Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I hope to start a travelling job soon. This means that I need a good camera. One that takes great pics of landscapes and landmarks. I will also want to take plenty of close-ups of my animals and animals at reptile shows as well as wild animals. Simply put I need a great all around camera. I would prefer digital but will also want to make some prints. I was thinking of a Nikon D50. Can anyone tell me about these cameras (the good and the bad)? Also is it a good choice or should I consider others as well?

Thanks,
Dan

Dan,

The D50 is a good camera and part of a good lineup. However the quality of your shots will have more to do with having good lenses than a good camera body. You should look at what other companies offer.

You should compare the
Canon 400D (Rebel XTi)
Nikon D50
Pentax K100D
Pentax K10D
Sony Alpha 100

The advantage to the last three (pentax and Sony) is that they have in body image stabilization. That makes a big difference, particularly when you get up close. Nikon and Canon offer it as well, but only in the lenses and that can sell at a premium.

One big thing you should consider is the way they feel in your hands. No two people are the same, so you should go to a Camera Store, Best Buy or Circuit City and handle each one. Find the one that fits your hands the best and has the nicest LCD screen. Determine which ones have the most accessible buttons. You don't want to have to fumble through a bunch of menus to make a simple adjustment.

Here's a comparison of them - www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_eos400d%2Cnikon_d50%2Cpentax_k100d%2Cpentax_k10d%2Csony_dslra100&show=all

In order to capture wide angle shots you might want a lens that goes around at least 17mm wide (on a DSLR). Then you want a macro lens in the 70-90mm range. A good choice might be the nice Sigma 17-70 macro. It gets down to 1:2 macro, and is very well regarded by reviewers.

You should also look at some of the fixed lens cameras out there. Several of the advanced point and shoot cameras are very good, but their smaller sensors tend to produce noisy images at high ISO.

As for megapixels, anything over 5 is plenty. I have printed 8x10s from a 3.2 megapixel camera and they looked fine. I regularly print 8x10s from my 6.1 MP camera, even with significant cropping.
-----
Chris Harrison
San Antonio, Texas

Thanks so much for the info. I really appreciate it. What features should I look for (keep in mind I know very little about cameras)? How do digital cameras compare with SLR's? Can digital cameras produce pics that are as nice?

Thanks,
Dan

What features should I look for?

That's a difficult question to answer, it really depends what you want to shoot photos of. If it is just herps and habitats, you should be fine with almost any camera as long as its lens is capable of going wide enough and producing high enough magnification.
I really think you might be better served by buying a book on close-up photography to learn what sorts of things you might want.

Things I would require would be a camera that has interchangeable lenses or at least a very wide ranging zoom, a sensor capable of producing smooth images at at least ISO 400, depth of field preview (either by LCD or a DOF preview button).
I would also want a system where I could buy larger, more powerful flash units that I could control either with an off-camera cord or wirelessly.

How do digital cameras compare with SLR's? Can digital cameras produce pics that are as nice?

I'm not sure what you are asking here. There are several types of cameras.
- point and shoot film cameras
- SLR (single lens reflex) film cameras
- fixed lens point and shoot digitals
- advanced fixed lens digitals (SLR-like, but with a fixed lens)
- digital SLRs (DSLRs - interchangeable lenses)

I have to admit that I get better photos now with my digital SLR than I used to get with my film SLRs. That's because of the immediate feedback of the digital camera.

Most DLSRs have bigger sensors (physically bigger in size, not megapixels) and therefore produce better images at high ISOs. However, many of the current advanced amateur cameras produced excellent results as well.

The advantage of the DSLR is that you are buying a "system" not just a camera. Therefore, if (when) you want to upgrade to a newer camera body later on, you can still use your flashes, lenses, etc.

I know a lot of people who have moved from a fixed lens digital to a DSLR. I don't know anyone who has gone the other way. That should tell you something about which is believed to be superior.
-----
Chris Harrison
San Antonio, Texas

I'm personally going to be getting a Pentax K10D in the next week or so. Right now I've got a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5, which is a nice point-and-shoot camera (one of the SLR-like cameras) and does take good pictures.

The essential advantage to dSLRs is that they're more versitile than any point-and-shoot you can get. If you want to do primarily macro photography, you can get 3-4 different focal length lenses for different situations. If you want to do telephoto work, same deal, you can get a few different lenses to meet your needs. With point-and-shoots, you're stuck with the one lens it comes it.

I wanted a 10MP camera, and basically what sold me on the Pentax was the in-camera image stabilization (which will come in handy for both macro and telephoto work; non-IS cameras have lenses that are IS, but they cost more), the weather-resistent sealing (very important for me since I'll be in the field a lot), and the memory card type (my Panasonic uses a SD, and I've got several gigs worth of cards for that, so if I can avoid it, I'd rather not have to get a new card format). The drawback to the Pentax is that it doesn't have as wide variety of lenses as Canon or Nikon, but that said, I don't feel that I'll really need more than 6 lenses, max. It's also nice in that any Pentax lens will work on it. Other 10MP cameras don't do that.

>I know a lot of people who have moved from a fixed lens >digital to a DSLR. I don't know anyone who has gone the other >way.

That is a matter of perception Chris. As someone who favors and promotes the advanced "prosumer" types of cameras for herp photography, I naturally visit forums where those types of cameras are features. (for instance, the Sony talk forum on dpreview) I see MANY people tossing out their bags and bags of heavy glass for the fixed lens cameras. I for one went from an SLR to a Sony F828, and until I have several grand laying around and they can't make an SLR with live preview, you won't see me switching back either. With a rotating view screen, and I DO get shots that most SLRs can't get. I want to point out that I have personally met professional photographers enjoying the benefits of a non-SLR camera.

I DON'T intend to turn this into a SLR vs Fixed Lens debate, but I wanted to point out to Dan that for most hobbyists, a fixed lens like mine will deliver pictures just as good as an SLR, without the expense, weight, hassle, and missed shots of an SLR. SLR does NOT equate to superiority in every case, only "ideal" conditions.

PS- I've stated my side, I hereby concede to the wisdom of Chris Harrison.
-----
Virginia Herping
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VaHS
Virginia Herpetological Society online store
http://www.cafepress.com/vaherpsociety

"The irrational fear of snakes is the only excuse a grown man has... to act like a complete sissy" - Colchicine

Actually, as I hesitantly typed those words I thought about you and a couple of others who are vocal proponents of the advanced fixed lens cameras.

In all honesty, I don't think one is "better" than the other. They each offer different benefits. If I didn't have a DLSR, I would certainly have a fixed lens digital.

There are certainly times I wish for a smaller, lighter rig, an LCD preview screen, or the increased DOF you get with most fixed lenses. But when I had those things, there were times I wished for the flexibility of an SLR. I guess people like me are never happy.

What I really want is both, and then someone to carry them for me in the field!
-----
Chris Harrison
San Antonio, Texas

>Actually, as I hesitantly typed those words I thought about you and a couple of others who are vocal proponents of the advanced fixed lens cameras.

Ha ha, I haven't posted on here in awhile, so you thought you could get away with it! I may not be on the same photographic quality level as Chris, but I felt confident reiterating what I had seen quite frequently on the Sony forums: that as camera technology has progressed, people have dumped the SLRs for proficient fixed lenses.

Consider this example: if I started out just riding a motorcycle and got really good at it after a few years, it doesn't mean that I will automatically ditch the motorcycle and move on to a car. Sure the car is more expensive and gives you more options, but it doesn't necessarily mean it is better than a motorcycle for everything. Each type of vehicle has its own unique advantages, of course. With the money that I would save by sticking with a motorcycle, I could do things like... buy another motorcycle (read: camera)!

I agree that the perfect wildlife/herp camera has yet to be built, so it's a matter of what compromises you are willing to live with. Sometimes I think the only herp photographers who are 100% satisfied with an SLR, are the ones who do it professionally and have very strong backs!
-----
Virginia Herping
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VaHS
Virginia Herpetological Society online store
http://www.cafepress.com/vaherpsociety

"The irrational fear of snakes is the only excuse a grown man has... to act like a complete sissy" - Colchicine