Getting a used DSLR camera - advice on how to set up for tank shots!?

[ajmckay]

Sometime this weekend I'll be picking up an older Canon Rebel XT DSLR camera (yeah the 8mp one from 2005 with the standard 18-55mm lens). I would get something better but I'm getting it for a good price and I'd rather spend the money on my tank. Plus I want to make sure I actually use it and if I do then maybe later this year I'll spring for a T5i, SL1, or possibly a Nikon D5300.

 

Anyways, the reason I'm looking at a DSLR is because I want a camera with more shot control especially focus and depth of field adjustments to take more artistic pictures of corals and fish and the tank in general. Also I think it would be good to shoot in RAW.

 

So here's my question. I really need to do this on the cheap. What equipment could I get to make this camera good for taking quality tank pictures?

 

-Macros of corals and stuff from 1-3" away up to 18-24" away

-Fast enough for photos of fish

-Planning to build a floating viewing box

-Is there a lens filter to effectively reduce reflections from straight on shots?

 

I guess I'm thinking along the lines of extension rings, macro lenses, maybe filters? I know a little about these things but not sure what will actually help. Maybe something like this? Granted this costs as much as the camera... but I suppose it would still be useful for other cameras if I upgrade later...

 

Thanks!

 

Here are the specs

[reefernanoman]

Do you have a tripod? That helps the shaking when doing macros. I also turn off image stabilization when using my tripod, since it works against the camera.

[ajmckay]

I do have a tripod - granted it's just a cheap portable unit - I think it's a vivitar with the little hand cranks and stuff.

 

But at least with other cameras it seems to be stable enough. I have a table nearby so I'll probably set the tripod up squatty on that for more stability.

 

Eventually I'll look into getting a better one though!

[DurocShark]

A cheap tripod is fine to start out with. You'll be indoors, no wind, can take your time setting up because your model isn't standing there tapping her foot and sucking her hourly rate out of you while doing so...

 

Ahem.

 

Anyway, another thing to consider if you haven't already, is a way to clean the sensor. That camera doesn't self clean, so every time you change lenses you run the risk of getting dust on the sensor. That leaves little spots on your photos. I like the swabs personally and use them on my Nikon D70.

 

You may decide at some point to get a remote flash. One you can hold in your hand and point at your subject. A remote trigger of some kind is a necessity when shooting macro.

 

That said, even the kit lens that comes with that camera will probably get you 90% of the shots you want to take. So play with what it comes with before plunking the money down for macro. And a true macro lens will be FAR better than a set of macro rings, or add-on lenses.

 

Just to give you an idea, neither of these were taken with a macro lens. But both used an external hand held flash:

 

 

[ajmckay]

A cheap tripod is fine to start out with. You'll be indoors, no wind, can take your time setting up because your model isn't standing there tapping her foot and sucking her hourly rate out of you while doing so...

 

Ahem.

 

Anyway, another thing to consider if you haven't already, is a way to clean the sensor. That camera doesn't self clean, so every time you change lenses you run the risk of getting dust on the sensor. That leaves little spots on your photos. I like the swabs personally and use them on my Nikon D70.

 

You may decide at some point to get a remote flash. One you can hold in your hand and point at your subject. A remote trigger of some kind is a necessity when shooting macro.

 

That said, even the kit lens that comes with that camera will probably get you 90% of the shots you want to take. So play with what it comes with before plunking the money down for macro. And a true macro lens will be FAR better than a set of macro rings, or add-on lenses.

 

Just to give you an idea, neither of these were taken with a macro lens. But both used an external hand held flash:

 

 

 

Thanks a lot, this is pretty much exactly the kind of advice I was looking for... I see all these photos on the site and my overall impression is that you need sophisticated equipment to take the cool macros and shots that aren't blurry. I've read the "how to photograph your tank" threads so I know some of those tricks, but I just haven't gotten the nice pictures I was hoping for from my p&s cameras. Either they look grainy, or theres too much motion, or the subject is out of focus. I have experience with film SLR cameras from a photography class, but never did much in the way of tank shots because I just didn't have the feedback needed and it cost a lot to develop film or get enlargements made. It truly is amazing how people got such good images without the use of computer technology!

 

 

 

Thanks for the suggestion on a remote flash. It makes sense because you could avoid some of the issues associated with reflections when shooting through glass. Thanks also for bringing the dust issue to my attention. By swabs do you mean like qtips? Seems those would leave fibers though unless you made a pass with a microfiber cloth or something.

[DurocShark]

No, more like these: http://www.amazon.com/VSGO-Professional-Cleaning-Cleaner-Cameras/dp/B00MIS8MP2/

 

They're made for cleaning sensors.

[ajmckay]

Ahhh yes those look much better suited

[ajmckay]

Okay...
Which would you get for the same price?

 

1) Canon Rebel XT (8mp) with 18-55 lens

 

2) Nikon D60 body only but I have a quantaray 28-90 lens that would fit the D60 but probably not autofocus... Hmmm

[ninjamyst]

what's ur budget?

[DurocShark]

Go with the best body you can afford. Lenses are available on the used market cheap.

I like Nikon because they will continue to use old lenses all the way back even before the Ai lenses (with modification). My D70 has the "screwdriver" for body driven autofocus so I can use EVERY lens, not just the ultrasonic ones. I don't know if the D60 has that...

 

But with macro, autofocus kinda sucks anyway. For example, when shooting a fish, you really need to focus on the eyes. The camera isn't smart enough to do that. It'll pick a high-contrast portion to focus on.

 

One really cool thing I've recently discovered is if you have a nearby camera shop, you can RENT lenses. If you want to try out different macro lenses that's a way to go. There's an online lens rental service too if you don't have anything nearby.

 

Also, there are some amazing cheap lens deals out there. B&H has a huge used section of their website. And they really stand behind their gear.

 

So, like I said. Get the best body you can afford. Don't even worry about brand. If the best body you can find in your budget is a Sony Alpha, go for it. All the Minolta autofocus lenses will work. If the best one is Nikon, go for it. Canon? Sure.

 

I was motivated to create a blog at one point, but I kinda petered out as life got in the way. But it's at Donimages.com. There's an article on destroying/converting old pre-Ai lenses to work with the newer cameras, and some stuff about using gels on flashes. Even one with macro rings.

[ajmckay]

Hehe budget is pretty much non existent... but I can get the D60 for $50 or the Rebel XT for $60... they're probably both in "fair" condition which is fine for me as long as all the features work.

Hmmm... I clicked the link to your site but it just comes up black with a gold D logo in the upper left

 

At this point I'm sort of leaning toward the D60. It's a newer model and I probably won't miss auto focus too much at this point. I like the bigger LCD screen and it has a dust control system.

[DurocShark]

Sorry, I forgot I never set that up.

 

http://donimages.blogspot.com/

Hah, crap. See? I'm so out of it... It's a D80. Not a D70.

 

Just shoot me.

[ajmckay]

Man there are a ton of options...

 

For now though I think I'm going to stick with a cheap camera, but eventually I want to get something with HD video...

 

The cheapest DSLR's I've found (nikon and canon) that have video are the D3100 and the T1i but I would still probably end up spending $300-$500 for those... I'm constantly blown away at how much people want for used photo gear... $300+ for a consumer grade camera that's 4-6 years old with 10K shots (which I suppose isn't horrible...). Worst part is you don't know how well it's been treated... Not much more than that and you can get a brand new consumer grade offering with more features...

[DurocShark]

Yup.

 

I think you'd be fine with either of the bodies you first listed. At least to start with. You can decide from there what features are most important to you and make a better decision when you upgrade.

[Christopher Marks]

You could buy a macro extension tube for whichever camera you end up with. They're only around $30 or so on eBay, like this set: http://www.ebay.com/itm/AF-Auto-Focus-Macro-Extension-Tube-Set-for-Canon-EOS-EF-EF-S-DSLR-Camera-Red-/191132776436. It fits between the lens and the camera, changing the focusing distance of whatever lens you attach it to, so you can focus much closer to things. It doesn't compare to having a true macro lens, but it can be fun to experiment with. The lens's autofocus system will even still work.

[Riche]

following this post, as I am also getting into this hobby (photography) and i noticed you live right next door LOL Im in clinton township

[mattyfelts]

i wouldnt worry to much about cleaning the censor, take a look at it make sure its not destroyed or disgusting, as long as everything looks good you should be good to go. The most important thing imo is to just play with the camera and learn it. research alot.

[ninjamyst]

when purchasing a really old camera body, check the actuation number, aka shutter count. Like all equipments, camera sensor has a useful life. I think most consumer DSLR has a 100,000 shutter count life. That doesn't mean the camera will break after 100,000 pictures, just issues may come up as equipment ages. Kinda like mileage on a car.

[ajmckay]

So I ended up getting the Nikon D60. I liked the large LCD screen on the back and it uses SD instead of CF - and it's 10mp. Picked it up body only for $50 so not too bad I suppose. The Quantaray 28-90mm lens I had from an N65 film camera fit the camera just fine but as I thought does not auto focus. Oh well I'm cool with manual focus for now as I'm just getting into this.

 

 

You could buy a macro extension tube for whichever camera you end up with. They're only around $30 or so on eBay, like this set: http://www.ebay.com/itm/AF-Auto-Focus-Macro-Extension-Tube-Set-for-Canon-EOS-EF-EF-S-DSLR-Camera-Red-/191132776436. It fits between the lens and the camera, changing the focusing distance of whatever lens you attach it to, so you can focus much closer to things. It doesn't compare to having a true macro lens, but it can be fun to experiment with. The lens's autofocus system will even still work.

Yeah I might look into that. With the setup I have now I can get some decent close up shots if I zoom in all the way and stand about 18" away from the subject. Any closer than that and it won't come into focus. I assume these rings would fix that? For learning it would be a lot cheaper than a macro lens!

 

 

following this post, as I am also getting into this hobby (photography) and i noticed you live right next door LOL Im in clinton township

Awesome! I've always liked photography (took a course at OU a few years ago as an elective) but I've only had P&S cameras. They're nice but I could never get the shot I wanted. When looking at buying a camera it was either spend $5-600 for a new consumer camera or $3-400 for a used consumer camera (or $5-600 for a used enthusiast camera)... Neither of those options seemed good for me because I'm on a limited budget and not 100% sure how much I'll even use it. So I decided to scout out the really cheap stuff so I can decide where I really want to go with photography as a hobby without having to go balls out. Also I'm hoping I can use this to convince my wife that a "family" DSLR would be a good investment Anyways, that's cool you're nearby! Do you have a camera yet or are you still researching? I was very close to pulling the trigger on a Canon SL1. I liked that it was compact, has a touch screen, and the STM lens for silent video. Also it is a top pic on many sites. Unfortunately the camera I have doesn't have video capabilities but I have other cameras that do. I got it at ProCam in Plymouth. It was a drive but they have a lot of used gear there for under $100.

 

 

when purchasing a really old camera body, check the actuation number, aka shutter count. Like all equipments, camera sensor has a useful life. I think most consumer DSLR has a 100,000 shutter count life. That doesn't mean the camera will break after 100,000 pictures, just issues may come up as equipment ages. Kinda like mileage on a car.

Hahaha, this one is at 106,300 shutter count! I don't know how someone even takes that many pictures!!!! The body is solid though and looks very nice. All the buttons work and it's taking nice pictures just messing around. Just no auto focus for me. I need to see if anyone is giving away free or cheap old lenses around me. In his blog DurocShark gave away some old lenses - I have to believe there are plenty of people that have old non-AF lenses sitting around gathering dust.

 

 

[ajmckay]

Here are 2 pics from the first test batch of about 10... No editing just resize in MS paint.

 

Also no glass cleaning apparently - Somehow I managed to get water spots in most of my shots... Granted these are basement tanks so not quite as pretty.

[farkwar]

Tripod.

 

Best macro lens you can buy. A cheap release would be good.

 

Shoot straight at glass to minimize distortion. Maybe one of those porthole things, for top down shots.

 

No flash of course. Shoot at least 1/250 speed. Lower than 400 ISO.

 

If those are too dark, open aperture. Turn up lights for the shots.

 

Turn off pumps.

[ajmckay]

Thanks Fark for the tips. I'm getting better at taking images. Right now since everything is just in a QT tank I don't have much in the lighting department (clip on light). But I'm getting better with focus and I'm spending some time researching compatible lenses and what would be good for starting out.

 

Unfortunately though, I'm likely not going to get very far in the hobby of photography. Based on what I'm finding so far it could easily become just as or even more expensive than reef keeping! Seriously I'm blown away at the prices of even used gear. Craigslist things are selling for way too much it seems! Even for stuff that's 4-6 years old...

 

So I hate to ask this... but could someone post an ebay link or something to a solid cheap lens that would be good for aquarium photography? The good news is I have a D60 which apparently can accept any Nikon compatible lens, but pre AF lenses lose metering capabilities and to have auto focus it has to be an AF-S lens with the focus motor in the lens.

 

Here's one I found, how does it look?

Alternatively, I found these Diopters and these extension tubes for AF

 

Out of those 3 options which do you think would be best?

[teenyreef]

Tripod.

 

Best macro lens you can buy. A cheap release would be good.

 

Shoot straight at glass to minimize distortion. Maybe one of those porthole things, for top down shots.

 

No flash of course. Shoot at least 1/250 speed. Lower than 400 ISO.

 

If those are too dark, open aperture. Turn up lights for the shots.

 

Turn off pumps.

+1

I'm not nearly as good as some of the amazing photographers here on NR, but I try to make up for it by taking a bazillion pictures, experimenting with different settings, and only keeping the best ones. What farkwar posted is pretty much exactly my recipe. Aperture priority mode is your friend.

I also have an old D60 and it works fine. I bought a Tamron 90mm lens used on Ebay. $250 plus shipping. It's the second latest generation - the one with autofocus but without antivibration. Neither of which you will ever need since you will almost always manually focus a macro lens anyway, and VR doesn't do anything for you when you use a tripod. I bought a remote shutter release on Amazon for $10, and a tripod for $20. There is a significant difference between macros with and without a remote shutter release, by the way, but you can always just use the timer instead.

PS: I used both diopters and extension tubes before I got my macro lens. You can get some nice effects with them but they are much more limited. For example, you probably won't be able to use a diopter to focus on anything further than about 6" away, so unless you have a really small tank...

[farkwar]

Ken Rockwell gets lots of bad press, but he has a chart of which cameras have what and do what with what lenses.

 

He is a good resource for Nikon owners. No matter what the Nikon gearheads may write (including me).

 

 

It is an expensive hobby, one I could never have afforded back in the film era. Digital changed that. There's a reason a lot of your film photographers were independently wealthy to afford the profession. (Eggleston, Leibovitz, Mapplethorpe, etc et al). The camera that Vivien Maier used was equivalent in cost to a new car her, she rode the bus. 4x5 and 8x10 cameras were even more.

 

Craigslist sellers almost always are high on digital gear. Film, you can find deals.

 

Ebay, is good, but you need to know whats what, Wild Wild West. KEH is like Carmax, good used with warranty, at a premium, but worth it. Adorama or B&H used gear similarly used, good and backed by customer service.

 

Nice about Nikon, you can take a 50, 40, 30, 20 year old Nikon lenses and put it virtually on any Nikon today.

 

You can buy a good 30 year old Manual Macro and put it on your D60.

 

 

Ps,

I wouldn't say that Woodman was independently wealthy but her parents were not poor. And she never made pro.

[farkwar]

And don't let anyone tell you not to PhotoShop your pics.

 

All the best film photographers photoshopped their stuff.

 

Most laypeople and beginner photographers will say, "oh, Ansel Adams never photoshopped his stuff". Wrong, he was the grandfather of photoshopping. In many interviews he flat out states that all his prints are photoshopped, and that "straight prints", as he called them, were not equivalent to art, including his own. In the The Negative and The Print, he shows you a lot of his techniques.

 

Even with the best digital camera, you're going to hit the file with a little input and output sharpen or white balance, especially with our blue lights we use. Dont photoshop jpgs though, they will get artifacts and muddy, usually.

 

Michael Kenna and Rolfe Horn use film today and photoshop the crap out of their prints. Roman Loranc photoshops his film and prints extensively.