The Planted Tank Forum banner

Is it just me, or are there lots of camera threads already? Well now theres one more.

8K views 121 replies 19 participants last post by  JACimages 
#1 ·
I need a better camera...I might sell my fujii camera, it works really good, great point and shoot, but just can't take pictures of my tanks. It is great up until that point. It was made in 2008, I got it refurbed from a vendor off amazon for 60% off retail at the time, has served me wonderful but it might be time to retire it. Figure I might be able to get $100-$150 from it and then save up another $100-$150 for a nice camera. Its 10 mega pixels, and has AA batteries, not rechargeable, makes it nice when you go hiking. It has one flaw that can be fixed; the battery lid won't stay closed and you have to use duct tape to keep the batteries in. What do you think? Here are some photos taken with it.






Do you think I should sell my camera, get a new one and put a hold on my tank for a month or not? I just can't stand taken photos/videos of my tank anymore.
 
See less See more
3
#86 ·
If you buy a used car and something goes wrong, you can often diagnose what is wrong (especially if equipped with OBD) and sometimes make repairs yourself.

Try doing that with a DSLR.

At a minimum I would ask a reputable camera repair person what he/she charges just to even look at a non-operating DSLR (minimum charge + insured return shipping) before even considering purchasing a used DSLR.

Remember, with a used DSLR you might not know the complete, accurate history of the camera. Was it used for extended periods in harsh environments (i.e., lots of dust, extreme temperatures, etc.)? Was the seller (or a previous owner) a smoker or was the camera stored in a building that had caught fire (IME, electronics and smoke don't mix very well)? How many times was it dropped? Note that I'm not saying you shouldn't consider a used DSLR at all, but understand it's not quite so easy to determine what you're really getting. And you often won't get a meaningful warranty with a used DSLR.
 
#87 ·
A used camera from a reputable dealer can be a good experience. Ask if they offer an extended warranty on it...most of them do, and they aren't that expensive. Many people don't understand the dslr market. The dslr market is a rich mans game, where they trade last years camera in for a new one "just because". There's typically nothing wrong with these trade-ins because the rich amateur who traded it in didn't even use it to it's full potential. I purchased a used d2x for pennies of what they sold for new, and it's in mint condition. Another note; don't put all you $$ on a camera body, as they depreciate way too quickly (buy used) Instead, put your $$ in glass (lenses). They hold value well.
 
#90 ·
A used camera from a reputable dealer can be a good experience. Ask if they offer an extended warranty on it...most of them do, and they aren't that expensive. Many people don't understand the dslr market. The dslr market is a rich mans game, where they trade last years camera in for a new one "just because". There's typically nothing wrong with these trade-ins because the rich amateur who traded it in didn't even use it to it's full potential. I purchased a used d2x for pennies of what they sold for new, and it's in mint condition. Another note; don't put all you $$ on a camera body, as they depreciate way too quickly (buy used) Instead, put your $$ in glass (lenses). They hold value well.


Clarification: From my perspective, "used", as in found on e-Bay, Craigslist or other similar sites, local newspaper classifieds, etc., but the device has not been refurbished.

"Refurbished" is meaningful if the company that does the work is reputable, knows what it's doing, does the work such that the device meets (or exceeds) the original manufacturer's specifications, and offers a reasonable warranty.
 
#92 ·
caton- what kind of film camera does your dad have? you may be able to use the lenses from that on your new camera. thats what i did when i got my D90. i used the old lenses from the film camera while i was learning how to use the camera itself and until i could save up for some nice glass. just something to consider. thats why i ended up getting a nikon

i know you still want to get a p&s in the future. i have a pentax optio w80. it is waterproof and shockproof. and unlike other waterproof p&s's ive used, it actually takes nice pictures ( for a p&s ).

just my two cents. im no "pro" but im getting there. i have done some weddings and a few sr portraits, but im not up there with elmo or anyone yet. but i do know a thing or two
 
#94 ·
The best cheaper recommendation I can suggest is the 55-200 with VR if you can swing it. Its not much more, but the VR really helps.

Brand new it's $220...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/486717-USA/Nikon_2166_AF_S_DX_VR_Zoom_Nikkor.html

But you can get it refurbished by Nikon for an amazing $145

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/731076-REF/Nikon_2166B_AF_S_DX_VR_Zoom_Nikkor.html

200mm won't be long enough for most birds or animals that are "actual wildlife" (as is on a safari or somethin, lol) but for backyward wild animals, seagulls, rabbits, deer, etc, it should be adequate. Just don't expect to get National Geographic cover shots of a finch a football field away, lol....Anything past 200mm starts becoming crazy expensive

There's also the Nikon 70-300, but its big and rather bulky, and more expensive, at $455....

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/449088-GREY/Nikon_2161_AF_S_VR_Zoom_NIKKOR_70_300mm.html

To illustrate just how crazy expensive tele-photo lenses become past 200mm, check out this page, lol...

http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Camera-Lenses/Autofocus/Super-Telephoto.page
 
#96 ·
here's my take on sigma/tamron type lenses... even low end canon/nikon lenses

for some, yeah it might be "good enough" but your pictures will show it. yeah i know money doesnt grow on trees, trust me. but i've found some really good deals on craigslist for used ones. i tested them and made sure i got some background on the lens before i bought it, but i think the lenses i got were great deals at the time.

i bought the L series canon lenses and i could probably sell it back for the same price i paid 3-4 years ago, if not more. the thing about sigma/tamron lenses is, theres no real demand for them in a sense. the only people who would want to buy them are the beginners or people who want good enough, meanwhile everyone else is upgrading or going for the nicer lenses to begin with. if you sell your sigma/tamron, it will probably be at a loss as well. good lenses hold their value and last... even camera bodies come and go and lose value. they dont even need to be higher end $1000 lenses. i have a canon 50mm 1.8 which takes nice pictures and i got it for $100. i'd be perfectly happy with a 60 2.8macro for $350 or a 85mm 1.8 for $300.

when i first got my canon 10d back in 2003, i went with a "whatever lens" which was an older 28-135mm. the guy i bought my camera from gave me an iffy look when i said i wanted that lens, which is the same look i give people now when they buy low end lenses. the pictures from the lens were OK. they look like..... point and shoot pictures but not as noisy. but they were ok because i didnt know any better.

another thing, places like best buy or walmart or wherever have outrageous prices on lenses. their canon 75-300mm 4.5-5.6 IS or whatever it is... costs like $580 there. if u go on a forum or craigslist u can get the same lens for $300 and the lens isnt even that good. same with the 70-300mm III lens which is $400 at best buy? i wouldnt use that lens if they gave it to me for free.

i would get a decent lens which holds its value over a cheapy lens. even if that means a non zoom lens or whatever because when you decide to upgrade you shouldnt have a problem selling the lens.
 
#100 ·
here's my take on sigma/tamron type lenses... even low end canon/nikon lenses

for some, yeah it might be "good enough" but your pictures will show it. yeah i know money doesnt grow on trees, trust me. but i've found some really good deals on craigslist for used ones. i tested them and made sure i got some background on the lens before i bought it, but i think the lenses i got were great deals at the time.

i bought the L series canon lenses and i could probably sell it back for the same price i paid 3-4 years ago, if not more. the thing about sigma/tamron lenses is, theres no real demand for them in a sense. the only people who would want to buy them are the beginners or people who want good enough, meanwhile everyone else is upgrading or going for the nicer lenses to begin with. if you sell your sigma/tamron, it will probably be at a loss as well. good lenses hold their value and last... even camera bodies come and go and lose value. they dont even need to be higher end $1000 lenses. i have a canon 50mm 1.8 which takes nice pictures and i got it for $100. i'd be perfectly happy with a 60 2.8macro for $350 or a 85mm 1.8 for $300.

when i first got my canon 10d back in 2003, i went with a "whatever lens" which was an older 28-135mm. the guy i bought my camera from gave me an iffy look when i said i wanted that lens, which is the same look i give people now when they buy low end lenses. the pictures from the lens were OK. they look like..... point and shoot pictures but not as noisy. but they were ok because i didnt know any better.

another thing, places like best buy or walmart or wherever have outrageous prices on lenses. their canon 75-300mm 4.5-5.6 IS or whatever it is... costs like $580 there. if u go on a forum or craigslist u can get the same lens for $300 and the lens isnt even that good. same with the 70-300mm III lens which is $400 at best buy? i wouldnt use that lens if they gave it to me for free.

i would get a decent lens which holds its value over a cheapy lens. even if that means a non zoom lens or whatever because when you decide to upgrade you shouldnt have a problem selling the lens.


First off, "good enough" represents the vast majority of the market. And quite often, "good enough" is more than acceptable. Why do you think unit sales of digicams are on the decline? It's because more people have come to accept the camera built into their cellphone as being sufficient. As a non-professional photographer, I honestly don't care if someone thinks a picture I took suffers from technical or other deficiencies. If I'm happy with the image taken, that's really all that matters to me. Besides, there's always Photoshop...

Here's the fundamental issue (aside from budget):

Photography equipment is a luxury item, not a necessity. When talking about non-essential goods/services, why should one buy a far more expensive" item if he/she doesn't know whether he/she will be using it regularly over the long-term? That being said, one can always upgrade to a better lens at a later date if he/she wants to pursue more advanced topics in photography and/or determines a need for additional capabilities.


The other disagreement I have with your comments:

What good is your so-called decent lens if I can't use it to take the shot I want? In other words, following your advice if I purchased a decent 50mm lens (no zoom) rather than a "cheap" zoom lens, I'd be SOL if I couldn't get close enough to the subject matter to have it appear decent-sized in the image. Maybe I'm in the Uecker seats and want a shot of the scoreboard across the field showing the perfect game line. Or perhaps I'm in Scotland visiting Loch Ness and I look across the lake and suddenly I see what appears to be the neck of a large creature sticking out of the water in the distance. I'd rather be able to take a "lesser quality" (whatever that means) image than not have a shot at all.
 
#106 ·
It may be more "natural" but it certainly is more expensive. I am going to get the kit lens and then upgrade to a better lens if I feel I need to, best of both worlds. You may get good pictures with a Tamron lens but over all, more of them will turn out with noise, or blurry. If I did see the loch ness monster and had cheap lens, it might not turn out good, while I saved for another month and got a better lens, I could have captured Scotlands beast on film. I am afraid that you cannot simply say: "your argument is flawed", I think both of you make good points, I could go one way, I could go the other, it all depends on the consumers needs, every person's needs is different.

P&S cameras might be fine for most people, but in the end its what you want as the end product. You might get better mileage in a Farrari and better speed, but most people don't mind paying over time for gas, and taking their time, but some people need to be places and they need to be there NOW. As I said before, and what other people have said, it all depends on the consumer.
 
#107 ·
An obvious flaw in his argument is (paraphrasing) buying something (lens) now that you'll probably want to upgrade later is a waste. The reality is there might never be an upgrade on the lens. After learning how to use the DSLR & lens, perhaps the photographer is quite happy with the results. Or perhaps there is a change in his/her financial situation/priorities, a loss of interest in DSLR photography, a lost/stolen/broken DSLR, a new technology that renders DSLR obsolete (where is Kodak today? recall Blockbuster laughed at Netflix initially), etc. And even if there is an eventual upgrade, it might not come for 3, 5, or 10 years (or more), during which the photographer has had the benefit of the initial lens that was purchased. I'd hardly call that a waste.

The bigger flaw is the waste I pointed out -- call it "overbuying" -- is a far more serious problem. For an extreme example of "overbuying", you only need to take a look at the current housing crisis, which was brought about when too many people purchased houses that were far beyond their needs and financed it with arrangements well beyond their means.
 
#108 ·
That is a lot of " if's ". Like I said before, it all depends on the consumer, some might give it up, some might not, but for me (the consumer), once I want to get something, unless I find something better to spend my money on (before I get it), I most always save up for it, even if it takes a year. Still not sure what you are trying to prove...It seems like you are trying to prove both sides as right AND wrong...
 
#111 ·
Seems like Caton is pretty much set on the Nikon D90.

It aint got nothing on the 60D though!! muuahahahahahahahaahaha! :p

Caton - Let's see if your future D90 can do better than this ;) : just to clarify all the little specs are not lens dust or "noise". It's just ASII that's turning to mush in my tank sending floating debris everywhere. These pics are unedited, straight out the box, only resized, and uploaded.


 
#118 ·
Psh, Mr. I use wireless flash. Like previously said: its the photographer, and some of the camera

You have skill and a nice camera, therefore you get good pictures.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top