# New camera advice



## TOO (26 Oct 2013)

I am getting sick and tired of being unable to display my tank properly with my Nikon 40D. I have convinced my wife that I think we need to be able to take better Christmas photographs of the girls  (although I think she sensed the hidden agenda).

I am pretty set on a Canon, but it comes in so many varieties (and prices) that it is hard to make a choice. As a novice in this matter I am unsure of what I get additionally when I step up in the range of models. The EOS 600D is available for about 350 Pounds here in Denmark and this is, ideally, the price I should be paying. On the other hand, if I thought I got significant extra value with the 60D/70D or the 6D I might consider waiting and saving up a bit.

So, bottom line: Could anyone explain to me what I get, comparatively, at these three levels in terms of photography quality? I just want really good pictures and is less concerned with side and gadget things such as GPS, which I am sure I will never get to use much anyway.

Also, what do you think is the best type of lens for taking full tank shots?

Would really appreciate your input here. Thanks in advance.

Thomas


----------



## George Farmer (26 Oct 2013)

You won't see much difference in image quality between the 600/60/70, but the 60/70 have better build quality and more advanced features.

The 6D is full frame so has a big improvement on IQ, especially high ISO handling which is very useful for aquarium and indoor portraits (for your daughters at Christmas... ).  

Best lens for FTS is a high quality prime. 50mm works well usually but great results can be achieved using wider focal lengths to exaggerate perceived depth.  My 24-105 rarely leaves my 6D. A very versatile lens, but not as good on a cropped body (600/60 etc.)

Whatever body you get, a good lens is an essential investment IMO.


----------



## TOO (26 Oct 2013)

Thanks for this George, very helpful.

I really need to sell a LOT of cardinal shrimp to get to the 6D . It seems that the 600D will nevertheless be a vast improvement over the current camera.

Thomas


----------



## George Farmer (26 Oct 2013)

If budget is tight I would personally go for 600D with Sigma 17-70.


----------



## TOO (26 Oct 2013)

I am also considering the 700D. For not so much more you get an ISO of 12800 compared to 6400 on the 600D. Sounds sensible? I know the 6D is about double, but so is the price, if not more.

Thomas


----------



## Nathaniel Whiteside (26 Oct 2013)

TOO said:


> I am also considering the 700D. For not so much more you get an ISO of 12800 compared to 6400 on the 600D. Sounds sensible? I know the 6D is about double, but so is the price, if not more.
> 
> Thomas



Just looked at the 6D it's £1,999. Ouch lol. Don't you use the 6D George?


----------



## TOO (26 Oct 2013)

Yeah, I can't really defend such an investment, even with the Christmas card argument. 

But the 700D right now looks like a reasonable compromise.

Thomas


----------



## George Farmer (27 Oct 2013)

TOO said:


> I am also considering the 700D. For not so much more you get an ISO of 12800 compared to 6400 on the 600D. Sounds sensible? I know the 6D is about double, but so is the not more.
> 
> Thomas


I doubt you'd need more than ISO 6400 and noise may be unusable that high on a cropped sensor, so I wouldn't opt for the 700D on that alone.  I rarely go above 1600, maybe 3200 for lazy handheld macro stuff.


----------



## ceg4048 (27 Oct 2013)

Folks who are unable to take decent pictures with a Nikon 40D should think seriously about becoming a better photographer because a new camera really will make no difference. It might be a lot cheaper to troubleshoot the photographic technique because the D40 is an excellent camera.

Cheers,


----------



## George Farmer (27 Oct 2013)

That's true, Clive. A better camera won't make you a better photographer, but from personal experience it can allow you to take better photos (and now HD video too). 

The higher ISO handling on the latest generation is really a game changer for me and my aquarium photos.


----------



## TOO (27 Oct 2013)

George Farmer said:


> I doubt you'd need more than ISO 6400 and noise may be unusable that high on a cropped sensor, so I wouldn't opt for the 700D on that alone. I rarely go above 1600, maybe 3200 for lazy handheld macro stuff.


 
So, what you are saying is that ISO and sensor is related; i.e. that higher ISO without a full frame does not necessarily make a difference? As a novice I am just thinking the higher ISO the better. Thanks for pointing that out.



ceg4048 said:


> Folks who are unable to take decent pictures with a Nikon 40D should think seriously about becoming a better photographer because a new camera really will make no difference. It might be a lot cheaper to troubleshoot the photographic technique because the D40 is an excellent camera.
> 
> Cheers,


 
Typical of you, Clive, to bombshell people's dream threads . Do not get me wrong, I greatly appreciate your abrupt realism. I am learning from it every day . Whatever success I have with my scape is largely down to your advice. I am actually not unhappy with the D40 on outdoor photos; it is on indoor photography that I find it less strong, hence the focus on ISO. As you can see in Alpine Gardens nor does it take crappy photographs as such; I am just looking to take an extra step in sharpness and color rendition (I hope I am not dreaming).

Thomas


----------



## Gary Nelson (27 Oct 2013)

I'm glad you have started this thread, I'm very much in the same situation.  I'm using a Nikon 1, which I feel takes a good enough photo (especially outdoors) and my other half likes it too.  However it definitely lacks in aquarium photography shots and whilst I occasionally get a good shot, there are also lots of other bad ones... So I am watching this thread and info on it with great interest.


----------



## wijnands (28 Oct 2013)

I use a Nikon D300 which is only slightly younger than the D40. Aquarium photography is, like any other kind, a skill that needs work to master. For fish closeups I use a macro lens but for overview and group shots a kit lens will do fine.

A few of my tips:
Use a tripod, even if you have the head lose so the camera can move about a bit it still helps
Shoot at night in a darkened room to minimize glare
Shoot manual, takes a bit of experimentation but I find the camera usually messes up the settings and iso 1600, aperture around f5.6 and a shutter speed of about 1/50 tends to give me good results
Shoot RAW. It allows you to correct slight mistakes without sacrificing quality
Invest in some software and a noise reduction tool. Adobe's lightroom and photoshop elements are relatively affordable and if you ask around you can often get a slightly older version for next to nothing. As a noise reduction tool I use Nik's dfine.

If you do feel the urge to upgrade, Nikon's D5200 is likely to go cheap in the next few months and I also expect to see great deals on the D3200.

This was shot with the humble 50mm lens:


DSC_0759 by j_wijnands, on Flickr

and this as well:


DSC_8835 by j_wijnands, on Flickr

Of course with a dedicated macro lens you can do portraits of even the smallest creatures in your aquarium:


Ancistrus claro fry by j_wijnands, on Flickr


----------



## TOO (29 Oct 2013)

Wijnands, thanks a lot for this intervention. Nice photos.

I have tried to experiment with the manual mode. I do find, though, that with ISO 1600 I need faster shutter speeds at around 100 to get good pictures. At 50 they tend to get overexposed. Still, I do not find the results to be much better than on the automode - and I still lack some sharpness. I am talking here about full tank shots, which is what I am mainly interested in. As you can see here Alpine Gardens | Page 3 | UK Aquatic Plant Society I am not getting bad pictures as such, but it lacks detail, sharpness, and the depth in color I see when watching it live (this is taken with a 18-55 mm lens). In fact, I find the pictures I take with my Iphone to be sharper (different resolution, but still...).

I am therefore still contemplating an upgrade, although I have a lurking fear that it would not necessarily lead to the improvement I am hoping for. Most of the photographers here on UKAPS who make high quality photographs all seem to be using really high end gear, which I cannot afford at the moment (having moaned about the cost of our last vacation it would seriously undermine my family authority if I purchased a camera that costs 2/3 of a vacation to trip ).

Thomas


----------



## wijnands (29 Oct 2013)

OK...

Several things I notice on the picture.

Camera	 Nikon D40
Exposure	 0.005 sec (1/200)
Aperture	 f/4.8
Focal Length	 38 mm
Focal Length	 37.8 mm
ISO Speed	 1600
Contrast	 Low
Saturation	 Normal
Sharpness	 Soft

You're shooting the Nikon 18-55. That's a lot of lens for little money but for optimal sharpness you want to shoot this between f8 and f11. If you'd set the camera on f8 you could probably still do a shutter speed of 1/50 or thereabouts.
Your contrast is set to low and your sharpness is set to soft. I would increase these a bit and see what that gets you.

Try shooting a picture at f8 and see what that gets you. If you're up for try shooting the same picture in jpg and in nef an mail me the nef file. I'll see what I can make of it.


----------



## TOO (29 Oct 2013)

Wijnands, thanks a lot for taking the time to go into such detail. I will try this advice one of the next days. I adjust shutter speed on the wheel, but not sure how to change aperture, but I will look this up. Even if I decide to upgrade it would be extremely useful to master the basics that are needed for any camera. I am not sure what a nef file is, though.

Thomas


----------



## wijnands (29 Oct 2013)

A NEF file is the raw sensor output. Can only be read with some graphics software. Makes it incredibly easy to get better output if you know what you're doing. Have a look at the D40 manual.

And yes, a basic working knowledge of photography like knowing what ISO, aperture and shutter speed are, how to set them and how they affect your pictures will be very useful to have no matter which camera you use. Of course it's easy for me to say this but I've been into photography since I was 12 years old. Taking pictures is my other hobby.


----------



## Nutty (29 Oct 2013)

if you want up up the "colourfulness" you could look into changing the saturation or colour balance?
Your camera might not be compensating for your lighting appropriately?


----------

