Reptile & Amphibian Forums

After seeing a few super crisp close up pictures on one of the forums I started reading about cameras and techniques on this and other photography forums. I even drove to a couple of the big retail shops to get a feel for a few.

The problem is now my head is spinning with all this new information and or misinformation and I am having a tough time sorting it all out.

So I am hoping; no praying that you all will point me toward two or three cameras to choose from.

Here is what I would like to be able to accomplish with my new camera. I understand that a big part will be me learning the techniques and developing the skill.

Take professional looking close up pictures of my herps and their offspring to place on my web site.

Pictures will be taken indoors and out.

Accurate color representation is important, speed is not.

I am a little shaky when I am excited so Image Stabilization is a must for photographing births/hatchings.

Size and weight is not an issue as I am not looking for something that will fit in my pockets.

I am a novice so auto functions with a little room to grow would be nice. I am to old to start a new career, so I don't need to much room.

I don't have a specific budget and like everyone would like to get the most bang for the buck. I would like to stay under $750. to start.
-----
PIJAC Member

>>After seeing a few super crisp close up pictures on one of the forums I started reading about cameras and techniques on this and other photography forums. I even drove to a couple of the big retail shops to get a feel for a few.
>>
>>The problem is now my head is spinning with all this new information and or misinformation and I am having a tough time sorting it all out.
>>
>>So I am hoping; no praying that you all will point me toward two or three cameras to choose from.
>>
>>Here is what I would like to be able to accomplish with my new camera. I understand that a big part will be me learning the techniques and developing the skill.
>>
>>Take professional looking close up pictures of my herps and their offspring to place on my web site.
>>
>>Pictures will be taken indoors and out.
>>
>>Accurate color representation is important, speed is not.
>>
>>I am a little shaky when I am excited so Image Stabilization is a must for photographing births/hatchings.
>>
>>Size and weight is not an issue as I am not looking for something that will fit in my pockets.
>>
>>I am a novice so auto functions with a little room to grow would be nice. I am to old to start a new career, so I don't need to much room.
>>
>>I don't have a specific budget and like everyone would like to get the most bang for the buck. I would like to stay under $750. to start.
>>-----
>>PIJAC Member
-----
PIJAC Member

>>After seeing a few super crisp close up pictures on one of the forums I started reading about cameras and techniques on this and other photography forums. I even drove to a couple of the big retail shops to get a feel for a few.
>>
>>The problem is now my head is spinning with all this new information and or misinformation and I am having a tough time sorting it all out.
>>
>>So I am hoping; no praying that you all will point me toward two or three cameras to choose from.
>>
>>Here is what I would like to be able to accomplish with my new camera. I understand that a big part will be me learning the techniques and developing the skill.
>>
>>Take professional looking close up pictures of my herps and their offspring to place on my web site.
>>
>>Pictures will be taken indoors and out.
>>
>>Accurate color representation is important, speed is not.
>>
>>I am a little shaky when I am excited so Image Stabilization is a must for photographing births/hatchings.
>>
>>Size and weight is not an issue as I am not looking for something that will fit in my pockets.
>>
>>I am a novice so auto functions with a little room to grow would be nice. I am to old to start a new career, so I don't need to much room.
>>
>>I don't have a specific budget and like everyone would like to get the most bang for the buck. I would like to stay under $750. to start.
>>-----
>>PIJAC Member

Does any one have any first hand knowledge of this camera in relation to herp photography? Would I want a macro lens for quality shots of hatchlings? If so which would you recommend.
-----
PIJAC Member

Input anyone? Would the VR kit lens allow me to take quality close up photos of hatchling or would I need to purchase a VR macro lens?
-----
PIJAC Member

If I went with the Pentex what lens would be the best option for herp photography.
-----
PIJAC Member

I think the reason you haven't had many responses is that it is a difficult question to answer. Here's a few of my opinions on this issue....

1. Image stabilization - this is a great thing. I would rather pay for it in the camera body than in each lens. The comparisons done say that in-body stabilization works as well as, if not better than in-lens stabilization for close up work.

2. Camera brands - I wouldn't worry about which brand you end up with as long as it is one of the big ones (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus). They have a large enough following that there are a variety of accessories and lenses available. In regard to available lenses/accessories, Nikon/Canon are about tied at the top, Sony is second (if you count older Minolta stuff), Pentax then Olympus. But frankly they all have enough for most herp photographers.

3. SLR vs Fixed Lens - this is a contentious issue for some people. I think an SLR is a better investment of funds than even a semi-pro fixed lens camera. Why? Because when it comes time to upgrade, the DSRL user only has to upgrade the body and gets to keep all his/her lenses, flashes, etc.

4. Ergonomics - make sure you handle each of the cameras you are considering. How it feels and how easily you can adjust what you want is a big deal. Most entry level cameras bury adjustments deep in the menu system, which is a pain. I would much rather have buttons, dials and knobs than have to search for something.

5. LCD - the size and function of the LCD is a big deal. Get the biggest, brightest, highest resolution LCD you can. You will spend much of your time checking out your photos on this, so don't get an inferior one.

6. Live view? The newest DSLRs come with live-view LCDs. This is a useful thing, although it wouldn't be a primary decision maker for me. I would be more concerned about image quality.

7. Image quality and sensor abilities. I wouldn't buy a camera that doesn't produce good images at at least ISO 400 and really I think the threshold should be ISO 800. Even if you are using flash a lot, having the ability to use higher ISOs without sacrificing quality really makes a big difference. This is where a good DSLR blows a fixed lens camera out of the water.

8. Cost and availability of accessories. Different camera lines price their lenses and accessories differently. Nikon tends to sell their lenses at a higher price than other brands, even though testing shows that the other brands or of equal quality. Canon is probably the cheapest in regard to quality for your dollar in lenses (and I'm not a Canon guy, BTW).

9. Flash options. This is where Canon falls short, IMHO. Most of the other manufacturers offer wireless flash without any extra accessories. With canon you have to buy more stuff. Nikon and Sony have excellent flash systems.

Do some comparisons on places like DPreview.com. Under their buying guide they have an option that lets you compare the features of different cameras side by side in a columnar format. It is a very helpful tool. And speaking of cameras to compare, I would be more inclined to look at the new Sony Alpha 300/350 rather than the Alpha 200. The 200 is just a replacement for the Alpha 100 without much improvement. The 300/350 shows quite a few big changes. I have the Alpha 100 as my backup body (my main camera is the Alpha 700) and although I like it as a backup, it probably wouldn't be my choice as a primary camera body due to the small LCD and noise above ISO 400.

And don't be influenced by the photos you see taken with one camera or another. Good photographers take good photos, not good cameras. Here's a shot I took with a cheap Point and Shoot digital that I wouldn't recommend to anyone. I don't think the photo is as bad as the camera was -

As for lenses, you probably will want to get a decent macro lens in the 90 to 105mm range. There are plenty to choose from and they are all very good lenses, including the major third party lenses like those from Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron.

You could get by with a macro zoom, but most of those are neither good zooms or good macro lenses. An exception to this is the Sigma DG 17-70 macro. If I were to only own one lens, that would probably be the one.
-----
Chris Harrison
San Antonio, Texas

***Chris,
Thank you so much for posting I was hoping you would. I have read so many reviews and although I have learned allot; I still am confused because their are so many different opinions out there. I have called several shops and everyone recommended a different setup. I value you judgment as you understand the fine points of herp photography and are a great assent to King snake.

>>I think the reason you haven't had many responses is that it is a difficult question to answer. Here's a few of my opinions on this issue....
>>
>>1. Image stabilization - this is a great thing. I would rather pay for it in the camera body than in each lens. The comparisons done say that in-body stabilization works as well as, if not better than in-lens stabilization for close up work.
>>

***This was one of my big issues, as the photography world is split over this and both sides seem very admit about their opinion. I was leaning toward in body. This is were your experience is really helpful. I feel more at ease going that direction.

>>2. Camera brands - I wouldn't worry about which brand you end up with as long as it is one of the big ones (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus). They have a large enough following that there are a variety of accessories and lenses available. In regard to available lenses/accessories, Nikon/Canon are about tied at the top, Sony is second (if you count older Minolta stuff), Pentax then Olympus. But frankly they all have enough for most herp photographers.
>>
***I planned on getting a good body with kit lens and one of the 90-105 macros that you have recommended to others so I think any of the major brands would have me covered.

>>3. SLR vs Fixed Lens - this is a contentious issue for some people. I think an SLR is a better investment of funds than even a semi-pro fixed lens camera. Why? Because when it comes time to upgrade, the DSRL user only has to upgrade the body and gets to keep all his/her lenses, flashes, etc.
>>
*** great that is the way I was going after much research, I just wanted to make sure I was not going overboard. I tend to do that!LOL
>>4. Ergonomics - make sure you handle each of the cameras you are considering. How it feels and how easily you can adjust what you want is a big deal. Most entry level cameras bury adjustments deep in the menu system, which is a pain. I would much rather have buttons, dials and knobs than have to search for something.
>>
***I have played around with the Canon, Nikon and Sony a little. I did not care for the feel of the Canon. It just felt awkward for me, I am not sure what it was. The Nikon and the Sony felt great.

>>5. LCD - the size and function of the LCD is a big deal. Get the biggest, brightest, highest resolution LCD you can. You will spend much of your time checking out your photos on this, so don't get an inferior one.
>>
>>6. Live view? The newest DSLRs come with live-view LCDs. This is a useful thing, although it wouldn't be a primary decision maker for me. I would be more concerned about image quality.
>>
*** From what I have read, it seems the Sony A300 has one of the most logical "live view systems". How is this feature important in the scheme of things?

>>7. Image quality and sensor abilities. I wouldn't buy a camera that doesn't produce good images at at least ISO 400 and really I think the threshold should be ISO 800. Even if you are using flash a lot, having the ability to use higher ISOs without sacrificing quality really makes a big difference. This is where a good DSLR blows a fixed lens camera out of the water.
>>
*** Here is where I need the help. Which camera will do this the best indoors, with flash and outdoor herps? Everyone seems to have a different opinion, but they aren't herpers. I have tentatively narrowed my choices to the Sony and the Nikon and am leaning toward the Sony. You recommend waiting for the A/350. Would you recommend paying the extra and getting the A700. Would the kit lens that comes with the A700 allow me to take pictures of hatchlings for my web site or would they be to small?

>>8. Cost and availability of accessories. Different camera lines price their lenses and accessories differently. Nikon tends to sell their lenses at a higher price than other brands, even though testing shows that the other brands or of equal quality. Canon is probably the cheapest in regard to quality for your dollar in lenses (and I'm not a Canon guy, BTW).
>>
*** Another reason I was leaning toward Sony.

>>9. Flash options. This is where Canon falls short, IMHO. Most of the other manufacturers offer wireless flash without any extra accessories. With canon you have to buy more stuff. Nikon and Sony have excellent flash systems.
>>
>>Do some comparisons on places like DPreview.com. Under their buying guide they have an option that lets you compare the features of different cameras side by side in a columnar format. It is a very helpful tool. And speaking of cameras to compare, I would be more inclined to look at the new Sony Alpha 300/350 rather than the Alpha 200. The 200 is just a replacement for the Alpha 100 without much improvement. The 300/350 shows quite a few big changes. I have the Alpha 100 as my backup body (my main camera is the Alpha 700) and although I like it as a backup, it probably wouldn't be my choice as a primary camera body due to the small LCD and noise above ISO 400.
>>
>>And don't be influenced by the photos you see taken with one camera or another. Good photographers take good photos, not good cameras. Here's a shot I took with a cheap Point and Shoot digital that I wouldn't recommend to anyone. I don't think the photo is as bad as the camera was -
>>
>>
>>
>>As for lenses, you probably will want to get a decent macro lens in the 90 to 105mm range. There are plenty to choose from and they are all very good lenses, including the major third party lenses like those from Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron.
>>
>>You could get by with a macro zoom, but most of those are neither good zooms or good macro lenses. An exception to this is the Sigma DG 17-70 macro. If I were to only own one lens, that would probably be the one.
>>-----
>>Chris Harrison
>>San Antonio, Texas
-----
PIJAC Member

***This was one of my big issues, as the photography world is split over this and both sides seem very admit about their opinion.

Yes, they are split. The people who own camera brands that use in-lens (Canon/Nikon) say it is superior, the people who own in-body brands (the rest) say it is superior. Strange huh? LOL

***I planned on getting a good body with kit lens and one of the 90-105 macros that you have recommended to others so I think any of the major brands would have me covered.

I might consider getting just the body and the Sigma 17-70DG. It has decent macro capability and is supposed to be very sharp. With this one lens you could get all your needs met. Even if you want to get a dedicated macro later, the Sigma 17-70 is superior to all the kit lenses that cameras come with.

***I have played around with the Canon, Nikon and Sony a little. I did not care for the feel of the Canon. It just felt awkward for me, I am not sure what it was. The Nikon and the Sony felt great.

That's one of the primary reasons I have Sony. I just don't like the feel of most Canon cameras.

*** From what I have read, it seems the Sony A300 has one of the most logical "live view systems". How is this feature important in the scheme of things?

I think this is one of these features that you love if you have, but don't miss if you don't. It does make it easier to get down on ground level with herps.

*** Here is where I need the help. Which camera will do this the best indoors, with flash and outdoor herps? Everyone seems to have a different opinion, but they aren't herpers.

I have seen great herp shots taken with DSLRs from Minolta, Sony, Canon, Nikon, Olympus and Pentax. All of them make the things you need (except minolta anymore since they were bought by sony). Don't let this be a criterion - you can get great shots with any of these brands.

I have tentatively narrowed my choices to the Sony and the Nikon and am leaning toward the Sony. You recommend waiting for the A/350. Would you recommend paying the extra and getting the A700.

Well, I am biased since I have the 700 and it is the greatest camera I have ever owned, bar none. I wouldn't trade it for any other camera on the market. But, it is more expensive. If cost isn't a huge issue, then heck yeah, get the Alpha 700! Of course, the Nikon D300 is getting a LOT of good press, but again it is a little more expensive again.

Would the kit lens that comes with the A700 allow me to take pictures of hatchlings for my web site or would they be to small?

I don't like the kit lens that comes with the Sony cameras (the 18-70). I own it and don't use it. It doesn't get very close and it isn't sharp. Some kits come with the Zeiss 16-80 which is an excellent lens, but a bit more expensive.
Both of these focus down to 1:4 (which means you can fill the frame with something the size of about 4 inches across). Of course, with a 10MP or larger sensor, there is plenty of room to crop down to smaller sizes and still keep excellent quality.

Chris
-----
Chris Harrison
San Antonio, Texas

Chris,

Thanks for your help. I have decided to go with the Sony A300 0r A700 with one of the lenses you recommended. I guess it is time to go shopping. Of course I will have to wait until April 25th if I decide on the 300.

Dave
-----
PIJAC Member