# Good Camera?



## burtoncb47 (Dec 2, 2006)

im looking for a camera that takes nice photos but wont hurt my wallet to bad. i know absolutely nothing about cameras but i know im sick of my piece of junk camera that cant zoom at all and takes blurry pictures. so i am wondering what is a good brand of camera and model that takes good quality pictures and can take pictures of smaller fish without getting blurry?
thank you for any help/advice!
Burton :thumb:


----------



## redzebra24 (Sep 28, 2005)

A camera doesn't take pictures on its own. The user is needed, that helps decide the quality of the image.


----------



## burtoncb47 (Dec 2, 2006)

yes i am aware that the owner helps decide the quality of the picture except some cameras were not designed to take pictures of small, moving fish. mine is also a little bit older and less expensive than one that will take better quality pictures. and this is where i ask for advice on a camera that is a little newer and more advanced so that i can take nice pictures of my fish.

thanks again
Burton


----------



## LowCel (Apr 6, 2004)

I am using a Canon PowerShot A590 IS. You can pick one up on NewEgg for about $160 or so. It has a nice "aquarium" setting on it which really helps. I think it does a pretty good job for the price.


----------



## haibane (Jun 2, 2008)

How much can you afford? I thin the D1 series from nikon are going pretty cheap used and are a very solid camera. I'd basically say upgrade to an slr so you have more functionality and can learn as you go. Otherwise I would look at the point and shoot with an aperature/shutter option


----------



## burtoncb47 (Dec 2, 2006)

thanks guys!

lowcel- those are some really nice photos. that is pretty much what im looking for. just a nice easy to use camera that takes nice pictures. thanks!

hailbane- im not really sure what im wanting to spend because i dont know what prices of cameras should be at, but im gonna say maybe up to 300 or 350. and i am pretty sure that that is not a lot for a good camera but if i learn more about them and what i need then i might be willing to spend some more on it.
also i was looking at some cameras online and i saw the SLRs but i really have no idea why they are different from the normal digital except for the better lenses. is that the only difference? or can you tell me a little about them? they look really nice.

thanks again
Burton


----------



## haibane (Jun 2, 2008)

burtoncb47 said:


> thanks guys!
> 
> lowcel- those are some really nice photos. that is pretty much what im looking for. just a nice easy to use camera that takes nice pictures. thanks!
> 
> ...


Not sure I could really explain it, but all the parts are better in SLR. Glass is much better usually. Control is a lot better also. No digital zoom(which is horrible for quality) Better noise. Better Depth of Field. Quality of images are better. 10mp on a point and shoot usually doesn't look as good as the 4.1mp off the D2h IMO. Lots of reasons really.


----------



## lostnight (Jun 3, 2006)

I just picked up a Canon Powershot SD750 for about 180. I already have a Kodak Easyshare C330. The Canon is a little smaller, yet has a bigger screen. It also has the aquarium mode, but the more I use it, the more I use manual mode instead. The audio and video is noticeable better on the Cannon. I'm still a beginner at photography, and the Cannon is a bit more complex than the Kodak, but I like like a lot so far.


----------



## Decoder (Dec 31, 2006)

If you are aiming for photo contests and photo art, definitely get a DSLR. I'd never pay more than 200$ for a compact if I were you.


----------



## fishnmaine (May 29, 2008)

I have a Canon PowerShot A620 and I'm going nuts. I don't get even close to the photos like you guys. I read and test ,read and test not sure what I'm doing wrong. Anybody here have the same camera. I could use some feedback....... Lowcel your photos are awesome the model you have is a model just below mine I think. But I dont have a "Aquarium" setting though.


----------



## liquidkiwi (Apr 26, 2008)

Simply put, it's difficult to photograph small, moving fish in the typical low-light conditions of an aquarium regardless of what equipment you have. A lot of the time, patience may be more important than actual skill. This is especially since digital allows you instant review and you can reshoot if something doesn't look good to you.

Some of the photos I've seen at this forum were apparently done without a flash but I've personally not been successful with this. The low lighting in the aquarium usually necessitates a higher ISO setting which can make your photos grainy and unusable, especially with the usual compact cameras. With modern DSLRs this is less of an issue.

The key reason why I use a flash is because it helps to freeze action, otherwise a slow shutter speed with movement causes motion blur because the fish is always moving. Either that, or there will be camera shake because you are yourself shaking. Yes, you can put the camera on a tripod instead for stability, but then you are either confined to wait in the same spot for the fish of your choice to pass by or otherwise chase the fish with a tripod mounted camera, which defeats the purpose of a tripod.

Hence the use of flash. An external flash unit is better than a built-in one, and when it comes to external flashes, a flash on a bracket is better than one that is hotshoe mounted. To get a good quality DSLR (even an old one) plus a macro lens (allows for great results especially closeup, and particularly suited to photographing small objects) plus a bracket and an external flash will run you way over your budget.

For example, the Canon D60 is an excellent (albeit old) DSLR that performs excellent even at higher ISO settings, gives you the chance to use an external flash (perhaps a 2nd hand 420ex) plus a bracket...it is cheaper than getting even the newer Canon G series cameras, but the D60 alone will still go for US$200-300 on Ebay, depending on accessories and condition. And if you want a capable but reasonably priced macro lens, look into the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro, but once again, that can blow your budget even on its own.

So stick to a compact camera with zoom (and possibly a macro mode) for now. A lot of cameras on the market these days have such functions. Don't worry about an 'aquarium' setting. There's literally squillions of digital compact cameras out there so I can't recommend which one to buy. The next best thing is to look up the good photos here and get in touch with the photographers to see what gear they use.

Then, before you buy, compare all the options within your budget by reading reviews here:

www.dpreview.com
www.dcresource.com

I also wrote a tutorial here on shutter speed, aperture, ISO and composition in case you're interested:

http://liquidkiwi.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html

And then hone your technique by experimenting and practicing so that you get better with composition, focus and exposure. I've only just started doing fish photography but have been doing general photography for little over 5 years now. Even so, fish photography is difficult, so don't get too discouraged or get hung up about the gear, because trust me, it's really not the whole story.

Once you get into photography though, beware. It's a dangerous and expensive hobby.


----------

