# Camera's FOR picture taking, Interested in what people use?



## love-my-fish (Nov 26, 2009)

Hello everyone, I'm looking at purchasing a new camera soon. I'm still using an old Canon G3, not the best for taking aquaria pictures... I've seen lots of great pictures on here and i'm wondering what camera and lenses everyone uses.

IF you could tell me what you like about the camera(pro's / con's type of thing) that would be great as well.....

If you know of good camera's that you can recommend, i would appreciate that as well....

thanks everyone for all your help in case i don't get to everyone.

I hope this is the correct place to post this!!
sheldon


----------



## dawgfish (Feb 6, 2009)

For good shots of moving fish I would look for a camera that has a "fast" lens. For a fixed focal length lens that would be f1.2 to f1.8 or f2.8 or so on a zoom lens. Also a camera that takes great pictures at an high ISO will help. Of course the ability to shoot great action pics in low light (without a flash) come at a high cost. Get out your wallet! 

For nice shots of the whole aquarium you would want a wide angle lens which is between 20-30mm on a 35mm or point and shoot or 10-18mm on a crop factor digital SLR.

Hope this helps and good luck!

Forgot to add.....I shoot a Nikon D90 but a D3100 or D5000 would suffice if you are looking for a new camera. I have found the D90 with a fixed focal length Nikon 50mm lens 1.8 (which is really about 76mm on the D90) works great for action shots. For wide angle I shoot the Nikon 12-24mm.

You can accomplish the same thing with a Canon or any of the other brands. They all take great pictures if you know how to use them.


----------



## love-my-fish (Nov 26, 2009)

thanks dawgfish... Totally appreciate the response and the info... I guess i have a lot of research and learning to do..... Need to find me some good websites to read upon this stuff.....

thank-you
sheldon


----------



## cantrell00 (Oct 30, 2010)

Shooting from a tripod with a remote trigger + a image stabilized lens will go a long way in enabling you to shoot low light with a f/3.5+ lens.

A macro lens would be a great help also.. If into Canon, the 100mm f/2.8 would be a decent start. You could always rent the lens too. Shooting fish in an aquarium is a fairly unique demand for a lens.

I am going to try & shoot some with a 50D & 28-135 IS from a tripod & remote shutter release. Don't know yet how well it will work. Well see.


----------



## BillD (May 17, 2005)

One thing never mentioned is using a submersible camera. That way you have not dirty glass or flash reflection. I was able to get some remarkable photos using one in the Caribbean.


----------



## Jowlz (Dec 19, 2008)

I have several Nikon SLR's both digital and film. I have much better luck with my older, much less expensive Canon SD1100IS, well for fish anyways....

Here is a 1.25" fish taken with my old Canon...


----------



## love-my-fish (Nov 26, 2009)

BillD said:


> One thing never mentioned is using a submersible camera. That way you have not dirty glass or flash reflection. I was able to get some remarkable photos using one in the Caribbean.


Good point Bill,,, i don't mind putting on the goggles and sticking my head in the tank... Just kidding bill,,, But that sounds like a really intriguing idea.... seriously....


----------



## love-my-fish (Nov 26, 2009)

Jowlz said:


> I have several Nikon SLR's both digital and film. I have much better luck with my older, much less expensive Canon SD1100IS, well for fish anyways.... ]
> 
> Thanks for chiming in Jowlz, about your camera's and great picture to by the way.. i'm liking what i see...
> sheldon


----------



## BillD (May 17, 2005)

Sheldon, are you coming out tonight? Udo has a Canon submersible. You don't have to put your head in the tank; you view the viewer from outside the tank and allow the camera to auto foucus.


----------



## love-my-fish (Nov 26, 2009)

BillD said:


> Sheldon, are you coming out tonight? Udo has a Canon submersible. You don't have to put your head in the tank; you view the viewer from outside the tank and allow the camera to auto foucus.


Sorry i could not make it,,, i actually wrote to joanne and told her..... Sorry i missed this.. will have to write to him and have a chat...
thanks bill

sheldon


----------



## fmueller (Jan 11, 2004)

I would learn to use the G3 first. OK, it's old, but it was a great camera when it was released, and there is no reason it can't do now what it did then. For starters, it has an f2.0-3.0 lens, which is pretty darn fast for a zoom lens. In practice you can't use anything faster than f2 for close up shots anyhow, because depth of field will be razor thin. If you take a fish portrait at f2, you will likely only have the eye of the fish in focus, but not the whole head. If you want to have the entire fish sharp, in my experience you will need to use at least f8.

The main drawback of the G3 is that it only allows ISO400 - but some tests say the G3's ISO400 is more like other camera's ISO800. If that's true, it shouldn't be too bad for aquarium shots. I'd take some fish shots at maximum ISO and see how usable they are. You want to take these shots at night when the room is dim to avoid reflections, tank lights on, camera set to ISO 400, f8, A-mode, no flash. Of every ten photos, pick the best one and delete the other nine. Try to hold the camera as still as possible, for example by bracing yourself on the sides of an armchair or a table. The photos might be good for web publishing, but too grainy for making poster sized enlargements. If you just want to show off pictures here and on other web sites, the camera will be just fine.

If that doesn't cut it, you could use an off camera flash. I believe the G3 is compatible with Canon's ST-E2 wireless flash transmitter and flash units such as the Speedlite 420ex. That stuff will probably cost as much as a new camera, but give you better bang for the buck if you are really into aquarium photography. I have used the ST-E2, 420ex combo for years with my old Rebel XT, and people are usually impressed by the results. The ST-E2 mounts in the flash shoe of the camera. You can then lay the flash unit on the glass top over the tank, and the camera will trigger it wirelessly. I've taken most of the fish photos in this gallery this way.

The main advantage of another camera would be better high ISO performance, and any DSLR will give you that. Even an older model like the Canon XT is very usable at ISO1600 if you are shooting for web publishing or regular print sizes. If you later want to upgrade to a DSLR, the ST-E2 and flash unit will still be compatible as long as you stay in the Canon system. I am currently using mine with a Rebel T1i.

Below are some shots taken with Speedlite 420ex placed on top of the tank and triggered by a ST-E2. The camera used was actually a T1i with a 17-85IS lens, but I bet nobody could tell the difference had I used your G3!


----------



## smilepak (Aug 9, 2004)

Jowlz said:


> I have several Nikon SLR's both digital and film. I have much better luck with my older, much less expensive Canon SD1100IS, well for fish anyways....
> 
> Here is a 1.25" fish taken with my old Canon...


What kind of fish are those? Look nice....will they play well with clown loach?

As for picture / camera:

I used both D200 and D300. I have the flash shoot through softbox or umbrella directly on top of the fish tank flashing downward. That will give enough light to the tank. Camera in front using Tamron 28-75 Macro and/or sometime Nikkor 105mm VR Macro.


----------



## Jowlz (Dec 19, 2008)

smilepak said:


> Jowlz said:
> 
> 
> > I have several Nikon SLR's both digital and film. I have much better luck with my older, much less expensive Canon SD1100IS, well for fish anyways....
> ...


That's an L. Speciosus, common name "Black Occelatus". It's a Tanginykan shell dweller. Not sure about clown loaches. They are very small fish and most people keep them alone or with very peaceful fish, like cyps and julidochromis. Shellies can be kept in very small tanks, so for a minimum investment, you could start a shellie species tank!


----------



## pretty-nifty (Nov 4, 2009)

Can you even get a decent picture of fish w/o a DSLR?


----------



## fmueller (Jan 11, 2004)

pretty-nifty said:


> Can you even get a decent picture of fish w/o a DSLR?


Would you consider this to be a 'decent picture'?


----------



## love-my-fish (Nov 26, 2009)

HI Fmeuller,,, wow.. thank-you for all the information you have written here,, I guess i really need to find some links to understand photography and how to take pics and so forth. If you know of any great links. please fire away... This is what i wanted this thread to be about, and that was to learn about camera's and find some good information, so that i could get into the photography aspect of it.... 
for now i have only been using the automatic settings of my old G3.. sometimes it take awesome beautiful pictures, even though it's onld, and sometime blurry photos focussing on the wrong thing, or else whatever i'm taking the picture of has already left the photo area.. 
any help is great and i hope everyone can use this thread for that.... 
Cheers!!!!!


----------



## love-my-fish (Nov 26, 2009)

fmueller said:


> Would you consider this to be a 'decent picture'?


I think that's a great picture, especially for someone like myself in terms of how much i know,,, and I bet your going to tell me next you took that with a G3??? Fine,, i can blush with embarassment.....
tks
sheldon


----------



## pretty-nifty (Nov 4, 2009)

Yes! THat is a decent picture. That can't be from a point and shoot.


----------



## fmueller (Jan 11, 2004)

pretty-nifty said:


> Yes! THat is a decent picture. That can't be from a point and shoot.


Unfortunately I don't have a P&S, but I am almost tempted to order myself a G3 just to prove a point :lol:

The photo of the B. Rams was taken with an old crappy film camera - not a DSLR :wink:



love-my-fish said:


> If you know of any great links. please fire away...


Photo.net is a great site for learning about photography in general. If I have a question about anything photo related, that's where I ask. This article on light in my opinion can be a real eye opener. When it comes to photography, we tend to think about cameras and lenses and all kids of stuff, but by the end it's all about the recording of light rays, and choosing the right light is what it's all about!

Photo.net includes a great learning section, unfortunately without an aquarium photography part, but the basic photo tips are relevant, as is the macro section. Less relevant, but an interesting read is underwater photography.

A site dedicated to aquarium photography is Aquatic-photography.com. They have forums which focus on people showing off their pictures, and most of the stuff posted there is awesome! They also have a range of articles in their knowledge base section, but I can't say if they are good or bad because I haven't read any of them


----------



## love-my-fish (Nov 26, 2009)

Frank thanks for the links,,, they are great,, did a quick tour of them and a wealth of information. Also took a quick gander at your website at work. I like what i see but once the holidays start im' going to read through it.....

Appreciate all the help

Have a great Holiday everyone and for those who do celebrate.. Merry Xmas

Sheldon


----------



## RRasco (Aug 31, 2006)

Jowlz said:


> I have several Nikon SLR's both digital and film. I have much better luck with my older, much less expensive Canon SD1100IS, well for fish anyways....


I have the same Canon. It takes great pictures and has great video, but I still want an SLR. I really need a manual focus, the auto focuses on the wrong things and takes too long. I like the colors in a picture better without the flash, but the fish have to be absolutely still, which never happens. Flash takes better pictures but is susceptible to glare on the tank.

Not as good as some of the others posted, but these were taken with my p/s Canon SD1100IS with regular flash.


----------



## pretty-nifty (Nov 4, 2009)

Nice pic for a p/s. Were you zoomed in? Macro? I can't anything like that on my nikon coolpix p/s.

Just ordered a nikon d5000. We'll see how that works. My first SLR.


----------



## fmueller (Jan 11, 2004)

RRasco said:


> these were taken with my p/s Canon SD1100IS with regular flash.


Those are nice pictures. If you shoot with flash from the front, you will always have glare somewhere on the tank. In the first photo you can see some of it in the top left corner. It's not too bad, but the image is a little overexposed in that area. In the second photo you can't see it at all, and that's because you zoomed in more - the photo shows just one fish, compared to several in the first one. In other words, in the second photo the glare is on a part of the tank that's not shown in the photo.

The further you move the flash away from the lens, the further the glare will be away from the center of the frame. P&S cameras are small, and the flash is close to the lens. That makes it really difficult to zoom in so much that the glare is outside of the picture. If you use the built-in flash of a DSLR, you are not much better off. A big external flash on top of the camera is quite a distance from the lens, and some pros move it further up by using a flash bracket. However, if you are using the flash off camera, and trigger it via a cord or a wireless trigger, you have a lot more freedom with flash placement, and a lot of options to avoid glare. Pretty much any DSLR allows the use of off camera flash, and some P&S cameras do as well - including the G3 the OP owns 

Two items not related to the camera are composition and post processing. Composition deals with the placement of objects in a picture. In a nutshell, it is not always best to place the main item in the center of the frame. For example in my opinion the mbuna in the second photo looks much better if placed in the right bottom corner. Post processing is what you can do in Photoshop or a similar software. Most cameras automatically achieve some sort of color balance, adjust contrast, and apply sharpening. With some practice those automatic adjustments can be improved upon. Of course the result is highly subjective, but I might have presented photo two to look more like shown below. I hope you don't mind me playing around with your image.


----------



## juststayinthecave (Dec 23, 2010)

The shelly tank looks great, I want one! =D>


----------



## RRasco (Aug 31, 2006)

Thanks. I only get a shot like these maybe 1 out of every 30-50 attempts. It's nice when you do, though. My theory is, shoot hundreds, keep the best. I actually cropped the second photo to get as much fish in the frame as possible. The original is below if you would like to play with it. I don't mind you messing with the photos at all, I love learning new tricks. I have lots of photoshop experience, but in graphic editing, not photo editing. I would be interested to know what you did to alter that image.

Also, when I take pictures with the flash, I try to aim at a downward angle. That seems to help put the flash higher on the glass but the picture frame is more down and keeps the glare to a minimum.


----------



## RRasco (Aug 31, 2006)

I've been playing with the post processing some of my pictures. I think most of them are too dark, but they still look cool. What exactly did you do to that first pic fmueller? I have been mainly playing with the brightness and contrast, but also the auto color/tone and some saturation.

http://s180.photobucket.com/albums/x42/ ... Processed/



pretty-nifty said:


> Nice pic for a p/s. Were you zoomed in? Macro? I can't anything like that on my nikon coolpix p/s.
> 
> Just ordered a nikon d5000. We'll see how that works. My first SLR.


Oh, and no. I believe I had everything to auto, wasn't zoomed it, and was not in macro. However, I did recently discover that setting and it works great zoomed in ultra close. Gotta try it on my fish.


----------



## pretty-nifty (Nov 4, 2009)

Is this underexposed?

Just got the camera out of the box and started playing with it.


----------

