So we are getting big with selling corals and want to up our game with pictures but we also don’t wanna break the bank. We are looking at dslr’s I had a Nikon in the past that got stolen. I’ve had my eye in cannon as of now. What does everyone recommend along with what lenses? Also remember I’m not trying to break the bank with this purchase.
Dslr for coral pictures
- Thread starter BJcorals
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Sony a7iii's are really nice. or even an a6000 with a 90mm macro
ZoWhat
7500 Club Member
Its NOT so much the camera but a high quality MACRO LENS that makes all the difference.
Macro lenses can be hundreds of dollars....
We would all love to eat a 16oz sirloin off the $1 menu....drive a Porsche for $149/month....but all that ain't gonna happen. Photography is all about the quality of the lens, and you gotta shell out money to get great results
High quality macro lenses 99% of the time is usually a completely separate purchase than the out-of-the-box camera + lens kit
If you need to "cut corners" then look to Craigslist and buy used locally !BUT! there's a reason a person is selling a macro lens and possibly the matching cam body. Usually bc the lens is beat up and has a scratch....or the cam body is not fully functional due to certain internal settings not working. I wouldnt buy one used unless the Seller would let me play around with it taking pics for an hour as they waited....
The "golden Craigslist sale" would be a honest photographer that is just trying to sell their older unit as they are upgrading. But those are really hard to find. Knowledgeable photographers know what their old equipment is worth and you're not going to get it "for a steal"
Good luck.
.
.
Macro lenses can be hundreds of dollars....
We would all love to eat a 16oz sirloin off the $1 menu....drive a Porsche for $149/month....but all that ain't gonna happen. Photography is all about the quality of the lens, and you gotta shell out money to get great results
High quality macro lenses 99% of the time is usually a completely separate purchase than the out-of-the-box camera + lens kit
If you need to "cut corners" then look to Craigslist and buy used locally !BUT! there's a reason a person is selling a macro lens and possibly the matching cam body. Usually bc the lens is beat up and has a scratch....or the cam body is not fully functional due to certain internal settings not working. I wouldnt buy one used unless the Seller would let me play around with it taking pics for an hour as they waited....
The "golden Craigslist sale" would be a honest photographer that is just trying to sell their older unit as they are upgrading. But those are really hard to find. Knowledgeable photographers know what their old equipment is worth and you're not going to get it "for a steal"
Good luck.
.
.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2018
- Messages
- 380
- Reaction score
- 576
I just got the Sony a7riii and 90mm macro lens and it is incredible- but pricey. One of the best cameras on the market right now, plus it’s mirrorless so it’s smaller and lighter than a traditional dslr.
The a7iii is also very good for a bit less($500 or so), but if you’re gunna spend the money you might as well do it right.
The a7iii is also very good for a bit less($500 or so), but if you’re gunna spend the money you might as well do it right.
SuncrestReef
That Apex guy
I use a Nikon D610 with a ridiculously big expensive 200mm macro lens that can definitely break the bank, but I previously shot with a much less expensive 60mm macro and even that produced great results.
My only complaint with the Nikon is that the custom white balance won't go higher than 10K, so there's still a bit too much blue in my shots. I hate doing post-processing, so I typically just publish my photos straight from the camera without any adjustments. I've heard that Canon has a wider range for white balance, but I can't confirm that.
You can see a bunch more of my photos here: https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/new-top-down-macro-photos.574981
My only complaint with the Nikon is that the custom white balance won't go higher than 10K, so there's still a bit too much blue in my shots. I hate doing post-processing, so I typically just publish my photos straight from the camera without any adjustments. I've heard that Canon has a wider range for white balance, but I can't confirm that.
You can see a bunch more of my photos here: https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/new-top-down-macro-photos.574981
Peace River
Thrive Master
Staff member
Super Moderator
Reef Squad
Reef Squad Leader
Partner Member 2024
Excellence Award
Article Contributor
Hospitality Award
Article Administrator
Reef Pumpkin Carver
A DSLR with a macro lens is going to start about $500 with a norm of $1200-$1500 and extend up to many thousands of dollars. It sounds like you are going to be using the images to put on the web and not trying to print them on a 3' x 4' canvas so the resolution doesn't need to be nearly as high. Proper lighting, correct white balance, and good focus are going to be far more important - an expensive camera without a solid understanding of these areas will still result in less than desirable images.
I encourage you to read through many of the photography threads here on this forum and you will be amazed at the great information that is already here. For example, here is a thread about How to take Pictures of your Corals with a Cellphone. Good luck! ;Snaphappy
Fotocha
I have nightmares of jumping fish
@BJcorals I'm a photographer by trade and I have a degree in fine art photography and 18 years of experience.
The best money that can be spent is in your lens.
Frankly any camera would suffice (image production) these days. I've shot with Canons and with Nikons. As far as one being better than the other it comes down to personal taste.
As for my opinion, if you were a friend of mine I would tell you to buy a Canon camera specifically. In my experience Nikon cameras tend to be a tiny bit better; Canon the lens tend to be a tiny bit better. Again you can't go wrong with either, that's just my opinion.
The ability to shoot in raw, will enable you to fix any errors made with lighting or white balance (ie educate yourself using Adobe Lightroom). Generally getting a pro body with a few generations ago gives you every major tool and feature at your disposal for less money.
In fact I would recommend not using camera lighting when working with macro images. The natural light is going to be far better in aquariums and any flash you add is going to simply add glare.
If you're looking for a good general camera go to KEH.com. They're the largest used camera dealer in the world.
I'd recommend getting a Canon 5D classic (or perhaps a Canon 5D mk2 if cash permits) (this is a pro body, and a full frame camera) and its <$300.
https://www.keh.com/shop/canon-eos-5d-12-8-megapixel-digital-slr-camera-body-only.html
Some of the things you should look into is a good quality macro lens. Bigger isn't always better with Macro lenses. Anything around 200mm has a longer barrel and you need to have stabilization to get crisp images. These lenses are designed to be used with focusing rails. I would recommend if you want something professional you need to look for a lens that has a built in image stabilization of some kind.
Keep in mind that for the most part you can hand hold focus a macro lens around 100mm and I would recommend getting one of the following. Below are the 100mm basic variations for Canon the top listed is a "L" class lens these generally are weather/ dust resistant which might come in handy shooing around aquariums. It is also a lot sharper than the other but, for the price you can't go wrong.
Top of the line @ about $650: https://www.keh.com/shop/canon-ef-100mm-f-2-8l-is-usm-macro-lens.html
Much cheaper @ about $300: https://www.keh.com/shop/canon-ef-100mm-f-2-8-macro-usm-lens.html
If you would like to try them out they can be rented @ Lenrentals.com or lensprotogo.com
Something to mention is often times shooting in water creates glare. "Some" macro lenses allow for a filter to be screwed on, I would recommend a good quality polarizing filter (don't skimp out on this, a poor quality filter in front of an expensive piece of glass is worthless).
The best money that can be spent is in your lens.
Frankly any camera would suffice (image production) these days. I've shot with Canons and with Nikons. As far as one being better than the other it comes down to personal taste.
As for my opinion, if you were a friend of mine I would tell you to buy a Canon camera specifically. In my experience Nikon cameras tend to be a tiny bit better; Canon the lens tend to be a tiny bit better. Again you can't go wrong with either, that's just my opinion.
The ability to shoot in raw, will enable you to fix any errors made with lighting or white balance (ie educate yourself using Adobe Lightroom). Generally getting a pro body with a few generations ago gives you every major tool and feature at your disposal for less money.
In fact I would recommend not using camera lighting when working with macro images. The natural light is going to be far better in aquariums and any flash you add is going to simply add glare.
If you're looking for a good general camera go to KEH.com. They're the largest used camera dealer in the world.
I'd recommend getting a Canon 5D classic (or perhaps a Canon 5D mk2 if cash permits) (this is a pro body, and a full frame camera) and its <$300.
https://www.keh.com/shop/canon-eos-5d-12-8-megapixel-digital-slr-camera-body-only.html
Some of the things you should look into is a good quality macro lens. Bigger isn't always better with Macro lenses. Anything around 200mm has a longer barrel and you need to have stabilization to get crisp images. These lenses are designed to be used with focusing rails. I would recommend if you want something professional you need to look for a lens that has a built in image stabilization of some kind.
Keep in mind that for the most part you can hand hold focus a macro lens around 100mm and I would recommend getting one of the following. Below are the 100mm basic variations for Canon the top listed is a "L" class lens these generally are weather/ dust resistant which might come in handy shooing around aquariums. It is also a lot sharper than the other but, for the price you can't go wrong.
Top of the line @ about $650: https://www.keh.com/shop/canon-ef-100mm-f-2-8l-is-usm-macro-lens.html
Much cheaper @ about $300: https://www.keh.com/shop/canon-ef-100mm-f-2-8-macro-usm-lens.html
If you would like to try them out they can be rented @ Lenrentals.com or lensprotogo.com
Something to mention is often times shooting in water creates glare. "Some" macro lenses allow for a filter to be screwed on, I would recommend a good quality polarizing filter (don't skimp out on this, a poor quality filter in front of an expensive piece of glass is worthless).
Last edited:
Fotocha
I have nightmares of jumping fish
I'm sorry to say but mirrorless isn't a good idea as it causes distortions. You should see the image correction profiles for that camera, they're quite bad. I'd be happy to show you if you wish. That's not to say for hobby purposes it wouldn't suffice.
a7iii is $2k and a sony 90mm macro is like $1000. You can get a Sony a6000 for about $500 and use meike macro extension tubes for around $30 and achieve great results using the 16-50 kit lens. Here's a quick video:
My daughter has this same setup, I use the a7iii and Sony 90mm
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2018
- Messages
- 380
- Reaction score
- 576
Every camera is going to have its drawbacks. Just have to pick which one you want to deal with
.
Which camera are you speaking of? As a professional, you should definitely know that Sony mirrorless is king these days unless you're shooting with 1DX which is $6k. There are many pros shooting Sony a7iii
Leadfooted
Valuable Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,916
- Reaction score
- 3,065
G
Great info here, thank you!
Dr. Dendrostein
Marine fish monthly
Thanks for info, comrade
Dkeller_nc
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2019
- Messages
- 893
- Reaction score
- 1,262
BJCorals - Fotacha is correct. Asking "what camera" is actually the wrong question - "what lens(es)", and in the case of photographing coral under today's reef lighting, "what filter" are the correct questions.
As to the camera, he's also correct - it doesn't matter. Any (and I mean any) traditional DSLR will do the trick. What you really need to think about is whether you want to go with the Canon or Nikon ecosystem, because once you commit, you will be buying one or the other's lenses forever after unless you're willing to spend a crapload of money to replace your lenses to switch - Canon and Nikon lenses are not easily interchangeable.
In my case, I have Nikon, because that's what I started with some 30+ years ago. But both companies make very high quality stuff. In Nikon, even the entry-level DSLR (the Nikon 3400) will be more than good enough; the DX5600 has some nice video improvements for an additional $150.
You can, and probably should, buy the camera as a "kit", which is the camera+ entry level lens. The entry level lens will have some limitations, but is still useful. And recognizing those limitations will justify the purchase of a macro lens in your mind rather quickly. Just to give you an example, I have 4 Nikon macros - 60mm, 85mm, 105mm and 200mm. The difference between these lenses is the focal distance and reproduction ratio - the 200mm lens allows a high reproduction ratio (size of the object relative to the size of the image on the image sensor) at a considerably longer distance away.
My guess is that you'll find that a 60mm macro together with a yellow or orange filter to correct for blue tank lighting and a top-down "porthole" viewer would do the trick.
As to the camera, he's also correct - it doesn't matter. Any (and I mean any) traditional DSLR will do the trick. What you really need to think about is whether you want to go with the Canon or Nikon ecosystem, because once you commit, you will be buying one or the other's lenses forever after unless you're willing to spend a crapload of money to replace your lenses to switch - Canon and Nikon lenses are not easily interchangeable.
In my case, I have Nikon, because that's what I started with some 30+ years ago. But both companies make very high quality stuff. In Nikon, even the entry-level DSLR (the Nikon 3400) will be more than good enough; the DX5600 has some nice video improvements for an additional $150.
You can, and probably should, buy the camera as a "kit", which is the camera+ entry level lens. The entry level lens will have some limitations, but is still useful. And recognizing those limitations will justify the purchase of a macro lens in your mind rather quickly. Just to give you an example, I have 4 Nikon macros - 60mm, 85mm, 105mm and 200mm. The difference between these lenses is the focal distance and reproduction ratio - the 200mm lens allows a high reproduction ratio (size of the object relative to the size of the image on the image sensor) at a considerably longer distance away.
My guess is that you'll find that a 60mm macro together with a yellow or orange filter to correct for blue tank lighting and a top-down "porthole" viewer would do the trick.
McPikie
Active Member
I have a Nikon D7000 with a Tamron 70-300mm Macro lens which was quite cheap second hand, and it can take some lovely shots. A lens dipper is a nice little investment. Also, if running LEDs on the tank, you can tweak them to "daylight" conditions, meaning less messing with the pics in photoshop.
Fotocha
I have nightmares of jumping fish
The issue with the earlier generations of mirrorless cameras (not talking about the A7III here) was the ability or should I say the inability to have a direct line of sight via the viewfinder. I'm not hating all mirrorless cameras. The newest generation seems to have fixed a lot of the digital distortion created. However it still very much exists (including the A7III).
I'm speaking from a recommendation standpoint for doing macro photography. So what about the Sony A7III? My simple take on it, it's not ideal for macro photography. Is it a bad camera? No. It's actually pretty awesome at what it was designed to do. Small form factor and basically a formal replacement for a DSLR. Typically mirrorless cameras in my opinion were vacation cameras. Is the A7III? No, it certainly is not. Would I be happy owning one? Yes. Would I buy one if lens weren't a factor.... no. Why? Simply put it for what it is it's too far over priced. $2000 for the body only is a bit steep. Never mind the cost of the lenses. Buying it in a kit? I may be over generalization but kit lenses are rubbish. Sony is notorious for being over priced. They've come a long way its true. Some of the lenses are decent sharp lenses, but with some major drawbacks (chromatic aberration, soft corners, and distortion; to point a few out). Again this is a general statement (not trying to spread any flames here
), I can't point at every single lens and system combo that's impossible (no way to compare apples to apples). @paja3 With this camera you're paying mostly for the form factor and size of the camera. Thing is for what it is it's awfully close to the Canon 5Dmk2. Not saying there aren't a lot of pros using Sony Cameras. But everything has compromises (these days, not carrying around double 19lb rigs is a big one) .As for the 1DX would I want one of those? Nah not really. They are designed for a completely different purpose. If I worked for a sports mag then yes sure... no reservations. Point I'm trying to make is you have different tools in your tool box for different things. It's not a one size fits all solution for every type of photography.
For what he needs, EVEN a $65 dollar DSLR from like 15 years ago will work from like 6 or 7 generations ago (if interpolation isn't a factor). As far as DSLRs go, the tech basically leveled out about 2 generations ago for resolution needs. Camera companies these days focus on low light functionally, auto focus and video. The Sony A7 III for that matter any of prior releases would do the job. Just can't recommend it.
The gold standard for Macro photography involves the camera mount options, focusing rails, and micro adjustments. Again the best advice I can give, "best bang for the buck" is get a "cheap" full frame DSLR and a high end macro lens with some form of built in image stabilization. Even with a good pro tripod, a 200mm macro lens will under perform a 100mm macro if it has the before mentioned.
When working with macro every adjustment you work with is amplified through camera shake.
@BJcorals Try to focus on the technique, rather than your gear and you'll be just fine.
Hope that helps, again to each his own.
Last edited:
SPR1968
No, it wasn’t expensive dear....
Reef Squad
Reef Squad Leader
Excellence Award
Reef Tank 365
UK Reef Club Member
Hospitality Award
I think as already said, just pick the manufacture you prefer, for example either Canon or Nikon
I went Canon recently again when I upgraded and currently use the Canon EOS 750D
But it’s the lens that makes all the difference and they are most definitely not cheap especially Macro
I have this one which I thinks already been mentioned
https://store.canon.co.uk/canon-ef-100mm-f-2-8l-macro-is-usm-lens/3554B005/?WT.tsrc=NSO-Site
If your on a budget I would maybe get used equipment which will probably be more than adequate for your needs.
I went Canon recently again when I upgraded and currently use the Canon EOS 750D
But it’s the lens that makes all the difference and they are most definitely not cheap especially Macro
I have this one which I thinks already been mentioned
https://store.canon.co.uk/canon-ef-100mm-f-2-8l-macro-is-usm-lens/3554B005/?WT.tsrc=NSO-Site
If your on a budget I would maybe get used equipment which will probably be more than adequate for your needs.
Similar threads
New Posts
-
-
-
OK People with Red Sea Reefer Failures... Convince me not to....- Latest: VintageReefer
-
-
