SLR or Point and Shoot?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mark75
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users None

Mark75

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
575
Reaction score
514
Location
Knoxville TN.
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
After much frustration trying to get decent tank shots with my Iphone I have decided to purchase a camera.

I do not intend to edit or do macro shots, just want to take pictures that actually look like my tank in person. I started looking at point and shoot cameras that get good reviews, such as the Panasonic Lumix FZ200 priced around $250, but now I am thinking the extra $150 spent on the Nikon D3300 bundle will be worth it.

I know a SLR is capable of taking better photos with the right lenses and expert photographers operating them, but what about someone who knows nothing about photography?
 
I'd suggest looking into gel filters. They filter the light that gets to the camera sensor in your phone and does wonders for tank pics.

Of course, that's assuming you don't plan on getting into photography.
 
Gel filters will take out the blue and cost less than $10.
I have the Nikon D5500 which has the same CMOS sensor as the D3300. They are great cameras. If you are going with the Nikon, google Ken Rockwell and apply his settings. I am a novice photographer like you. My brother is a semi professional and he set up the camera for me using Ken Rockwell's recommended settings. I couldn't adjust the white balance enough to overcome the blue spectrum. That mat just be me since others have had great success. The photos will be awesome if you can lesson the blue in your lights.

Also I have an Olmypus Tough TG-4 point and shoot that is water proof. It has a built in macro feature that can take great photos of your corals underwater. It usually on sale for $350 and sometimes can be found for a little less. This is a great little camera for the beach or snorkeling and tank shots.

My brothers daughter has the Panasonic. It takes good pictures but we both agree the Olympus is a bit better for a point and shoot. Good luck.
 
After much frustration trying to get decent tank shots with my Iphone I have decided to purchase a camera.

I do not intend to edit or do macro shots, just want to take pictures that actually look like my tank in person. I started looking at point and shoot cameras that get good reviews, such as the Panasonic Lumix FZ200 priced around $250, but now I am thinking the extra $150 spent on the Nikon D3300 bundle will be worth it.

I know a SLR is capable of taking better photos with the right lenses and expert photographers operating them, but what about someone who knows nothing about photography?
There is a misconception about post-processing amongst hobbyist. Everyone whom doesn't know or has very little knowledge about it, automatically only associates over-saturation with it. Post-processing is much more than saturation and overly doing it. The blue issue everyone has is a color temperature issue created by LEDs in which post processing can correct.

Gel filters do NOT give you the best representation of your tank. I don't know how people think the photos posted using these are acceptable. Oranges and greens are radioactively amplified plus there is an orange overlay.

My advice is to learn how to use a camera just as you learned how to reef. Everyone wants s shortcut but there isn't one. Watch some YouTube videos on aperture, ISO, exposure, shutter speed, and focusing. Next, watch videos on post processing, particularly color temperature.

I started with a Sony Nex 5n, then Nikon D3300, and now Canon 70D.
 
If you have the money get a good camera, meaning spend a few thousand on the body and lenses
 
There is a misconception about post-processing amongst hobbyist. Everyone whom doesn't know or has very little knowledge about it, automatically only associates over-saturation with it. Post-processing is much more than saturation and overly doing it. The blue issue everyone has is a color temperature issue created by LEDs in which post processing can correct.

Gel filters do NOT give you the best representation of your tank. I don't know how people think the photos posted using these are acceptable. Oranges and greens are radioactively amplified plus there is an orange overlay.

My advice is to learn how to use a camera just as you learned how to reef. Everyone wants s shortcut but there isn't one. Watch some YouTube videos on aperture, ISO, exposure, shutter speed, and focusing. Next, watch videos on post processing, particularly color temperature.

I started with a Sony Nex 5n, then Nikon D3300, and now Canon 70D.

Actually professionals use filters quite often. In photography and cinematography and we see it everyday.
Reef lighting lacks the red green yellow and orange when balancing to 4800 and above. Around 3200 it changes to a more spikes orange red but blue is sill I there.
Cameras and reef lights are not all equal. And led's are are not the only difficult light to shoot under. T5 mh t12 t8 for the old guys have similar challenges but are more forgiving as they contain a smoother spectral arch arc.
Cameras are also designed to use a smoother full spectrum curve. So they are easily fooled. Higher end cameras have more processors and some use a sampling algorithm to simulate the colors that are not there. Similar to MPEG compression uses info from one frame to the next to save bandwidth and computing time. Or shot stabilization. Same thing.
Play with gel filters. The roscoe and lee swatches are generally free and quite often correspond to a glass filter for dSlr. This is particularly helpful for full actinic photography when the the spectrum is fully limited to a hundred or so NM. A good filter will pull the blue out and leave more red orang green and yellow as limited as is there is some in there.
For the old guys we know this because we didn't used to white balance. Film light balance was and is still often done with filters. Depending on what film stock is chosen.
Day light balance film (56k) was changed to tungsten 3200k with an 85 filter. With daylight 56k standard film in deep underwater you use an 85 as well because the color is 14 to 20k kelvin. Indirect sunlight i.e. Sky in a valley is the same. But I digress.
Here's 2 shots on I phone.
b06370dc5804b51adc95a12160002b9b.jpg
f5b06bb5ea78e4f8978fa6f1a9d0d1a5.jpg

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/16/01/02/
[IMG]http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/16/01/02/b3ba825e18813062972a2c10484a192d.jpg
Last is under 16k

But That's a scrap of gel that was in my pocket after work one night.
3fe4279fd6fa36aa2d783c60848d4151.jpg
612af0e728eb90fbdfab70c3db35691d.jpg

Yea not pro yet but pretty good for after a beer and a gel that I that went in the trash a minute later When I got my new night led a while ago.
Just how you reef use what you have. Don't spend a lot till you get to know the basics. You can get pretty good stuff and learn a lot.
And honestly some of the best reef shooters I know are manipulating the lights first by eye. Get the whites bright enough to to expose then bring up the actinic to pop. It fills in the spectrum the sensor needs a little better and makes post processing easier esp in raw. Unless you in Nikon as it has broader color latitude than canon when using jpeg. But I guess that's IMo or IME.
 
Last edited:
Oh the lumix is the same Venus processor as the Leica only half or a third as many. The Nikon you mentioned doesn't seem to work well under the blues from what I've been reading. Search back in the forums for gels and that same Nikon there's some threads in the last week or two you'll like. Info on both.
One cat got a Pentax something that seemed to nail it real quick.
I'll post em if I find em.
 
Gel filters in photography aren't used on harsh blue spectrum like we use on reef tanks. Also, gel filters are a form of old technology. With post processing capabilities, there is no need to use gel filters. There are very few expert photographers that actually utilize it. Even then, then they will still just use custom white balances achieved directly from the camera.
 
If you have the money get a good camera, meaning spend a few thousand on the body and lenses
Not exactly true. It depends on the lens more so than the body. Here is an example image I took using a Sony Nex 5n which now retails less than $400:

11428589386_5f5a56833c_c.jpg

11347491873_3efc6f40d0_c.jpg

11003794055_896429fcc5_c.jpg

10874672513_96727de207_c.jpg

10874680833_f65d277933_c.jpg



Oh the lumix is the same Venus processor as the Leica only half or a third as many. The Nikon you mentioned doesn't seem to work well under the blues from what I've been reading. Search back in the forums for gels and that same Nikon there's some threads in the last week or two you'll like. Info on both.
One cat got a Pentax something that seemed to nail it real quick.
I'll post em if I find em.

His camera will do fine. He will just have to practice and learn it. I had a Nikon and it worked just fine.

21638366185_40bf43d543_c.jpg

21009241319_f99ddf3b59_c.jpg
 
We can go back in forth all day but you can see clearly how I have advanced in my photos by practicing and I recommend the same to the OP. To the OP, please take time to watch the video below:

 

IF YOU HAD TO TAKE A REEFING EXAM, WOULD YOU PASS?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 32 45.7%
  • Not yet, but I have one that I want to buy in mind!

    Votes: 9 12.9%
  • No.

    Votes: 26 37.1%
  • Other (please explain).

    Votes: 3 4.3%
Back
Top