# camera equipment



## waynereteed (Jan 25, 2010)

I'm amazed at the quality of some of the photographs on this site. Having recently retired, I'm looking to upgrade my photographic abilities and would like some suggestions for equipment that I might purchase. I want something that if I get really involved, that I can build on and not simply replace. I've gone to some sites on plant photography but would like to get your opinions, straight from the "horses mouth". Macro lenses and all that, you know. Thanks for your time.


----------



## Shiva (Jan 25, 2010)

Get a good digital SLR Nikon. The low end models are excellent and rhe prices are reasonnable. And you can buy more specialised equipment, like new lenses, as needed. My Nikon is not digital, but one day, I'll just buy a new digital body and use the same lenses. .


----------



## orcoholic (Jan 25, 2010)

How much are looking to spend?


----------



## NYEric (Jan 25, 2010)

Whatever I use, dont get!


----------



## luvsorchids (Jan 25, 2010)

In general, Nikon and Canon are about the best for entry level DSLR's. I have a Canon Rebel XSi and absolutely love it. I got the Canon 60mm macro to go with it and have been very happy also. For more $$ there is a 100mm macro also. I also took a basic photography class that has made a huge difference in my photography. I don't consider myself a pro, but I enjoy taking pictures of my flowers and am happy with my improvement.

Susan


----------



## emydura (Jan 25, 2010)

If you want to take it serious than I would get an SLR as previously suggested. I'd stick to Nikon or Canon. I don't think it matters which. But once you go with one you are basically stuck with them for life especially if you have lots of lens. Both have 60mm macro lens and 100 mm macro lens (it is actually 105 mm for Nikon). 

I've always shot with Nikon myself. I photograph my orchids with a Nikon D200 (has since been replaced by the D300) and the 60 mm macro lens. I think the 60mm macro lens is ideal for shooting flowers so I would recommend this ahead of the 100 mm which is way more expensive. 

I'm not sure about Canon, but some entry level Nikon SLR's (D40, D60) won't autofocus with various Nikon macro lens so you just need to be careful. The D90 wouldn't have such problems and might be a good option.

Other things you need are a tripod. A shutter release cable is useful as well. You will also need Photoshop or similar software. I was always dissappointed with my photos until I learnt how to polish them up in Photoshop.

David


----------



## Bolero (Jan 25, 2010)

I plan on getting a D90 as soon as I can afford it, it seems to be the camera of choice at the moment.


----------



## cnycharles (Jan 25, 2010)

I don't know of any problems with autofocus with canon cameras and macro lenses, though I did find out the hard way that if you want to take closeups, use a ring flash and are moving from an older camera to the new ones that the old flash system won't work properly with the new cameras (ttl-2), so my old ring flash won't work. New canon ring flashes are nearly $400. There are almost no acceptable alternatives and the closest ones cost not much less than that and have many fewer options. Only good thing is I see on ebay there are now quite a few used ones for sale what with the bad economy and all (saw very few before). One thing I wanted to point out is that if you are truly going to be using macro and very close up pictures, you probably won't use autofocus. It's quicker to put on manual and focus on what you want not what the camera thinks you want...


----------



## Ayreon (Jan 26, 2010)

I have tried both Canon and Nikon, but I'm now a real Nikon fan-boy. When it comes to picture quality I say they are pretty much equal (depending on how much money you spend) but the Nikons feel better in the hand. I started with a Nikon D70 (still a great camera that you can get used for almost nothing today), went to a D200 and today I have a D700.


----------



## kentuckiense (Jan 26, 2010)

I'll echo pretty much everything previously said.

I shoot with a Nikon D200. It's a few years old, but in my opinion, its high-light, low-ISO performance is second to none. I use a cable release and my macro is the Tamron 90mm.

However, I would emphasize the purchase of a GOOD tripod and ball head. I use Gitzo, but companies like Benro make good, lower priced products these days.


----------



## goldenrose (Jan 26, 2010)

emydura said:


> ...... I'm not sure about Canon, but some entry level Nikon SLR's (D40, D60) won't autofocus with various Nikon macro lens so you just need to be careful. The D90 wouldn't have such problems and might be a good option..... David



This is true, I have a D40X and Nikon AF 60mm micro lense. To me it's not a big deal & as said, it's the lenses that are expensive, I can upgrade the body & it will be fine.


----------



## KyushuCalanthe (Jan 26, 2010)

A few more points to add to what has already been said (I concur!). None have anything to do with the camera, lenses, or accessories you use may use to take photos, but they all are critical for good results:

1. Good editing software is almost as important as the camera you use. Photoshop is the one most selected, but is pricey and getting very bloated as well, IMO. Photoshop Elements is enough for basic manipulations and is far cheaper. Beware though, you may be forced to upgrade as you change computers and operating systems, and that ain't free. I use the freeware program GIMP. 

2. Organizing, importing, and backing up your photos are all very important as well. I'm in idiot, so I just use iPhoto which handles the importing and organizing. Backing up is critical since hard drives just love to die. Get yourself at least one external drive, the bigger the better, and use that for backup only. Ideally, you should have the original data on one drive, the back up on another, and a third back up at another locale in case of disaster. Once your library starts to get over 10,000 shots you'll begin to understand why all this is important!

3. A good sized, properly adjusted monitor is critical as well since that is where you'll be doing all your work. Needless to say, small screens, dirty screens, slow processors, etc. all will work against your efforts.

One comment about the camera, don't worry too much about getting attached to it, especially if you get an entry level DSLR, they are designed to take around 20 or 25 thousand shots then kaput! My first Rebel lasted for 5 years and I got about 22,000 clicks before it said sayonara. I was pretty hard on it though...


----------



## Jim Toomey (Feb 15, 2010)

1. Either Canon or Nikon, pick a recent model, they are both excellent ( I use Canon and have a significant amount of Canon lenses so I wont be changing to Nikon. But If I was just getting started either one would be excellent).

2. When possible use prime lenses (not zoom). 
You obviously can take excellent photographs with zooms, but for the very sharpest, best color saturation etc use primes. 
Canon has a new macro lens with image stabilization that is purported to be phenomenal. 

The lenses will last for a very, very long time. So spend the money and get the best instead of buying cheap and then eventually buying what you wanted to get in the first place. The camera bodies are where the most significant advancements will improve, yet again they are both just amazing in their ability to capture light.

3. Use a tripod and ball-head. A rail system really helps with macro work. Check out Really Right Stuff for some of the best equipment available anywhere. Their equipment is made to exacting standards and are a joy to use. RRS also came out with their own tripod.
http://reallyrightstuff.com/index.html

4 Remote shutter release helps eliminate vibration when pressing the shutter and also helps with sharpness.

5. Practice, practice, practice...

6. Read photographic based websites to glean techniques, bounce ideas off each other...


----------



## Hera (Feb 16, 2010)

Since we're on the subject, what's the best way to load pictures to the sight to get the highest quality results. What I'm doing now requires a downgrade of picture quality in order to upload.


----------



## luvsorchids (Feb 16, 2010)

There is all kinds of software and websites that will work. I just happen to use Tinypic.com. I stumbled on it and it is easy to use and free. It gives lots of options for resizing and is easy to post the image to a forum as well as some other options for sharing/posting. I haven't noticed a huge difference in photo quality when I resize. I think Tinypic.com is part of Photobucket which is another option. I'm sure everyone has their favorite.

Susan


----------



## KyushuCalanthe (Feb 16, 2010)

It is unavoidable to lose quality when posting anything to the web. Bandwidth issues aside, there is information loss when you downsize a photo. I suggest playing with some kind of software to see what you can do with your shots before posting. You also have to realize that your photos will look different on different monitors as well. You don't need huge file sizes to have presentable photos on the web. Depending on the complexity and size of the shot, anything between 30k and 100k is reasonable size and will produce a nicely viewed shot. Realize too that you don't want to overload sites with your shots either and believe it or not, there are plenty of dial up users out there still - so be considerate. 

Concerning bandwidth, if you use a free hosting site like Photobucket, you will see a reduction in image quality as you add more and more pictures. That is because you are using up you allotted bandwidth. To maintain quality you have to either reduce the number of photos in the album or buy more bandwidth from the site.


----------



## Hera (Feb 16, 2010)

Interesting, thanks!


----------



## gonewild (Feb 16, 2010)

Keep in mind also that images do not need to be more than 72dpi for the internet.


----------



## cnycharles (Feb 16, 2010)

if you can find someone that has some space (like our orchid club website), you can upload pictures exactly the way you want them (at 72dpi like lance pointed out). one thing that can help your images is to take them as tiff or raw files, do your editing, and then change them to jpeg just before uploading and set the file quality to best. tiff is a 'loss-less' image type, I think there may also be others where you can edit the image and there isn't any degradation in the image quality. files like jpegs are compressed each time you open save and close them so a tiny bit of good information gets trimmed away. over time your image will lose quality. you should only set the image to jpeg or such after you are done editing the main file. remember to not save the changes to your original file so that if you need to make changes again you can start with a fresh file


----------

