May I have some camera recommendations for under $500?

[SeanT]

I am a bit confused.

I am looking for the best cameraq I can get for under $500 that:
Takes the best macro shots I can get in this budget.
Auto white balances so that when I don't use a flash everything isn't blue.
Thanks,
Sean

[Reef Bass]

Canon G10.

You aren't going to be able to auto white balance your blue pics away (with any camera). Shoot in RAW, set color temp in software. Beautiful, accurate colors without the excessive blue.

[SeanT]

Thanks, I will definitely look into that one.
Any others?

[nickb]

Many P&S cameras have a 'custom' option for white balance. If you activate that option, you can take a 'picture' of a white object in your tank (e.g. a white piece of plastic). This sets the WB to the conditions of your tank and will give an auto adjustment in camera. It won't give you the control that RAW will but, it is another option if your camera has the appropriate control.

There is also a sticky at the top of this forum on 'tips' which discusses WB options.

[Skeptic_07]

There are a few sub $500 SLRs available now if you wanted to go that route. You can get a Nikon D40 for $460 or a Canon Rebel XS for $490 or a Sony A200 for $500.

[SeanT]

Of those three, which is most recommended for macro shots?

[Reef Bass]

None of those will shoot macros for $500. You just bought the camera back and maybe a not good for macros kit lens. You'll need a macro lens. The 100mm macro lens from Canon is roughly $500, so you're doubling your purchase price right there. Sure you can get less expensive lenses, but I'm trying to point out that you mentioned a $500 total solution price. You could certainly save money going the used route.

[Skeptic_07]

They can all take macro photos even with the stock lens. The stock lens won't get shots as good as reefbass's avatar all the time but they will be comparable to any P&S camera. You don't have to get a macro lens for it right away if you dont want. Here is an example of what the Rebel XS can do with the included 18-55mm lens. Remember, this is a professional who took this shot, not me.

http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos1000d_samples/img_1248-sj.jpg

I was recently in the same situation you are in needing a camera with the same exact budget and that picture was what sold me on the SLR and also knowing that i can upgrade it in the future to get even better and more consistent photos.

There are also many more lenses than the 100mm macro referred to above. While that one is regarded as one of the best macro lenses around theres a 50mm f/2.5 that canon makes that costs $240, theres also a 60mm that i think is about $400. These are also great for portraits as well. There are tons of lenses out there, tons! there are even off brand macros for $100 but they're probably garbage and not worth the money.

All that being said, if you aren't into photography at all, and don't want to open the door to another potentially expensive hobby, a P&S camera might be a better choice for you, i just wanted you to know what else was out there.

[SeanT]

We have a P&S and it doesn't really do the job.
It is a tough pill to swallow to spend that amount of loot JUST to take pics of a fish tank lol.

[TitusvileSurfer]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14672006#post14672006 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Reef Bass
Canon G10.

You aren't going to be able to auto white balance your blue pics away (with any camera). Shoot in RAW, set color temp in software. Beautiful, accurate colors without the excessive blue.
I <3 The G10! I think it is the perfect reef tank camera in his budget.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14673093#post14673093 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Skeptic_07
There are a few sub $500 SLRs available now if you wanted to go that route. You can get a Nikon D40 for $460 or a Canon Rebel XS for $490 or a Sony A200 for $500.
Yeah...that isn't true at all. You need a macro lens which brings the total to $1000 minimum. He better be prepared to spend an additional $1000 over the origional $1000 if he wants to take pictures of wildlife, people, or other subjects besides the tank.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14673583#post14673583 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Reef Bass
None of those will shoot macros for $500. You just bought the camera back and maybe a not good for macros kit lens. You'll need a macro lens. The 100mm macro lens from Canon is roughly $500, so you're doubling your purchase price right there. Sure you can get less expensive lenses, but I'm trying to point out that you mentioned a $500 total solution price. You could certainly save money going the used route.
Exactly.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14673830#post14673830 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Skeptic_07
They can all take macro photos even with the stock lens.
Not even close to true.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14673830#post14673830 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Skeptic_07
The stock lens won't get shots as good as reefbass's avatar all the time but they will be comparable to any P&S camera.
It will not get anything close to his avatar. The G10 will outpace this setup in a reef tank as well.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14673830#post14673830 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Skeptic_07
You don't have to get a macro lens for it right away if you dont want.
Sure you don't have to get a macro lens right away...or ever. But when you want to start taking close up pictures of your corals...$500 extra.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14673830#post14673830 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Skeptic_07
Here is an example of what the Rebel XS can do with the included 18-55mm lens. Remember, this is a professional who took this shot, not me.
Have you taken into account the extra tools a professional might use to take a picture like this? For one I bet he is using TWO lenses at the same time. Not just the 18-55. This setup is worthless in an aquarium as well. You can't take a "macro" of anything farther away from the lens than the glass of your tank is thick.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14673830#post14673830 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Skeptic_07

I was recently in the same situation you are in needing a camera with the same exact budget and that picture was what sold me on the SLR and also knowing that i can upgrade it in the future to get even better and more consistent photos.
Firstly, I wouldn't recommend the Canon XS to anybody. I think it is too striped down to make it worth-while. It is like buying a new BMW for $7000 with plastic seats, a Geo-Meto engine, a tiny frame, and after a while it just stops being a BMW...regardless of the logo. The XS is in fact the only Canon DSLR I would go so far as to not recommend.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14673830#post14673830 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Skeptic_07

There are also many more lenses than the 100mm macro referred to above. While that one is regarded as one of the best macro lenses around theres a 50mm f/2.5 that canon makes that costs $240, theres also a 60mm that i think is about $400. These are also great for portraits as well. There are tons of lenses out there, tons! there are even off brand macros for $100 but they're probably garbage and not worth the money.
The Canon 50mm and 60mm lenses are fine and dandy...but they are poor performers in a reef tank. The off brand lenses actually worth the money are like...$10 less than the Canon 100mm macro. The Nikon guys use them a lot. For Canon you are selling yourself short not getting the 100mm f/2.8 macro. It is really as simple as that. Nothing else compares to it for the money.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14673830#post14673830 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Skeptic_07
All that being said, if you aren't into photography at all, and don't want to open the door to another potentially expensive hobby, a P&S camera might be a better choice for you, i just wanted you to know what else was out there.
That is all well and good but I implore you to learn a thing or two about photography before you actually buy a camera. Not doing so is like buying a 150 gallon reef tank without the slightest clue of salt water aquariums. You end up with some drift wood, bio balls, a hang on the back wheel filter, an anemone, some paper test strips, no sump (you don't even know what a sump is or how it could possibly be useful), no skimmer (you don't know what that is either), some sand from your kid's school playground, and a 1-1/2 ft. long hammer head shark you caught at the beach.

The same type of mistakes apply in photography. Do it right. Do it once. Do your homework.

[Skeptic_07]

Thanks for making me look dumb. I guess you did alot of research on what the best sub $500 camera was.

Some people get offended when you break down their posts and refute each point without actually adding to the overall discussion.

[TitusvileSurfer]

I wasn't trying to make you look dumb, sorry.

My point is there are only two cameras at this time that I would recommend to someone with a $500 budget. They are:
Canon G10
Panasonic LX3

Either of these cameras can out-pace an ill equipped DSLR.

If you want a DSLR, and you want to do it right, $500 isn't possible. $1000 isn't practical, $2000 is believable. That is just reality. Many photography hobbyists spend $10000 or more on their DSLRs.

[xtm]

Again, $500 for a camera and macro lens just aint gonna cut it. That doesn't even include a tripod which is like THE ultimate necessity when shooting macros!

Your best best would be something like a used DSLR + extension tube or macro diopter. Used Nikon D40's are all over the place for around $350 with a basic 18-55 kit lens. Add some Kenko tubes (about $75 for the set) or a Canon 500D diopter (around $80) plus a decent 'frotto tripod and you'll have something to shoot basic macros with.. but then again, you're immediately in the $700 range, even with 'beginner' equipment.

JMO.. good luck.. photography aint cheap :D

[TitusvileSurfer]

Even with that $700, getting a clean macro of some sps will be very difficult at best. You would have to move the coral right up to the glass, or remove the coral from the tank and take pictures of it laying on a table or something.
I broke down your post because I felt the information contained within simply wasn't practical. In some parts it was factually wrong. Not speaking out and just letting it go would in turn make me a bad and un-contributing member.

[SeanT]

So the Canon G10 is a good camera?
Is it upgradeable with different lenses?

[TitusvileSurfer]

No only the DSLRs are upgradeable with different lenses.
Basicaly you can get a decent DSLR Macro machine for about $1300 (Camera, lens, tripod)
It won't be much good for anything but coral closeups (that means not great for fish), but you can upgrade it with other lenses to make the setup optimal for other purposes.

The G-10 and LX3 are "jack of all trades master of none" cameras. They cost under $500 and with decant tripod you can pull off some amazing pictures with either. They are both point and shoot cameras though. Each comes with one non-removable lens like any other point and shoot. This lens and camera combination are paired to offer the most applications possible within its means.
The LX3 would be better for taking pictures of people and such.
The G10 would be better for taking pictures of reef tanks.
They would both do well with both tanks and people.

The DSLR can be outfitted to do VERY well with any subject imaginable, provided you are willing to buy the necessary lenses, tripods, speed lights, and other equipment necessary for what you are trying to do. Hence I say a respectable DSLR setup would take at least $2000 to become practical.

If you want to get into wildlife photography with a DSLR, many hobiest spend $3000-$12,000 on a single lens. They will often have several lenses in this price range. It just depends on what you want to do, how well you want to do it, and how much you are willing to spend. If money is no object DSLRs are the way to go no if's and's or but's. If you are willing to spend about $500...a high quality point and shoot should blow a comparably priced DSLR out of the water in almost every category.

[SeanT]

This is a toal newbie question, but are DSLR's film only or are they digital as well.

[BlueCorn]

The "D" in DSLR stands for digital. ;)

[TitusvileSurfer]

Haha yeah, Digital Single Lens Reflex

The "SLR" part basically means you are looking through the lens itself via a series of mirrors and crystals.

[SeanT]

Cool, thanks. :)

[SeanT]

Would the Canon Rebel XS / EOS1000D be a camera that could be upfitted with the right lenses?

[jedininja]

The G10 would be a great all-around camera for that price. I use the G9 as my backup camera for whenever I want to travel light. But if you did want to go for the dslr route, I would go used. You can get a used XT which is still a very good camera for about $250 and go with a used Sigma Macro 105mm F2.8 for about $300.

[SeanT]

What brand is XT?

[jedininja]

Sorry, its a canon. Just the 8mp version of thier line of DSLRs.

[SeanT]

Any online sites you would recommend to buy used equipment?

[TitusvileSurfer]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/164271-REG/Canon_2477A002_Timer_Remote_Controller_TC_80N3.html. all the way

I also recommend the new Xsi, or a used Xti over the XS. I don't know that I would go as far back as an XT, but that isn't a bad recommendation. My beef with the XT is that the newer cameras have too many worthwhile perks to bother with it. That said it still takes a good picture, it just does it with obsolete technology. My beef with the XS is that it didn't get the useful technology even though it was available in the name of keeping the cost down. It is as obsolete as the XT brand new off the shelf. I just think they cut to many corners with it. If you are going to buy an XS just get a used XT for 1/3 the price.

[SeanT]

Sweet. :)

[SeanT]

They don't have any of those models used but I will check every week.

[jedininja]

Even craigslist or ebay would work. I like craigslist if you can find something local so you can try it our first.

I would not worry about going back to the XT if that is what will fit in your budget. Its pretty much the same camera as the XTi, just with 8MP instead of 10MP. And 8MP will be more than enough for most people unless they are printing posters or doing some major cropping. I too would also go for the XT over the XS.

[TitusvileSurfer]

I agree you won't be able to tell any difference between 8mp and 10mp unless you love cropping. The 10mp may even hurt more than it helps with the increased pixel density.

[xtm]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14675329#post14675329 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by TitusvileSurfer
[B]Even with that $700, getting a clean macro of some sps will be very difficult at best. You would have to move the coral right up to the glass, or remove the coral from the tank and take pictures of it laying on a table or something.

ok.. but remember, we're trying to "work around" his budget here..


I broke down your post because I felt the information contained within simply wasn't practical. In some parts it was factually wrong. Not speaking out and just letting it go would in turn make me a bad and un-contributing member.

you did? :confused: or were you referring to another post?

[TitusvileSurfer]

You are doing a great job working around his budget. Used is the way to go!

Naw Skeptic edited his post saying I shouldn't have broken his down, so I threw that in there.

[Skeptic_07]

Here is a great website that does in depth reviews of almost every camera that is out there as well as having a side-by-side comparison and lots of sample photos. They have G10, all the above mentioned DSLRs and the panasonic mentioned as well as Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus, etc.. This website has a TON of information.

http://www.dpreview.com/

The main drawbacks I found to the XS vs the XSi.

-No spot metering
-Less auto focus points
-Less megapixels
-smaller LCD
-plastic grip
-no IR reciever
-no viewfinder sensor
-1.5 FPS in RAW mode

I picked the XS over the XSi because it was about $200 cheaper for the XS and none of the drawbacks seemed to make it worth it to spend the extra money. No spot metering is a bummer, even though i don't know what it is, but the other stuff doesn't make a difference to me. I was able to try out the XSi before buying it and the grip definitely felt alot better. It was bigger and filled out my hands better, the grip on the XS was alot smaller and feels like it would be a better fit for women or children.

I didn't go for an XTi for a few reasons. No live view, no auto ISO, compact flash was a negative for me as I already had a 16gb SD card, smaller battery and no image stabilization lens.

Please don't feel like I'm trying to sell you a camera. I'm just sharing my own findings with you. I implore you to explore that website. Use the side by side comparison on all the camera models in your price range, SLR or not and look at the sample photos, read the reviews.

Also a word of advice when buying things used, if you decide to go that route, you will receive no warranty. You may get a better deal, but at the same time you may get a worse one. These cameras can get ruined pretty easily if the previous owner didn't take proper care of it. At the same time though, if you're patient and look hard, you can get stuff that is basically brand new for pennies on the dollar.

Good luck!

[SeanT]

Would this camera be a good start to taking good macros?

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?prodid=11208708&whse=BC&topnav=&cat=06&b=1&lang=en-US

[nickb]

The D40 is an excellent camera but it has some limitations. For macros, the main issue with that 'package' would be the lens: it can only do 1:3 magnification. You would need a true macro lens for 1:1 images.

BTW, the ad lists the lens as a 'IS; lens but Nikon doesn't brand their lens as 'IS' (that's a Canon term). There are two versions of the 18-55. The newer one has 'VR' (Nikon's name for IS) and the older one is non-VR. The VR version is a better lens. If you do buy this package, you should get the store to clarify which lens they are selling.

[TitusvileSurfer]

Yeah how weird is that? I think the equipment in that link is having an identity crisis. It just wants to be a Canon SO BAD! ;)

[SeanT]

Anyone with knowledge of the Pentax K2000?

[BlueCorn]

Pentax makes decent cameras but you're back to the DSLR route again. You'd need to add a macro lens to get true macro capability.

[SeanT]

I have come to this realization. :)
I just want to make sure I get a decent camera body.

[BlueCorn]

Read the DSLR sticky at the top of the forum if you haven't already. With the exception of the Rebel XS there really isn't a bad DSLR on the market. Canon and Nikon are going to less noisy at higher ISOs and have more options for expansion but any camera currently on the market will take excellent pictures when used properly with a quality lens.

Cheers

[Mrs. Suzy Smith]

All I can say is Kodak Easyshare sucks!!!!!!