kien's 150g Room Divider Mixed Reef & Stuff

[lorenz0]

Originally Posted by kien

*I can neither confirm nor deny that it is or is not ORA.

This debate is still on going???

[kien]

Originally Posted by lorenz0

This debate is still on going???

OH EM G-O-S-H !! I wrote that comment just for you ! I miss those debates. Good times!

Originally Posted by Roskoreef

absolutly amazing photos.. how and what camera set up do you use?

Thanks! Canon 6D with 24-105mm lens or Canon 40D with 28-75mm lens depending on my mood.

[Myka]

Originally Posted by kien

Thanks! Canon 6D with 24-105mm lens or Canon 40D with 28-75mm lens depending on my mood.

Big price difference between these two - for the average reef photographer, do you prefer one over the other? I'm looking at upgrading from my old G9. Or do you think it's more about the lens than the body?

[kien]

Originally Posted by Myka

Big price difference between these two - for the average reef photographer, do you prefer one over the other? I'm looking at upgrading from my old G9. Or do you think it's more about the lens than the body?

You're right, there is a pretty big difference in price between the two. To be honest, it's not the camera that makes the picture (even though technically speaking the camera body does make the picture ). I'm sure you and many people have heard this many times before, but what makes a bigger difference in photo taking is the quality of the lens. That's where you want to spend your money.

I actually have no preference between the two camera bodies (for reef photography). In fact, a few years ago I had an even older, cheaper, smaller Canon Rebel (entry level Digital SLR) that I used to take photos with. If I still had it today I would use that camera with one of my prized lenses and still produce the same images.

If someone asked me for my recommendation I would say get the whatever camera body you want. For general photography (including reef photo taking, etc), they are all virtually the same. A $300 DSLR vs a $3000 SLR. Then get a really good lens. My 24-104 mm and 28-75 mm lenses are both very good lenses. If I put either of those lenses on a $300 entry level DSL or a $3000 high end DSLR they can/will take the exact same picture.

[rishu_pepper]

Originally Posted by kien

You're right, there is a pretty big difference in price between the two. To be honest, it's not the camera that makes the picture (even though technically speaking the camera body does make the picture ). I'm sure you and many people have heard this many times before, but what makes a bigger difference in photo taking is the quality of the lens. That's where you want to spend your money.

I actually have no preference between the two camera bodies (for reef photography). In fact, a few years ago I had an even older, cheaper, smaller Canon Rebel (entry level Digital SLR) that I used to take photos with. If I still had it today I would use that camera with one of my prized lenses and still produce the same images.

If someone asked me for my recommendation I would say get the whatever camera body you want. For general photography (including reef photo taking, etc), they are all virtually the same. A $300 DSLR vs a $3000 SLR. Then get a really good lens. My 24-104 mm and 28-75 mm lenses are both very good lenses. If I put either of those lenses on a $300 entry level DSL or a $3000 high end DSLR they can/will take the exact same picture.

Sorry but I must disagree on this point. Let's say you put your 24-105, an L (professional grade) lens onto a Rebel (few hundred bucks), compared to a current gen full frame camera like a 5DMkIII ($3000), there will be a marked difference in the image produced, whether it's a picture of a person's face, landscape, or a fish and coral.

The differences in image quality such as resolution, dynamic range, noise reduction, etc. can be easily distinguished by any person. Not that I don't agree with your point in investing in lenses, that's definitely the right way to go, but with today's technology you cannot discount the camera body's importance as well.

I speak of these things with experience as I've gone through many camera bodies and lenses in the past 5 years. Currently due to work I just use a 5D2 and 1D3, with the 24-105 and 70-200 f/2.8 IS mkII. I don't have much of a preference for these lenses, they do weddings well, but if I had money to burn I'd buy all my prime lenses back. Prime >>>>>> zoom lens.

[kien]

Originally Posted by rishu_pepper

Sorry but I must disagree on this point. Let's say you put your 24-105, an L (professional grade) lens onto a Rebel (few hundred bucks), compared to a current gen full frame camera like a 5DMkIII ($3000), there will be a marked difference in the image produced, whether it's a picture of a person's face, landscape, or a fish and coral.

The differences in image quality such as resolution, dynamic range, noise reduction, etc. can be easily distinguished by any person. Not that I don't agree with your point in investing in lenses, that's definitely the right way to go, but with today's technology you cannot discount the camera body's importance as well.

I speak of these things with experience as I've gone through many camera bodies and lenses in the past 5 years. Currently due to work I just use a 5D2 and 1D3, with the 24-105 and 70-200 f/2.8 IS mkII. I don't have much of a preference for these lenses, they do weddings well, but if I had money to burn I'd buy all my prime lenses back. Prime >>>>>> zoom lens.

Yes, you're right in that there are major difference among the camera bodies. There is absolutely a reason why a camera is $3000 vs $300. What I was trying to do was simplify the discussion and put it in the contexts of taking reef pictures. You don't need 1D to take reef tank pictures that are identical to what I photographed. You can achieve the same results with a Rebel. I know because I have.

For example, taking a picture of a particular coral (say my Frogspawn or that Red Planet that everyone liked) at F4, IS0200 and 160 shutter speed will look virtually the same on any DSLR today.

I didn't intend to discount the camera bodies entirely. I am aware of the differences because I have owned quite a few myself being a former portrait and wedding photographer. It's just that I get asked ALL the time, "what camera are you using?" or "what camera should I get?" and I try to answer that question in a more relateable manner without going into the nuances of photography like dynamic range, noise reduction, etc :-)

[Wretch]

Originally Posted by kien

Yes, you're right in that there are major difference among the camera bodies. There is absolutely a reason why a camera is $3000 vs $300. What I was trying to do was simplify the discussion and put it in the contexts of taking reef pictures. You don't need 1D to take reef tank pictures that are identical to what I photographed. You can achieve the same results with a Rebel. I know because I have.

For example, taking a picture of a particular coral (say my Frogspawn or that Red Planet that everyone liked) at F4, IS0200 and 160 shutter speed will look virtually the same on any DSLR today.

I didn't intend to discount the camera bodies entirely. I am aware of the differences because I have owned quite a few myself being a former portrait and wedding photographer. It's just that I get asked ALL the time, "what camera are you using?" or "what camera should I get?" and I try to answer that question in a more relateable manner without going into the nuances of photography like dynamic range, noise reduction, etc :-)

Well that settles it then. It doesn't matter what camera you get. So then what lens should we get.....?

[Snappy]

Sweet photos