# SLR Question



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

I'm thinking of purchasing this camera as an upgrade to my current Canon S2-IS (P&S). Does anyone know how this will improve and/or still limit my aquarium picture taking. I assume even with the increase in ISO speed I'll still need additional off camera lighting to really do the job. Thanks in advance for any advice.

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Digital-18-135mm-3-5-5-6G-Zoom-Nikkor/dp/B000NZQ63M/ref=sr_1_10/002-2337031-7888004?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1192031354&sr=1-10


----------



## Paul Higashikawa (Mar 18, 2004)

A great entry-level DSLR for new users. There is also a 10.1mega version but I really think this one will serve you well enough. You will enjoy it.


As for additional lighting, that is true no matter what camera you use. You can supplement it with external flash or place additional light near/above the tank.


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

Paul,

Thanks for sharing your views. I've heard good things about it and you just confirmed as well. Yes I I noticed the 10.1 version which is only $621 w/ a 18-55 lens or you could get the 6.1 version for $661 but it comes with a 18-135 lens I guess I'll have to read up more. I'm a real novice with photography. Will the 18-135 lens prove beneficial for aquarium photography.


----------



## Paul Higashikawa (Mar 18, 2004)

That is a good lens as I also have one myself, the 18-135, that is. But the other you mentioned will do just fine. It is not so much about the lenses as it is about the techniques in taking photos of the aquarium tanks. So to sum up, you will do equally well with either D40 or D40x. It is in the end all about practice. I am also a novice Good luck to us both and have fun!


----------



## bartoli (May 8, 2006)

I too have a D40. As suggested by the following Ken Rockwell article,

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40/users-guide/menus-custom.htm#10

I turned on the ISO Auto feature and found it very handy. Basically it adjusts the ISO setting according to the lighting condition.


----------



## StereoKills (Sep 15, 2007)

I would also invest in a macro lens in order to get easier close ups. One thing to beware of on this camera is that only the newer series of Nikon lenses (AF-S) will work with this camera since they switched to internal focusing moters.


----------



## gotcheaprice (Sep 4, 2007)

Canon has a bigger range of lenses if you decide to go with the D40x since their focusing motors are internal. And yeah, I suggest a macro lense too.


----------



## meglet (Oct 12, 2005)

I recently upgraded from a Powershot S2 to a Canon Rebel XTi, which is about $30 more than the Nikon you linked, and I really like it.

I haven't had the opportunity to take many tank pics with the new camera, and it definetely requires different lighting, but it does take much better pictures. I'll see if I can get the recent one of my loaches uploaded somewhere as an example.

Edit: Found the photos and uploaded them. Both of these photos were taken with the Canon Rebel XTi and the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens (highly recommended, about $75 for the non-IS version) using natural window light, no flash, and the tank light. I'm pretty sure the blurred background is user error, as this was the first day I had the camera.

Pic 1: 


















These are the first really good pics of my loaches I have been able to get, because the little monsters move so quickly.


----------



## Bert H (Mar 2, 2004)

You should be able to get much better quality from a D-SLR than from a point/shoot. If for no other reason that you can shoot it in RAW format then process the image yourself. That will give you the greatest quality possible digitally. An SLR will also allow you to use various lenses depending on what it is you want to capture. 

As far as megapixels go, they tend to be overrated. Other things are just as, if not more, important than them. Like noise levels, for example. One thing they will help you with, is cropping. You will be able to make a crop of an image from a 10 MP camera look much better as from an equivalent 6 MP simply because you have that much more information to work with. 

The 18-135 lens will be better for macro work. I would suggest looking to see what the body alone goes for, then get an off-brand lens, like Sigma, Tokina, etc. These can be excellent lenses, at fractions of the cost of the equivalent Nikon/Canon lenses.


----------



## Pooky125 (Jul 26, 2005)

If your looking for an SLR, remember that Nikon and Canon aren't the only makers out there. Pentax also has a couple nice cameras that would be worth looking into. The K100D has gotten some pretty good reviews, as has the K110D. Both also have image stabilization built into the camera, rather then the lens itself like Canon and Nikon. Not exactly what you were going for, for an opinion I'm sure, but I thought I should throw it out there anyway...


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

Things for all the views about SLR cameras. You've all given me alot to thing about. I've always thought only Canon and Nikon because of their glass, but it sounds like others like the different compatible lenses as well. I'm more concerned about full tank shots so it sounds like buying extra off camera light is more important than having a 18-135 lenses vs the one's that generally come with the camera 18-55.

_*If for no other reason that you can shoot it in RAW format then process the image yourself. That will give you the greatest quality possible digitally*_

Bert when you say "shoot in RAW format" how is that different than the initial image produced by a P&S camera.

Thanks all!


----------



## bartoli (May 8, 2006)

Do you have a very low light tank? In the same lighting environment, a DSLR typically produces much better picture due to having a larger CCD, higher ISOs, and a brighter (faster) lens.

Basically, raw format is what the camera CCD has captured. Non-raw format is the raw format plus in-camera adjustments on color, contrast, brightness, etc.

With raw format, you can re-apply adjustments without degrading quality. It is like re-taking the same picture at a later day with the same exposure.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Wahter (Nov 15, 2004)

I have an older Canon 20d DSLR; prior to getting this camera, I've borrowed a couple of point & shoots and I agree with what's already been said, that you can get better pictures under less lighting conditions from a digital SLR. I wasn't so sure about image stabilization at first, but after using it, and seeing how it helps, I leave that on all the time. I also agree with what's been said about megapixels - the more is not necessarily better if you're shooting photos for either the web or for printing no larger than at 8" x 10". I'm sure the Nikon will do fine for you. 


Walter


----------



## Bert H (Mar 2, 2004)

houseofcards said:


> Bert when you say "shoot in RAW format" how is that different than the initial image produced by a P&S camera.


Most P/S cameras only shoot in JPEG, though I think a few will do RAW and some also TIFF. JPEG is a comperessed file - you are allowing the camera to decide what is important and what isn't when it creates the image. Whenever you do any kind of processing to a JPEG you degrade it, if you maintain it as a JPEG. A RAW file has all the information that the camera is capable of gathering via its sensors and it is up to you to bring it out to the best of its abilities. For example, you can adjust the exposure up or down, bring out information from the shadows, dumb down highlights from the overexposed sections, white balance, etc... It is not as hard as it sounds. All digital SLR's have propietary RAW file formats and you will get software from the manufacturer when you buy the camera allowing you to perform the RAW conversion (to a TIFF, or JPEG according to your final use). Check out this link and the following two parts to the article to give you a great explanation of why RAW is better. HTH.


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

Thanks for the additional information everyone and for explaining the raw vs jpeg picture taking. Bert I will definitely give that article a read. Thanks again.


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

Just for the hell of it I was looking at the current version of my camera (Canon S2 IS) . It's now the Canon S5 IS and I can't believe how much it has progressed. The MP is up from 5 to 8, ISO from 400 to 1600 and it even has a hot shoe adaptor for an external flash. But most importantly it actually has an Aquarium Mode, yes an aquarium mode as one of the scene settings. hehe. Even with all these goodies I guess it would still be limiting compared to an SLR camera based on the ability to take raw results and edit.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000Q3043Y/interactiveda666-20


----------



## bartoli (May 8, 2006)

Looks like the aquarium mode has the flash disabled along with applying a certain tonal adjustment, see:

http://www.vistek.ca/details/details.aspx?WebCode=231746&CategoryID=DigitalCameras

Raw mode offers post-exposure flexibility. The quality of lens and CCD have a primary impact on image quality.


----------



## vicpinto (Mar 27, 2007)

StereoKills said:


> ...since they switched to internal focusing moters.


That's not the case. Nikon has always made lenses with both external focus motors and lenses that require the camera to drive the focus mechanism - the 50mm f/1.8 comes to mind so does the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro DG.

The difference is cost. That's why a D40 cost what it costs. When you buy an entry level Nikon DSLR you are limiting yourself to the types of lenses that you will be able to use - namely the aforementioned AF-S and AF-I lenses.

To the OP, get rid of this limitation by buying a camera with an internal focus pin - D70 and higher.


----------

