi SLR Camera Body Kit w/ EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Image Stabilizer Lens

how is the Tamron 75-300mm Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro Tele Zoom Lens & Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro Tele Zoom Lens ?