# What is a good Camera $400 to $600 range?



## magicmagni (Aug 19, 2004)

Hello. It just so happens that my Canon Powershot A40 took a dump after several years so I wanted to look into a new camera that better suits the needs of aquarium photography and have some manual controls that are lacking on my A40. I basically just want to take some decent focused pics without a lot of fuss from the camera and without having to be a professional. Some Macro capability would be nice too without having to swap out lenses and such. I was checking out some cameras online and was wondering if any of the more experienced photographers could offer their opinions, but anyone is welcome to give their 2 cents. Perhaps a number of you even have one of these? I am also open to considering other cameras out there. The thought of getting an even higher end used camera in the same price range also crossed my mind so I am open to all possibilities. Thanks for your time!

*Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ30K - 8 Megapixel Digital Camera with 12x Optical Zoom *

http://www.buy.com/prod/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_FZ30K_8_Megapixel_Digital_Camera_with_12x_Optical/q/loc/33409/202030350.html
*Canon PowerShot Pro 1 8.0 Megapixel Digital Camera *
http://www.buy.com/prod/Canon_PowerShot_Pro_1_8_0_Megapixel_Digital_Camera/q/loc/33409/90133201.html

*Fuji FinePix S9000 9.0 Megapixel Digital Camera w/ 10.7x Wide Angle Optical Zoom *
http://www.buy.com/prod/Fuji_FinePix_S9000_9_0_Megapixel_Digital_Camera_w_10_7x_Wide_Angle/q/loc/58786/201959811.html


----------



## devasb (Mar 26, 2005)

35mm =)


----------



## jerseyjay (Jan 25, 2004)

magicmagni,



> decent focused pics without a lot of fuss from the camera





> Some Macro capability would be nice too





> I am also open to considering other cameras out there. The thought of getting an even higher end used camera in the same price range also crossed my mind so I am open to all possibilities


Listening to those, logical solution is DSLR. You can get amazing setup for about $1000. Fairly inexpensive Nikon D70 with Commander Mode / Remote Control capabilities is one of the best models for aquatic photography. Combine this with 60mm f/2.8 or 105 f/2.8 macro lens 1:1 and SB-800 or SB-600 external flash, little bit of practice and you will see your pictures on the cover of TFH.

Small P&S cameras are a good option but you really have to make use of all manual options, tweak internal flash or invest in external (*small P&S don't have external option) and practice A LOT more !

35mm ?

I enjoy 35mm photography. Have 2 x 35mm bodies on top of 2 digital bodies. I refuse to use film camera if I can snap 1000000 of pictures and pick and chose without spending money on film.

Good luck !


----------



## magicmagni (Aug 19, 2004)

Jay Luto said:


> magicmagni,
> 
> Listening to those, logical solution is DSLR. You can get amazing setup for about $1000. Fairly inexpensive Nikon D70 with Commander Mode / Remote Control capabilities is one of the best models for aquatic photography. Combine this with 60mm f/2.8 or 105 f/2.8 macro lens 1:1 and SB-800 or SB-600 external flash, little bit of practice and you will see your pictures on the cover of TFH.


Wow $1000  . On the Cover of TFH sounds nice, but honestly it's probably a bit overkill for me and my budget. Really something around $500 makes sense right now. Do you think that I could get a decent used one for around that or would I be buying someone elses problems?



Jay Luto said:


> Small P&S cameras are a good option but you really have to make use of all manual options, tweak internal flash or invest in external (*small P&S don't have external option) and practice A LOT more !


Well if it meant saving a little money I guess I wouldn't mind having to mess around a bit with the camera settings. Anything has gotta be better than the 2 Mpixel A40 powershot I was using with only automatic settings where maybe 1 out of every 10 shots came out half way decent (shooting through the aquarium glass was a big problem). As far as flash I never used it because the colors would look so washed out, but also I'd get a lot of reflection on the glass.

BTW what can you do with the SLR that you can't on a high end P&S?



Jay Luto said:


> I enjoy 35mm photography. Have 2 x 35mm bodies on top of 2 digital bodies. I refuse to use film camera if I can snap 1000000 of pictures and pick and chose without spending money on film.


Yeah if I was using film camera I could have probably bought a new camera with all the film I'd be wasting. I am totally sold on digital cameras. BTW when someone says 35mm photography, what does that really mean? What makes 35mm better/ worse than whatever else is out there?

Sorry about all the dumb questions I am more a fish/plant person than a camera person.


----------



## bharada (Apr 17, 2004)

Jeff,
That Canon you linked to looks really nice. Manual focusing ability and a decent macro lens are the two most important things you need.

My advice would be to visit a camera store and try taking some pictures of items in the display case with them. This will give you a chance to gauge their macro abilities when shooting through a pane of glass.

Here's another option&#8230; Nikon D70 on ebay


----------



## magicmagni (Aug 19, 2004)

Thanks for tuning in Bill!

Yeah I was leaning towards that one, but then after Jay mentioned Nikon I did some digging and it looks like for about the same price I can get the Nikon D50 DSLR although it is only 6.1 Megapixels instead of 8. This brings up the question: Is money better spent on magapixels or lenses if you had to choose. I mean would the Nikon be considered a better camera even though it has less magapixels?

Like you said I should do a real world check and view all these cameras in person. I just want to have an idea since when you go into a store these days the person selling you the camera tends to know less then you do on the subject.

BTW the only thing the Nikon D50 doesn't have is white balance tuning. Would I need that?


----------



## bharada (Apr 17, 2004)

If you're really trying to keep the budget at ~$600 you'll need to go with the Canon. Even though you can get the D50 and kit lens for about the same $$$ you'd still need to buy a macro lens, which will set you back another couple hundred (unless you buy an older, non-AF, manual metering lens).

I still say go check the Canon out at a local store. Discount Camera (33 Kearny Street, San Francisco, CA 94108, Tel 415-392-1180) might have them in stock.


----------



## jerseyjay (Jan 25, 2004)

magicmagni said:


> Thanks for tuning in Bill!
> 
> Yeah I was leaning towards that one, but then after Jay mentioned Nikon I did some digging and it looks like for about the same price I can get the Nikon D50 DSLR although it is only 6.1 Megapixels instead of 8. This brings up the question: Is money better spent on magapixels or lenses if you had to choose. I mean would the Nikon be considered a better camera even though it has less magapixels?
> 
> ...


magicmagni,

I won't go into details now (rest time) but big difference between D50 vs. D70 is lack of Commander Mode in D50 which is the most important reason why I recommended D70. Another good one is SD cards (50) vs. Compact Flash cards (70). Not sure if you have either one now but CF are more popular and cheaper.

D50 has WB tunning:
• Auto (TTL white-balance with 420 segment RGB sensor *)
• Six manual modes
• Preset white balance
• White balance bracketing possible

Also don't get caught up with MegaPixel game. 6vs8 is NOThing to a naked ey !


----------



## Laith (Sep 4, 2004)

I agree with Jay.  Money is definitely better spend on lenses than on Megapixels, especially between 6 and 8.

In any case, comparing cameras using just megapixels is a useless exercise. However the camera manufacturers would have you think that it is the ultimate criteria.

I got a Nikon D70s a couple of months ago (mainly for underwater photography) and it's a great camera.


----------



## troy_h (Jul 12, 2005)

Save some bucks and get the Lumix FZ20, you will not find a better camera in it's price range, even at 5MP, the picture quality is excellent and the lens beats anything on the market in a point and shoot, in fact price even the cheapest SLR with a lens of the same quality as the Lumix, and you'll find you could probably buy 2 FZ20s for just the cost of a comparable lens.

I have some shots taken with the Lumix in the shrimp section.


----------



## magicmagni (Aug 19, 2004)

Yeah that's not a bad camera, It would have everything I want except that is doesn't have an adjustable aperture from the best I can tell or else I think I'd consider that one too.

I am really leaning towards the sony or the Fujifilm camera that I linked above. Both have the ability to do macro shots up to .5" from the lens- according to the manufacturers and they both have very high megapixels which is an added bonus, although 5mp would probably be fine. They also both have the ability to manually focus by turning a ring- kinda like an SLR. Both have wide angle lenses too I think starting at 28mm to like 40 or something, which isn't too bad. Canon is a little more expensive, but I'm used to their cameras so the learning curve should be good.

I need to find a place that stocks these though so I can try it out. I tried all the camera places in my area and no one has either of these in stock. I guess I'm gonna have to take a trip into the city and check that place out that Bill was saying. I'm wondering though if anyone has experience with these models and can tell me how they've been working out for them?


----------



## bharada (Apr 17, 2004)

Jeff,
Another place to look is Keeble and Schukat (http://kspphoto.com/) in Palo Alto.


----------



## gnatster (Mar 6, 2004)

DSLR prices are dropping. I recently saw the D50 with a lens on sale at both Best Buy and Ritz Camera for $599


----------



## magicmagni (Aug 19, 2004)

Thanks for the info! Yeah I went to Ritz and played around with that camera. Not too shabby for the price actually, now if it was that price with a wider angle lense. I'll keep shopping around. Thanks for all the pointers folks!


----------



## Raul-7 (Feb 4, 2004)

I've heard the Lumix FZ30 is a big improvement on the FZ20; both are under $600. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz30/

Then again that Fujifilm looks impressive; very fast shutter speed, 9.1 megapixels and 1 cm macro focus. Looks too good to be true for that price; how reliable is Fujifilm?


----------



## Ibn (Oct 20, 2004)

Given that price range, I'd take a look at a used D70 or a new D50 body. While those P&S cameras have high megapixel range which looks impressive, they are nothing compared to the DSLR sensors. The sensors are actually smaller than DSLR sensors and the noise is also more. A 4 megapixel DSLR camera, such as the D2H, will blow away the output from any P&S camera with 2x the megapixel difference. The only P&S camera that I can think of which is an exception to this rule is the Sony R1, since that uses the same size sensor as current DSLRs, but then again that's also reflected in its price.

D50 vs. D70. The main difference here is commander mode. For the price difference between the two cameras, it's well worth it. Commander mode will allow you to use the onboard flash to trigger flashes such as the SB600 and SB800 remotely, without wires (part of Nikon's creative lighting system). D70 has it, D50 doesn't. To do so on the D50, you need to pick up the SB-800 and place that on your hotshoe before you can trigger additional flashes remotely.

Also, consider this, both the D50 and D70 are capable of using all Nikon lenses as long as they're AI compatible (which goes really far back, into the 1960s). You'll be able to pick up AIS lenses which is compatible with the body if you don't want to spend gobs of money on the current crop of lenses. 

A nice kit to start off with is:
Nikon D50 body $550
50mm f/1.8D lens $100

Total = $650

Consequently, that's the same price as what used D70 are going for hence the recommendation above.


----------



## JLudwig (Feb 16, 2004)

gnatster said:


> DSLR prices are dropping. I recently saw the D50 with a lens on sale at both Best Buy and Ritz Camera for $599


D50 doesn't have commander mode though. For doing flash photography of fish, on-board commander is hard to beat, I would buy a Nikon at the D70 level, btw the kit 18-70 is an incredible lens for the price. If you do spring for D50 you can add a SU-800 later but thats put you in the same price range as D70. If $400-600 were my working range I would wait a while, save some more money, and buy into DSLR platform.

Oops, just saw Jay's commander mode comment, I'll second his recommendation its well worth the money. 

A few things to keep in mind, first is that sensor size in everything except high end Canon's is cropped, this means the 28mm you mentioned is prolly not a true wide angle, infact it might be zoomed if the sensor is very small. On a Nikon DSLR here's a 1.5 crop factor, other digital P&S is even higher. The macro minium focal distance is irrelevant really (even a disadvantage, see below), my 105mm Micro Nikkor is 1 to 1 at two feet, thats actually ideal since you don't need to spook the fish. You'll be 1-to-1 at 0.5" but that means you can only take macro shots 0.5" into the tank at full magnification, whereas I can focus on something all the way in the back and retain 1 to 1.

Megapixels above 5MP are mostly a marketing gimick unless you have very good glass, a heavy tripod, and and/or very good technique. Remote flash capabilities and focusing speed are much more important taking macro photos.

Jeff


----------



## fishfry (Apr 15, 2004)

I agree with the other posters to take a look at used DSLRS, be it a Canon 10D or a Nikon D50 D70.


----------



## bharada (Apr 17, 2004)

Jeff, what you really need to do is get the budget up to about $1000. Then you can start having fun!


----------



## jerseyjay (Jan 25, 2004)

bharada said:


> Jeff, what you really need to do is get the budget up to about $1000. Then you can start having fun!




Bill,

Look at my initial reply



> Listening to those, logical solution is DSLR. You can get amazing setup for about $1000.


----------



## bharada (Apr 17, 2004)

Too bad there's no DIY methods to digital photography. Maybe then we could actually be saving Jeff some $$$ instead of trying to make him spend 50%+ more than he's budgeted. [smilie=l:


----------



## jerseyjay (Jan 25, 2004)

bharada said:


> Too bad there's no DIY methods to digital photography. Maybe then we could actually be saving Jeff some $$$ instead of trying to make him spend 50%+ more than he's budgeted. [smilie=l:[/QUOTE]
> Bill,
> 
> Photography is just as addictive, if not more, as any other hobby. Photography = $$$
> ...


----------



## bharada (Apr 17, 2004)

Jay Luto said:


> I started my digital photography with Canon G2 at $600 (having couple 35mm bodies already) and currently paid $5,000 for Nikon D2X. Talking about addiction


No plans to add a D200 to your stable of cameras?


----------



## Ibn (Oct 20, 2004)

I think Jay is pretty much hooked onto pro bodies for the moment. 

Seriously though, take a look for used D70 around.


----------



## magicmagni (Aug 19, 2004)

bharada said:


> Jeff, what you really need to do is get the budget up to about $1000. Then you can start having fun!


Yeah there you go! I am now accepting donations. For just a Dollar a day you can sponsor this poor planted tank enthusiast and help him realize his dream of taking beautiful pictures of his fish. You can make difference. You know it's the right thing to do and it's tax deductable too!!

BTW went to Keeble and Shuchat. They really know there stuff there. I got some good information and great demonstrations. Too bad they are priced way above the competition, I would have liked to buy a camera from there.
I know everyone is saying D70, but I'm leaning more towards a new camera, just for the piece of mind and a warrenty. That unfortunately puts this Awesome camera out of my reach, but I'm willing to compromise. I was thinking about the D50 instead, but the salesguy seemed to really favor the Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D. It has the image stabilization too unlike the D50. He was showing me some blown up pictures of the Raiders Cheerleaders that they took with the camera and they looked really good. Really good


----------



## alexperez (Oct 8, 2004)

Jeff,

I bought the Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D and its a great camera, and IMHO much better than anything from Nikon or Cannon at 2X the price. The only bad thing (or good thing, depends on how you look at it) is that Konica Minolta sold its camera division to Sony. So there will be no more cameras made by KM. Sony will take over repair and guarantee service for KM. And Sony will keep the KM lens mount so all the old KM lenses will be usable on the new Sony DSLR. 

Regards,
Alex


----------



## JLudwig (Feb 16, 2004)

magicmagni said:


> I was thinking about the D50 instead, but the salesguy seemed to really favor the Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D. It has the image stabilization too unlike the D50. He was showing me some blown up pictures of the Raiders Cheerleaders that they took with the camera and they looked really good. Really good


Yeah, because the saleman's commission is higher because Konica Minolta just went out of the photo business (they sold to Sony) and items are marked for rapid liquidation. I've been screwed by Minolta in the past (before the Konica merger), the STSi mount lens didn't work on their first few generations of DSLRs. Absolutely stupid, with no respect for brand loyalists, I'd be shooting Minolta still if they could put 2+2 together.

Try and take this the right way, but you're going to spend a lot of money, and you haven't done basic homework. You should know that KM is out of the business now. You really expect Sony to keep the development of the Minolta brand/current lens mount active? I highly doubt it. Stick with Canon or Nikon, they have a focus on cameras and are big enough to support their lens line now, and in the future. And its not throwaway crap, they both make good cameras, if something breaks (not very often) you can get it fixed. A used 10D/20D or D100 or D70 would be great, spent the money on new glass (Canon and Nikon offer image stabilized lens, as good or better than Minolta's tech), then upgrade the body later. Or buy the Minolta and five years from now be in the position where I am, trying to sell old Minolta gear for peanuts on Ebay 

Jeff


----------



## magicmagni (Aug 19, 2004)

I appreciate everyones input. This is like buying a car! Lots of variables to consider. To the salesmans credit he did explain to me the business situation concerning KM and Sony. Maybe then KM is going to the dogs? 

Alex: thanks for chiming in. I agree that the KM is a good camera. It seemed to get some very good reviews (steves digicam ect..) From what I gather one can take RAW images and with the included software be able to edit them before converting to JPEG. Is that how it is on yours? 

Being that I can get the KM for under $600 makes the deal even more sweet, but Jeff brings up some valid points worth consideration. If that platform becomes obsolete then where does that leave me? Stuck with limited selection of lenses in the future? Thinking further about this though I'm not sure if I buy into the fact that Sony is going to radically change anything. They had been working with KM for several months to develop a line of cameras for them before they decided to just buy them out and I'm sure they spent big bucks so I can't see why would they throw all that time and money away to do something different. It seems that the main thing sony was interested in getting from KM in fact was the lense technology. Sony seems to specialize more in CCD's, processors, batteries- basically the electrical side of the camera so I wouldn't be surprised if they changed that type of stuff, but I'm thinking the lenses are here to stay. If only we all had a crystal ball!

Jeff


----------



## Ibn (Oct 20, 2004)

If you're considering down the line, then I'd scratch the KM all together. Hard to say what Sony will do with the division but considering that Sony produces mostly point and shoot cameras, I wouldn't bet on them to continue with the line. Also, Sony is very proprietary with their electronics (e.g. duo memory cards) and I'd rather stick with memory that I can use in any thing but their cameras. 

That's one reason why I'd stick to either Canon and Nikon. Both their lens lineup is very extensive versus the other brands.


----------



## alexperez (Oct 8, 2004)

I look at it this Way. If you are going to invest in lots of high priced lenses and gear for the KM, Then you are taking a shot in the dark with getting the 5D. *No* one knows what Sony is going to do. They might do great things with
what they got from KM and they might not. You will hear all sort of comments and speculation, but the fact remains that no one knows what is going to happen, period.

For me I like the camera way better than anything else I tried for the price. I'm nothing going to go out and spend a lot of money on lenses and other equipment. (of course this is relative to what you consider a lot of money). So far I have spent a total of $1300.00 on all the equipment. Camera, lenses, Flash that I will ever use. I'm not the type that will go out and pay $900.00 or more for a great lens. I have bought other equipment like tripod, Camera bag, Compact Flash storage, but that will/should work with most camera I would buy in the future so I don't included it in the cost.

I'm no pro, just a simple guy who likes to take some nice pics (try to at least), but don't like the point and shoot cams. So to me it does not matter if KM is no longer around. I got a good camera that I enjoy using, It takes great pics. and will last me for a few years. If sony does good things and I can still use my KM Lenses/Flash great, If not then I'm out a few hunderd bucks.

I did buy the camera before I knew about KM/Sony. So to be honest If I did Know that KM was selling out, I might not of bought the camera. But for the price range I was looking at I just did not like the what Nikon or Cannon had to offer. Yea the Canon EOS-1D Mark II is an awsome cam but for $4000.00 its to much money for me.

And yes the 5D takes Raw pics if you want it.

Regards,
Alex


----------



## jerseyjay (Jan 25, 2004)

alexperez said:


> I bought the Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D and its a great camera, and IMHO much better than anything from Nikon or Cannon at 2X the price.


????

I'm not going to say that Konica Minolta is bad b/c one of my old and successful cameras is 35mm Minolta 500si but to say that Maxxum 5D is better than anything from Nikon or Cannon at 2X the price ....... I disagree.

The MAXXUM 5D is designed to be a competitor to the Nikon D50 and Canon EOS Rebel XT, not necessairly to D70 / D100 / D200 / 10D / 20D.

I will leave it at that.

If I was to pick Minolta vs. Nikon vs. Canon, Minolta would be my last option any day or night.

Good luck with your decision.


----------



## alexperez (Oct 8, 2004)

Jay I said "IMHO", I really can't state for a fact that it is better. just that I think so.I don't want to hijack magicmagni thread so I'll leave it at that.

magicmagni, 
See if your local camera shop will let you try out the cameras that are in your budget range and see how you like them. I was glad that they let me try out the ones I was looking at, They let me take it home and shoot some pics and just mess around with it. And that really helped my decision. In the end any of the current DSLR that you get will help you take great pics. Its a bit of a change going from point and shoot to DSLR. But you will enjoy the journey. And be careful cause It can get addicting.

Good luck with your search.

And just to show you what you can do with a good cam, that a regular Point and shoot can't do. here are a few pics of some of my shrimp.


----------



## magicmagni (Aug 19, 2004)

Well I ended up taking my changes with the Minolta since the price was so good and seemed to get better reviews than the D50 and was far superior to the equally priced high end point and shoots. As I come to find out one of my family members has a Minolta film SLR from about 6 or so years back and they also have a few lenses and flashes from that camera that I will have access to. Tried out some of the lenses and they fit and work with my camera so that works out nice. 

I am amazed at how well the autofocus is on this camera. Actually just leaving everything in automatic on the camera makes some great shots, but I've been starting to get my hands dirty with all the manual settings too. One thing that is weird to me is that you can't see the picture on the LCD screen until after you take it- still getting used to that.

Alex: What lens did you use to get those close ups of the shrimp? The reason I ask is because my camera came with an 18-70mm lens with 1.3' Macro, but I don't think I can get quite that close.

Overall I'm really pleased with the camera. It's way nicer than I ever expected.

Thanks again to everyone for offering their opinions. It was a big help.


----------



## alexperez (Oct 8, 2004)

Congrats magicmagni, I'm sure you will be happy with the Camera. 
The lens I used to take the shrimp pics is a Sigma 105MM EX macro. It is the most expensive lens I got. Look here for some macro lenses and reviews.
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/results.asp?IDLensType=2

A macro lens is fairly expensive, but In order to get nice pictures it is worth it. I bought mine used on Ebay and got it a lot cheaper than new. You might also want to look at Pawn shops and local camera shops as they might have a used one for a good price.

Enjoy the camera!!!!


----------



## magicmagni (Aug 19, 2004)

Thanks for the link!

Yeah I'll have to invest in something like that some day. I have a lens now that will do 28-100mm, but it gets blurry at the full extension for some reason- its probably going into infinity. BTW are you using an external flash on your shots? I am just getting by messing with the ISO, Aperature and shutter speed along with turning on all the lighting over the tank, but I'm thinking I may invest in the external flash first and then the lens down the road.


----------

