# Photo Guy's need your advice.



## Paul M (Mar 31, 2005)

Hey All,
I just sold a sewing machine for a good amount of cash now looking to go dslr. Previous setup was Minolta X-700 only lens I have worth keeping is a Tamron 300 2.8 adaptall setup fit for Minolta. I can get a Nikon mount. 
My sister just got the new Canon ts1 i think the new 18 meg with a 55-135. I played with it for an hour today. I liked it but felt small in my hands. I went to the local store and picked up a Nikon 7000 and a Tamron 70-200 2.8 and it felt so nice. That combo is around 2,000.00 
I went to another store and checked out the Sony models 580 is a nice unit and the same sensor as the 7000. The guy at the store said there was someone making adapters to fit the md mount to the new Sony?
So my ? is go for the 7000 body $1,200.00 and just use the lens I have for now (Tamron 300 2.8 ) then get the 70-200 2.8 later down the road.
Or if I can get the Tamron 300 2.8 to adapt to the Sony 580 body. It is only 800.00 body only standard lens only 100 more. The store guy thought I might really look at that combo.
you don't get 2 SD slots like the Nikon and how important will it be down the road to write jpegs to one card and raw to another?
Never been a Canon person so not really looking at them yet.

Thank's

Paul


----------



## trigger (Sep 6, 2002)

Paul M said:


> you don't get 2 SD slots like the Nikon and how important will it be down the road to write jpegs to one card and raw to another?


I have a D7000 myself so my advice won't be a surprise. At the moment it's just the best camera for the money, but that will change in a couple of months anyway  The big brands take first place in turns. The two sd slots have several functions, you can join them to give you the maximum storage, you can use one as backup for the other. Basically every shot will be written to both cards. Or you can write raw to one slot with a big card and write jpg to the other slot with a smaller card.

It's a nice feature, but I would make that the deciding feature unless that would be the only difference.

Also the D7000 will take any Nikon lens made. Even the Af lenses without built in focus motor. That will give you a lot of possibilities to get perfect lenses second hand.

Bottom line, I am a Nikon man, so I'd go for the Nikon :dancing:


----------



## Paul M (Mar 31, 2005)

Thank's for the advice. I'm going to be doing lots of research on this before I buy.
I thought for sure the big used camera store here locally would have the adapter I need. So i'm looking for a Tamron adaptal 2 Nikon mount. If he had one he get $15.00 for them. He said just keep checking back. Had a bunch of Minolta and canon.

Paul


----------



## NorthShore (Feb 3, 2006)

The D7000 is state of the art. Kicks the butt of any other brand in that price range. Period. I'm not saying that because I'm a nikon guy. I'm always checking out the new bodies. Ken Rockwell, and his site is always worth a read, suggests that the D90 is the smarter way to go until you hit full frame like the D700 or D3 because it's almost the same camera for a lot less money.


----------



## jason_nj (Feb 24, 2010)

I just bought a Sony SLT-A55 and love it. Since you already have Minolta lenses, I would check if the Sony's can use those lenses. Sony bought Minolta's camera technology and I heard Minolta lenses are interchangeable. I would look at some of the photography websites. www.dpreview.com is a good one.

Here are some shots I took with my camera. I'm not a photographer so Id just used the auto settings on the camera.


----------



## Paul M (Mar 31, 2005)

Thank's guys 
nice pics.

I was big into it with film and want to make the plunge. Loooking at keeping the Tamron 300 2.8 Test it out after I buy the body. 
Not the I will do lots of editing but I like to shoot big. Thinking that if I need to turn the raw's into jpeg's and shoot alot. It would be worth the money to do it on the fly while shooting then at the computer later sorting and changing them.
Wish I could afford full frame.
These camera take the F mount w af coupling and af contacts. Not sure if the adaptall system supports those features.

Paul


----------



## fmueller (Jan 11, 2004)

I used to be a big time Minolta manual focus shooter with over a dozen camera bodies and a wardrobe full of lenses. It's a great system for film, but it is totally incompatible with any DSLR. The Sony DSLRs are compatible with the Minolta AF system (Maxxum, Dynax), but not the old Minolta manual focus system (MD, MC, SR). There are adapters to put MD lenses on all kinds of cameras, but they all need glass, which degrades the image quality, changes the focal length, and makes the lens slow. None of that stuff is worth the short time I just spend writing about it.

If you buy a DSLR, you will need new lenses. In my opinion the same is true for the Tamron adaptall mount. Who wants to shoot an expensive DSLR and bother with manual focus and stop down metering? Sell the old stuff except for anything you are sentimentally attached to, and move on. I only kept my very first camera, a black chromium plated XD-7, and my first two lenses. Other than that I am now firmly entrenched in the Canon camp. But as others have said, all of the major systems are very good. Canon and Nikon are obviously the big boys, but Sony and Pentax are not bad either. The good part of having no usable legacy gear is that you can choose unencumbered and start with a blank slate 

The reason I chose Canon was that I like the smaller Rebel bodies - unusual for somebody 6' tall with hands like shovels, but having grown up shooting the Minolta XD series, I was used to smaller bodies. The X-700 is not much larger, unless you use the MD-1. I also like to buy second hand, and found I could get by far the best deals with Canon.

The backward compatibility into the manual focus system in Nikon and Pentax in my opinion is highly overrated. Sure, you can mount all the lenses, but some features are unsupported. With some lenses on certain camera bodies you can't even meter! To call that compatible is a joke, and for me as newcomer F-mount compatibility seemed to be an incomprehensible mess. Canon is more like Minolta. There is no compatibility between AF and MF, but within these system virtually everything works with each other and every feature is supported.

I am currently shooting a Rebel T1i. Mostly for aquarium shots I have an off-camera flash system consisting of Speedlite 420ex and ST-E2 Speedlite Transmitter. Lenses are:

EF-s 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM
EF-s 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM
EF 35mm f2.0
EF 50mm f1.8 II
EF 100mm f2.8 macro USM
EF 70-210mm f3.5-4.5 USM
EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS USM

If I had to pick again, I would again go with Canon :thumb:

I shot virtually all photos on www.fmueller.com and www.ohiocichlid.com with my Canon set.


----------



## trigger (Sep 6, 2002)

fmueller said:


> The Sony DSLRs are compatible with the Minolta AF system (Maxxum, Dynax)


That's because Sony never made a DSLR, but just bought Minolta 



fmueller said:


> The backward compatibility into the manual focus system in Nikon and Pentax in my opinion is highly overrated. Sure, you can mount all the lenses, but some features are unsupported. With some lenses on certain camera bodies you can't even meter!


Well, with "most" lenses on "some" bodies, I was just stating the D7000 is one of the "some" bodies 

And to stop this getting into a canon versus nikon bashing thread, IÃ‚Â´ll back out. I gave my 2 cents and have nothing more to add.


----------



## fmueller (Jan 11, 2004)

trigger said:


> That's because Sony never made a DSLR, but just bought Minolta


I am far from being a Sony man, but that's just a tiny little unfair. Sure, Sony bought the Maxxum/Dynax system, but at the time they did that, Minolta had all of two DSLR bodies, while Nikon and Canon had a wide range of offerings. Now the Sony system is a little more competitive due to Sony releasing quite a range of DSLR bodies - none of which I am particularly familiar with.



fmueller said:


> And to stop this getting into a canon versus nikon bashing thread, IÃ‚Â´ll back out. I gave my 2 cents and have nothing more to add.


Just for the record, I had no intend of bashing Nikon - unless you think it is Nikon bashing if I say that neither the Canon nor the Nikon system have any significant advantages over each other. 

Regarding full frame, I wonder what ungodly size of enlargements people make to truly experience a significant advantage in FF over APS-C. I am very grateful for the smaller and lighter bodies and lenses. Even if I could justify the expense, there is no way I would "upgrade". The main advantage of FF in my view is for people who change over from film and want to retain the focal length of their wide angle lenses. However the need for FF has become an obsession for many casual shooters who make it sound like an APS-C camera somehow gives you only part of a photo.

I also no longer shoot RAW. The maximum resolution JPG in my camera is plenty good enough for me. Sure, RAW offers you more options to save a shot if the exposure is way off, but heck, I used to shoot slide film in a Minolta SRT and I was fine 99% of the time. Even the JPG is several orders of magnitude more forgiving, and the metering in today's cameras is way better than in a Minolta SRT. How many stops do folks under or overexpose? The disadvantages of RAW are huge file sizes and cumbersome conversion procedures. The proponents usually make light of that, claiming that any serious photographer has to to put up with those minor inconveniences. For me photography is a hobby and has to be fun. RAW took the fun out of photography for me.

Now I have given my 2c :lol:


----------



## Rhinox (Sep 10, 2009)

So, maybe I should start a new thread for this, but I was wondering...

Ever since my wife "borrowed" "OUR" camera last week and left it at her place of work without telling me leaving me to turn the house upside down trying to find it :roll: I've been thinking I should get my own camera. I've only ever used point and shoot digital cameras, but I've been thinking lately I'd really like to take the step up to DSLR and turn photography into more of a hobby.

I was wondering, what are some good entry level DSLR's I can get started with that won't end up costing more than my cichlid hobby :lol: . I wouldn't mind a few options to research through, and I will probably look to buy used if possible. Also, anything else I might need to get started?

Just for reference, I'd have a hard time justifying a cost of more than $500 to myself let alone my better half, and if I can find something <$300 it might make a nice birthday present for me coming up in march.

Thanks, and if its a problem I'm hijacking the thread, let me know and I'll start a new one.


----------



## trigger (Sep 6, 2002)

fmueller said:


> Just for the record, I had no intend of bashing Nikon - unless you think it is Nikon bashing if I say that neither the Canon nor the Nikon system have any significant advantages over each other.


You are actually the first Canon user I "meet" that will admit that in public 

Like I said, every time one of the major brands releases a new body, it will usually out-perform the others. Pro's and con's are personal. Personally I like the heavier, more sturdy Nikon bodies. I always feel like I have nothing in my hands with Canon. But others prefer that over the heavy nikon bodies. Oh and I have a world wide Nikon pro service card, so buying anything other would be foolish for the rare case you need it 

One thing though I stand by, Nikkor (yes nikkor not nikon) makes better glass than Canon in the consumer range that is. The Pro range is out of my budget anyway.

And to end the whole thing... It is YOU that makes the picture, the camera just goes "click"

Give a pro a basic camera and give me his pro camera and he will still produce better pictures than me. (but that can be my personal problem also  )


----------



## fmueller (Jan 11, 2004)

Rhinox said:


> I was wondering, what are some good entry level DSLR's I can get started with that won't end up costing more than my cichlid hobby :lol: . I wouldn't mind a few options to research through, and I will probably look to buy used if possible. Also, anything else I might need to get started?
> 
> Just for reference, I'd have a hard time justifying a cost of more than $500 to myself let alone my better half, and if I can find something <$300 it might make a nice birthday present for me coming up in march.


In that price range in my opinion it's not so much what brand you buy but where you buy it, because you could well end up with somebody's irreparable junk if you got the eBay or Craigslist route. In my experience the absolutely hands-down best place to buy second hand camera gear is KEH (www.keh.com). They stand by their stuff, so if you happen to get somethign that's not working they'll make it right by you. In addition, they are pretty much the only folks in the business to underrate gear. They have a reputation of selling BGN rated stuff that's better than other people's new. I don't know how they do it, but when I was saving up for my 100-400L, I bough a couple of boxes of lenses from KEH, and sold them on eBay for a profit, until I had enough money saved for the big gun :thumb:

Since I know more about Canon models than any other DSLR, I'd say have a look at the Rebel XT for a smaller body or the 20D for something more hefty. At $235, this XT seems almost too good to miss. Ad this 18-55 IS for $133, and you got a killer starter set.



trigger said:


> You are actually the first Canon user I "meet" that will admit that in public


Might be because at heart I am still a Minolta user - twice abandoned, first with the MD system, and then altogether 



trigger said:


> One thing though I stand by, Nikkor (yes nikkor not nikon) makes better glass than Canon in the consumer range that is. The Pro range is out of my budget anyway.


I don't know enough about current Nikon lenses to confirm or refute this, but to me consumer lenses these days are APS-C lenses, since FF is overkill for consumers IMHO. Canon's budget APS-C lenses are the 18-55 IS and the 55-250 IS. Those two are typical consumer lenses in built quality, meaning they are light weight plastic, and can't touch on the ruggedness of the L-series. But both are killer lenses optically and very well respected. If the Nikon counterparts were sharper, I doubt the difference could be large enough to matter for any consumer application. I also don't know how anybody could beat the price of about $170 and $250, respectively. B&H sells the imported version of the 18-55 IS for $130, and that lens has the very latest technology of a 3-4 stop IS system. Compare that to some L lenses where the markup for having IS in the lens is $400-$500!

In short, I don't think any of the big guys can afford to have bad consumer lenses on the market anymore, seeing how competitive the business is.


----------



## NorthShore (Feb 3, 2006)

Brand is irrelevant these days, really. Nikon had a bit of an edge in aquarium photography with commander mode but I do believe Canon now has their own wireless remote flash triggering system in the 7d model. Canon held an edge with their CMOS sensors until Nikon finally moved away from ccd sensors and designed a pretty darn good cmos sensor themselves.

Photography is still about knowing what you want to end up with as an image and knowing how to use the gear to produce that image.

I will always recommend that anyone serious about a dslr go into a camera shop and handle different cameras in your price range. Canons felt a little small in my hands so I went with Nikon. Once you know which model you want, then go shopping for price.

I have seen guys win photo contests on this site with point n' shoot cameras. Some of the best aquatic photographers on the net use some of the most basic gear and camera bodies. You might be surprised.

While it might not surprise you that Aquamojo uses a nikon D3, it might surprise you that AQUASAUR still shoots with a canon 50d. Another member here by the name of RAFAL has won several photo contests here and on the net using a Sony point n' shoot camera.

Gear is only one part of the equation.


----------



## jason_nj (Feb 24, 2010)

Like I stated in my previous post, I'm not a photography expert in fact I would say I know nothing about photography. I'm starting to learn and I own the Sony SLT-A55 and love it so far.

Here is a direct comparison review on the Sony SLT-a55, Canan T2i and the Nikon D90. Hopefully it's helpful. I was actually undecided between the Canon T2i and the Sony SLT-a55 and this review sold me on the Sony.

http://www.digitalphotographywriter.com ... n-d90.html


----------



## Rhinox (Sep 10, 2009)

*fmueller*

Thanks for the info I'll definitely be spending some time looking around that site tomorrow. I originally had craigslist in mind, but what are some of the things to watch out for as far as "irreparable junk" goes? for example, something like...

http://cleveland.craigslist.org/ele/2179479105.html maybe looks like a deal?

I've been playing around with the controls on my point and shoot its a cannon powershot SD1100 IS but it seems all my pics come out grainy or blurred, its tough to get a nice shot of fish that don't sit still with this thing and the flash completely washes out the fish. Without flash, very hard to get a clear shot. Easier to take video with it and either just post the video or screen cap a nice shot from the vid :-?


----------



## fmueller (Jan 11, 2004)

Rhinox said:


> http://cleveland.craigslist.org/ele/2179479105.html maybe looks like a deal?


With 10.1MP it's either a XTi or XS. With the 18-55Is lens, it should sell for about $300-$400. If the offer to sell it for $160 is real, it's not a deal, it's a steal. But if something sounds too good to be true, it very often is! You might find this article of some interest.

Personally, I would be wary about buying a second hand DSLR from a private party. I've taken photos for about as long as I had fish, and I've traded with film SLRs for many years as a hobby. I can check out a Minolta SRT in a few minutes and tell if it's top or flop. Same is true for a X-700, which has a lot more electronics. But DSLRs have so many features that I could never say if the thing works properly without having shot with it for a few days. If you buy from a reputable store - B&H, Adorama, KEH, Amazon - and you find out after a few days that there is a problem, they'll refund your money or send you another camera. With KEH I know that this works even for bargain rated second hand gear, because I've gone with them through that process.


----------



## Paul M (Mar 31, 2005)

fmueller said:


> Rhinox said:
> 
> 
> > http://cleveland.craigslist.org/ele/2179479105.html maybe looks like a deal?
> ...


Thats what I was shooting. The X700.
Thank's for the info.

Paul


----------



## Paul M (Mar 31, 2005)

Just picked up a nikon adaptall 2 mount for myTamron 300 2.8 i'm going to check it out tonight on a D7000
If you would like an adapter he has a bunch of them.

Paul


----------



## HelenOster (Feb 10, 2011)

fmueller said:


> ......If you buy from a reputable store - B&H, Adorama, KEH, Amazon - and you find out after a few days that there is a problem, they'll refund your money or send you another camera......


With Adorama you have a 90-day warranty on all used items, which includes a 30 day returns period if you simply change your mind!


----------



## fmueller (Jan 11, 2004)

HelenOster said:


> With Adorama you have a 90-day warranty on all used items, which includes a 30 day returns period if you simply change your mind!


Helen - welcome to CF! I believe I know you from Photo.net. You work as a representative for Adorama, right? I hope you were pleased to find Adorama on my short list of highly recommended online camera stores. The service Adorama provides, extending all the way to monitoring these kind of forums for feedback, is highly appreciated. That said, strictly speaking advertising on CF is only allowed for site sponsors, but we hope to see you come back and bring some photo advice to the cichlid world :thumb:

Are you keeping fish yourself by any chance?


----------



## HelenOster (Feb 10, 2011)

fmueller said:


> HelenOster said:
> 
> 
> > With Adorama you have a 90-day warranty on all used items, which includes a 30 day returns period if you simply change your mind!
> ...


Hi

Thanks for the welcome. On forums that are not strictly photographic I always do my best keep a low profile, only responding to direct questions concerning Adorama or to give straightforward information.

As for fish; we have a small indoor aquarium as well as a small pond outside.
I can't say I'm particularly expert in that field, though!


----------



## fmueller (Jan 11, 2004)

HelenOster said:


> Thanks for the welcome. On forums that are not strictly photographic I always do my best keep a low profile, only responding to direct questions concerning Adorama or to give straightforward information.


I am sorry if I outed you :wink:



HelenOster said:


> As for fish; we have a small indoor aquarium as well as a small pond outside. I can't say I'm particularly expert in that field, though!


Well, if you ever need advice in that area, particularly if you want to stock either tank or pond with cichlids, you now know where to ask. CF has about 50,000 members. There aren't too many fish keeping related problems that nobody around here has encountered at some stage, and found some sort of solution for.

Greetings


----------



## HelenOster (Feb 10, 2011)

fmueller said:


> I am sorry if I outed you :wink:


 :lol: - I just wouldn't want to take advantage. I'm only here to give advice and support as & when needed


----------



## Paul M (Mar 31, 2005)

Just found a like new 80-200 2.8 in a shop and they said they will give me 50.00 for my old camera body with standard lens. I have 4 of them in great shape so I can't see going with the tamron if I can get this for about 550 my cost with trade in stuff.
Plus a 6 month warranty.

Paul


----------



## fmueller (Jan 11, 2004)

fmueller said:


> If you buy a DSLR, you will need new lenses. In my opinion the same is true for the Tamron adaptall mount. Who wants to shoot an expensive DSLR and bother with manual focus and stop down metering? Sell the old stuff except for anything you are sentimentally attached to, and move on.


I said it once, and I am saying it again 

That Tamron adaptall 300/2.8 was the bee's knees for the X-700, especially since Minolta never made a 300/2.8 for the manual focus system. I had a bunch of great lenses like that - MC Rokkor 16/2.8 fish eye, MC Rokkor 58/1.2, MD Rokkor 100/4 macro, and so on. Not easy to let them go, but once you have a DSLR, it's just legacy equipment that's holding you back.


----------



## Paul M (Mar 31, 2005)

fmueller said:


> fmueller said:
> 
> 
> > If you buy a DSLR, you will need new lenses. In my opinion the same is true for the Tamron adaptall mount. Who wants to shoot an expensive DSLR and bother with manual focus and stop down metering? Sell the old stuff except for anything you are sentimentally attached to, and move on.
> ...


I just went and brought my film bodies down to this store and 3 bodies Minolta X-700 with 2 standard lenses one minolta 35-70 zoom 3.5 constant f stop. other vivitar 70-200 3.5 something. 2 motor winders. said i'm looking at $300.00 or there around. 
I should take it while I can huh?
Plus they have a 80-200 2.8 nikon for $750.00. asked if I would like cash or to trade on anything. I'm figuring I should put the money towards the 80-200 2.8 lens. I'm kinda looking at it as I got the lens for 450.00. Cant beat that. Plus a 6 month warranty.

Thank's

Paul


----------



## RRasco (Aug 31, 2006)

Rhinox said:


> I've been playing around with the controls on my point and shoot its a cannon powershot SD1100 IS but it seems all my pics come out grainy or blurred, its tough to get a nice shot of fish that don't sit still with this thing and the flash completely washes out the fish. Without flash, very hard to get a clear shot. Easier to take video with it and either just post the video or screen cap a nice shot from the vid :-?


I have the same camera and manage to get some decent shots every now and then. I found, that the macro setting gives you the most detail. I also try to take pictures while angling the camera at a downward right angle. This gives the best perspective to minimize flash glare off the glass. I will agree, without flash, pictures are often blurry and very grainy. I love this camera, but I need something with a manual focus and external flash capabilities.

Here are a few of my best shots with the Canon Powershot SD1100 IS. You can see in the last shot the flare from the flash, but the other two used a flash as well and you can see they are not overexposed at all.


----------



## Rhinox (Sep 10, 2009)

RRasco said:


> Rhinox said:
> 
> 
> > I've been playing around with the controls on my point and shoot its a cannon powershot SD1100 IS but it seems all my pics come out grainy or blurred, its tough to get a nice shot of fish that don't sit still with this thing and the flash completely washes out the fish. Without flash, very hard to get a clear shot. Easier to take video with it and either just post the video or screen cap a nice shot from the vid :-?
> ...


Thanks for the tips. Those are some nice pics.

I think I just need to take some more time experimenting with the settings. Do you go full auto or do you mess with any of the manual settings? I read once around here to set the ISO really high to get non-blurry pictures so I've been using iso1600 and having been researching cameras and photography I now know that explains the grainy-ness. I'm going to experiement with lower ISO settings and see how low I can go and get a clear pic. Maybe I just need to spend more time sitting in front of the tank snapping pics. For a while, problem has been my fish are young so to get a nice shot of them displaying has been a challenge not only because of the camera but because when I'm in front of the tank they're there nose to the glass waiting to be fed and not posing for me. And then for a while, if they saw the camera in my hand, it was straight to the rocks, so that was another challenge. My fish are getting more mature and confident so they pose and display more often now I just usually have my wife over my shoulder mocking me for taking fish pictures again so I usually give up pretty quickly.

I'll post a couple shots of what the flash does almost makes the fish not look natural not necessarily overexposed. When I get a good shot without flash and tank lighting only the fish look true to life just how they look to my naked eye but with flash not so much. Every decent shot I've ever had has been without flash.


----------



## RRasco (Aug 31, 2006)

I believe I have my ISO set to high. However, reading Ken Rockwell's site, he says ISO is not important. If this is true, IDK, but I think he would be one to trust. I believe it can have an impact on pictures, but not as much as the manufacturers would like us to believe. I need to try with a lower ISO, see how my pictures come out. According to Ken, the higher ISO without flash creates grainy pictures. So yeah...

Push left on the circular buttons to change your setting to Macro, this is the most significant thing you can do to increase the clarity of your pictures with this camera. You don't have to be super close either. Turn off digital zoom and try not to zoom at all, even optically. Try to take pictures from the left side of the fish, pointing down and to the right ever so slightly. Try that with the flash and see how it works for you. All of the photos I posted had the flash on.


----------



## NorthShore (Feb 3, 2006)

Ken Rockwell has never shot a fish in his life, lol. The benefit to raising ISO is that you can increase shutter speed, something that is important in getting crisp shots of moving objects.


----------



## RRasco (Aug 31, 2006)

IME its the auto focus that throws me off. I'm waiting too long for the camera to find the right focal length that I lose the picture. If I could have a general focal length set and fine tune it when needed I feel I could get more high quality photos, not necessarily better, but more.

If ISO is the shutter speed, which i believe you that it is, I can see how that would benefit aquatic photographer, cuz fish are fast little f*****s.


----------



## Paul M (Mar 31, 2005)

NorthShore said:


> Ken Rockwell has never shot a fish in his life, lol. The benefit to raising ISO is that you can increase shutter speed, something that is important in getting crisp shots of moving objects.


Thats funny, I can just hear your tone now LOL.

ISO and shutter speed are 2 different things.
Most point and shoots you can hold down the trigger button half way and should lock focus and meter then its a matter of sitting and waiting. I focus on some rock where I think the fish will be and lock it down then wait.
I should be able to just click away with my new setup.

Paul


----------



## fmueller (Jan 11, 2004)

There are three things that determine exposure: shutter speed, aperture, and sensitivity of the sensor to light (ISO). You need to get the correct exposure, meaning you need to get just the right amount of light onto the sensor, or else your image will be underexposed (you didn't get enough light on the sensor) or overexposed (you got too much light on the sensor). If you increase one of the three values determining exposure, you have to lower the other two.

In any situation, there are endless combinations of shutter speed, aperture, sensor sensitivity all of which lead to a correct exposure. However, raising and lowering each of these values has certain pros and cons. That's why it does not only matter _that_ you get the right exposure, but also _how_ you get it:

*Shutter speed:* This is about how long the shutter stays open, and is measured is 1/s. Short shutter speeds help to avoid camera shake, and they also freeze motion. If you want to have a sharp picture of a fast fish, you want to use a fast shutter speed, that is one where the shutter stays open for a very short time. For example for this purpose 1/1000s is better than 1/60s. Unfortunately a fast shutter speed also means you get little light on the sensor. You need to choose the other values so that you still get enough light to achieve a correct exposure.

*Aperture:* This is about how large the opening in your lens is, and it is measured in f numbers. A large f number like 16 means a small opening in the lens, and a small f number like 2.8 means a large opening in the lens. The smaller the opening in the lens is, the more depth of field (DOF) you get, meaning a wider area of the subject will be in focus. Only the area in focus will be shown as sharp, not blurry. With a small DOF of f2.8, only the eye of one fish might be in focus and everything else looks blurry. With f5.6 you might get the whole fish in focus, but the other fish in the frame is still blurry. Maybe with f8 both will appear sharp. Obviously you want to use a large f number to get as much as possible DOF, but a large f number means a small aperture, that is a small opening in the lens that lets only a small amount of light to the sensor. Again, you will need to choose the other values so that you still get enough light on the sensor to achieve a correct exposure.

*Sensor sensitivity:* This is about how sensitive your sensor reacts to incoming light, and it is measured in ISO. At ISO100 the sensor is a lot less sensitive to light than at ISO1600. At ISO1600 you need a lot less light to reach the film to achieve a correct exposure than at ISO100. Unfortunately a high sensitivity means you will get a grainier image. At ISO1600 an image will be grainier than at ISO100. If you want to avoid graininess, you must choose a low ISO, but once again you will need to choose the other values so that you achieve a correct exposure.

In all three cases you want to choose values that limit the amount of light that gets to the sensor. If you are taking photos of your family on a sunny day on the beach, that's not a problem, because there is plenty enough light available to get a correct exposure at for example 1/500s, f8, and ISO100. However, in a fish tank there is usually not so much light. If you need 1/500s to stop the motion of your fish, and you need f8 to get everything in focus, you will have to crank up the ISO to 1600, or else your photo will be underexposed. Sometimes ISO1600 isn't even enough.

One way around that is to make more light available, for example by using extra lights or by using a flash units, but then you need to take care not to create reflections. Also, with the week built-in flash of many cameras, even with flash use at ISO1600, you might not have enough light to achieve the shutter speed you need to freeze motion, and the aperture you need to get enough DOF. In that case you either need to lower the shutter speed and put up with some motion blur, or increase the aperture and live with a little less of the image in focus.

If you shoot in full auto mode, and let your camera determine shutter speed, aperture, and sensor sensitivity, it can be hard to tell why your pictures come out looking bad, motion blur due to slow shutter speed, blurriness due to insufficient DOF, or blurriness due to too much grain !

Once you get out of full auto mode, or modes called macro, sports, portrait, and so on, and you start directly controlling shutter speed, aperture, and sensor sensitivity, you will understand what is going on in your pictures, and then you can find solutions for your problems. A good way to start is switching from the green, full auto mode of many cameras to program mode (P). In P you manually choose ISO, and the camera chooses shutter speed and aperture to achieve the correct exposure. Play around with that, and you will see that without flash you will need at least ISO1600 or more most of the time. Even with flash ISO1600 might be necessary, and with many cameras the grain is hardly noticeable in small prints or images published on the web.

Once you understand P-mode, you can move to shutter priority (S). It lets you choose ISO and the shutter speed, but the camera will still automatically choose the right aperture to achieve a correct exposure. Alternatively, you can use aperture priority (A). It lets you choose ISO and the aperture, but the camera will still automatically choose the right shutter speed to achieve a correct exposure. Only in manual mode (M) you need to choose all three, but I rarely - if ever - I see a need to do that.


----------



## Paul M (Mar 31, 2005)

Great explanation.

New ? Now
I'm getting the 80-200 2.8 tomorrow, looks' like maybe 350 for my old gear. I'm going to try and see if they will take 50 off the lens.
Now.
I'm looking to shop around. looking to spend 800 to 1200 on a body.
What would you look at?

The shop I'm dealing with now also has a very clean low # Nikon D300 for 1200
I don't really like the video in the new camera's but looks like there all getting video.
Is the 7000 that much better or vise versa? for about the same price. I see the 300 used for about 1000 so I might try and talk them down on the body.

My end goal is to be able to get sharp 16x20's

Paul


----------



## NorthShore (Feb 3, 2006)

Locally, the D300 is selling for about $850-900.

D300 has the 51 pt autofocus system.The D7000 has a 39 pt system.

The D7000 produces a 16MP image

The D300 produces a 12MP image

The D7000 has as good as or slightly better high ISO performance, but only because of more aggressive in camera image processing.

The D300 has the weather sealing whereas the D7000 doesn't.

The D300 is a bigger camera, which may be significant in your hands. It does not produce video though. That's the D300s.

The D7000 is an upgrade to the D90 but is not meant to replace the D300s. It's meant to fall in between.

Check out this link

http://nikonites.com/d7000/1160-d7000-vs-d300s.html

I actually think the D90 might be a better buy at it's current price if you're budget minded.


----------



## Paul M (Mar 31, 2005)

Pawn shop up the street has a d5000 for 257.00 with lens.

Paul


----------



## fmueller (Jan 11, 2004)

I don't want to revive the Canon/Nikon debate, but it so happens that the other day I had a chance to shoot a D90 with 18-105VR side by side with my T1i with 17-85IS. I expected performance to be very much on par, which was true - expect for low light AF performance. The D90 was very slow, dare I say painfully so, and focus hunting caused me to miss a large number of shots. My T1i is not stellar in this regard, especially with a slow lens like the old 17-85IS attached, but very noticeably better. I am still trying to figure out if this was more of a problem with the D90 or the 18-105VR or are those two just not working all that well together?


----------



## NorthShore (Feb 3, 2006)

RayQ has a D90. I'm not sure if he's used that lens, Frank. I know that with the 18-200mm VR, it's not in the least bit slow. I'll get him to chime in.


----------



## RayQ (Sep 26, 2007)

Gerry is right, I have an 18-200mm VR on my D90 and it doesn't have any slow focus or hunting issues, but, I have tried a couple of other lenses that made me question things a bit. Most notably the 105 Micro VR. I found that it does hunt a lot in low light and is quite slow focusing. I will be doing a little testing on that same lens on a D700 in the near future, we will see if it's the lens or the body I guess :lol:


----------



## fmueller (Jan 11, 2004)

Thanks for your input. I asked the same question on Photo.net, and was told the D90 has just about the least sophisticated AF system of any current Nikon DSLR. So with any slow zoom lens I shouldn't expect more than I am getting. However, I found the D90 with 18-105VR much slower than even my old Rebel XT with 17-85IS. The D90 HAS to be at least as good as a XT!

Ken Rockwell isn't the most trusted man in the photo world - at least with Canon aficionados he isn't - but he also reports slow focusing issues with the 18-105VR. Maybe that lens is well above average slow in low light. I wish I knew somebody in NE Ohio to borrow another Nikon lens from to check this out. Where are all the Nikon shooters when you need them :lol:

Regarding the 105 micro VR, I have no experience with that lens, but macro (or micro lenses as you weird people call them :lol: ) are always a bit slow to focus. That's even true for manual focus lenses. I always figured you could either optimize a focusing helix for exact fine tuning by giving it a fine thread, or for fast focusing by giving it a coarser thread. The way I see it, the two are mutually exclusive. But that should show up in slow focusing, not focus hunting, whereby the lens overshoots focus and keeps going back and forth. The 18-105VR suffered from both, slow focusing and focus hunting.


----------

