dSLR's, general use, aquarium and underwater

[candide]

So, going on another cruise around Xmas, hitting belize, costa maya, grand caymans and cozumel. I want to get a new camera (right now just a Fuji Finepix 3k, 3 something at least, about 4 years old).

The choice has really come down to the Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT or the Nikon D50. The Nikon is a bit cheaper, but I'm concerned about how much of a difference 6 vs 8 megapixel really is.

The plus on the Nikon is cost, and I read that its kit lenses are quite nice.

The Canon is supposed to produce a bit higher quality images, but of course costs a bit over 100 more (really more than that, as Nikon's are coming with free 1g cards and free overnight shipping), and I hear their kit lens are not so hot.

I'm really looking at this one:
http://www.buydig.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=NKD50DLKT

How are those lens? Would they give me a good foundation to start with? I can't justify spending so much on the camera and accessories up front and a really nice lens just yet, but obviously something I could upgrade next year or so. How good/useful is the 55-200mm nikkor?

If I got the canon, what lens should I get?
http://www.buydig.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=CNDRXTB

Finally, for underwater photo's, are any of the cheaper alternatives worth a flip? I've used those throw away ones but never get pictures worth a flip. Some of them are more expensive than the camera. Would it even be worth it to try using something like this?
http://store.thewaterproofstore.com/slrcameracase.html

I did skim back the past years worth of posts to see if this had all been hashed out before, but thought I would get some clarifications.

EDIT: I just found this huge rebate for Canon's:
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/contro ... motionsAct

 

[Anonymous]

I have a nikon and love, it, D70 with teh 18-70mm kit lense. I am a new photographer, but I am learning it rather quickly through trial and error. I really like it. From what I have heard and read, cannons and nikons are very very close in most categories and really comes down to shooter prefference.

 

[Anonymous]

You can take excellent shots with EITHER camera. They both offer a quality product for the price. I've owned both Nikon and Canon equipment and don't think it matters which BRAND you choose. What's more important are the features/price that best suit your needs/shooting style.

The difference between the megapixels isn't that big a deal unless you are going to make large sized prints (over 11"x14"). For web use and 8" x 10" prints you would need a powerful loop/magnifying glass to tell the difference. Not really an issue. There ar more important things to consider than megapixels. What will you mostly shoot? If you say "everything" ..there are going to always be compromises. The trick is to make a list of your wants/needs/style of shots etc...and way the pros and cons of the cameras in question. I went with a Canon based on it's features and price (at the time). It had more features/functions that were applicable to my shooting needs/style.

Regarding kit lenses. Some say they are good lenses for the money. This may be true..but the key part is "for the money". You can't be a qualiity prime (fixed focal length) lens for speed, sharpness, color reproduction, contrast etc. etc. Zooms IMO are a compromise. They are easy to use...but suffer in image quality. If you are going to drop that kind of money on a camera...DON'T PUT CHEAP GLASS IN FRONT OF IT. I don't suggest buying the kit lenses offered with either camera. Again ..figure out what you will shoot MOST..and approach it from that point. If you think you are going to do a lot of aquarium shots..perhaps a good macro lens. (they also can double as a normal/telephoto lens ..depending on their focal length). If you don't buy a dedicated macro lens..you will again compromise some quality in your images. For versatility..sure..some of the zoom lenses seem like a good idea. I dislike them and would rather have a couple/few prime lenses instead. It's all about the image IMO. I would recommend buying a camera body and a seperate lens. Don't skimp. Figure out your needs and what you can spend. I often recommend a 50=60mm macro for starters. It will take those amazing tank shots..and double as a "standard" lens for your usual shots. The 100=180 mm macros run a lot more money and almost becomer a more specialized lens. Their are also other options for macro work. Eitehr filters or extension tubes can be used. (do a google search if you are not familiar with these). For an impressive macro..I slap an extension tube on my 200mm f/2.8.

If you are going to do a lot of sports/wildlife shooting..I'd recommend a telephoto. The larger/longer the reach ..the more important it is to get a good lens. The cost also greatly increases. Quality telephotos are not cheap. The 400mm f/2.8 tele I'm looking at is over $5K. 8O Good lenses are not cheap...so you really want to know what type (focal length) lens will best suit your needs.

You might also give some thought to the DSLR. Do you really need all of it's features? If you are not going to own several lenses and use the ability to change them...the big advantage of the DSLR is lost. You can buy a less expensive point and shoot with high pixel count/resolution and a realatively fast, quality lens. Canon and Nikon again...make quality point and shoots. Other things to consider wit hthe DSLRs is who makes the lenses you want. The lenses are more important than the body you put them on. You can drop several grand on a camera body...and put a couple hundred dollar lens in front of it..and you end up with a couple hundred dollar image. Get some good glass!!! If you have any question you can post them here or PM me. I'd be happy to give you another nickles worth of input.

Good luck

MM

 

[Len]

Yup, both cameras will produce excellent results. Don't get caught up in the Nikon v Canon war That said, I'm a Nikon shooter so I couldn't help you much with Canon gear. The 55-200mm kit lens is okay, but it really is a budget lens and performs as such. One thing to keep in mind is that lenses stay with you for life (literally). Bodies come and go - especially digital bodies - so invest in good glass. Another good reason is lenses retain resale value very well. If you bought a desirable Nikon lens today, expect it to sell for 75+% a few years down the line.

I'm not a UW photog (jameso on Reefs.org is a great one) but all UW photogs tell me those cheapo casings aren't to be trusted except maybe if you're just snorkling. It does seem like a big risk to jeopardize $1K+ of electronics though.

 

[Anonymous]

I forgot to mention that buying quality used lenses is a good way to go. There are several good places to purchase used lenses online. Ebay....is riskky. There are actually good and bad copies of lenses...even the "typically" good lenses. Every once in a while a top of the line lens is mis calibrated,alligned or what not..and you can get a soft poor lens. This is a reason some like to buy new from a retailer. They can take the lens back and exchange it for another version. You are on your own buying used. Sometimes the savings are good. As Len mentioned..good glass retains it's value. I picked up a Canon 200mm f/2.8 USMII "L" for under $500 with a B&W filter. New this outfit would have run me almost a grand at the local Wolf camera. I did infact purchase this on Ebay. It is risky though. Lots of camera crooks out there. Might look at B&H for new/used equiipment. I've always had good luck with them.

MM