OK, just have to put it out there...

[chippy]

Lisa

I haven't read the whole thread (ooopppss....sorry) so if this has been mentioned feel free to shoot me!

What about the 350D? Cheaper body yet great resolution etc?

You'll be blown away by the shots you get on a DSLR vs "Compact". My photography improved bigtime when I made the switch. I'm not saying a switch to DSLR will make "anyone" a better photographer, but your work has come a LONG way since I've known you and I think your ready to take the plunge!!!

Just my 5 cents/pence worth!

Paul

 

[Taxgeek]

Lisa,
I've been gnawing on this issue as well. There are a few threads over at wetpixel and digitaldiver on what lenses to get, and Alcina, of this board, seems to have made the switchover recently and have been through the pain, so maybe she'll chime in, but I think most folks narrowed it down to:

1. A wide angle lense (10-22, or 12-24, or 10.5, or something like that).
2. A macro lense (50, 60, 100 or 105 all being popular). With the macro lense also working fairly well for far away subjects. As I understand it, a dslr macro lense can focus from very close to very far, unlike my little P&S with the macro adapter on it. Somebody please confirm?
3. As an alternate, alot of people liked their 28-105 and similar range zooms. Good all around lense they say. But I don't think those are truly macro capable. Plus side: non-macro capable means fairly reasonably priced.

As far as walking around lenses, I really really really really really have to put a pitch in for the Tamron 28-300 zoom. It's not an "L" lense, it's not even glass - I think all of the elements are plastic -- many of the second tier lenses are. But it has decently low levels of distortion, unsharpness and chromatic aberration (at least judged at an amature level), and the flexibility of never ever having to change the lense while on land totally sells it for me. The thing is tiny, light, easy, I just can't say enough about it. And no, I don't work for Tamron! Sigma also makes one, but I think when I researched it the Tamron was better quality. Runs about $450. Wouldn't trade mine for anything - I used it on my digital rebel for fairly serious amature topside photography. Wouldn't work for UW, since the lense extends too far out.

Did you see that guy's post on his experience going dslr with his 20d? Of course now I can't remember the guy's name (unless it was Matt Segal maybe) or even which board it was on (such a bad memory -- MUST eat more vitamins!), but it was a great essay, talked alot about what it's like to shoot a dslr, and it almost convinced me to step up.

hope that helps a little. None of it (except the Tamron love-fest) is first hand, sorry, but that's what I've learned going through the same agony you're going through.

With all things in life, as a friend once told me, it all comes down to your heart deciding what you WANT, and your brain then racing around finding enough data to justify it!

 

[Warren_L]

2. A macro lense (50, 60, 100 or 105 all being popular). With the macro lense also working fairly well for far away subjects. As I understand it, a dslr macro lense can focus from very close to very far, unlike my little P&S with the macro adapter on it. Somebody please confirm?

With my 60mm micro, I can use it in macro mode as well as regular telephoto mode, but I find that the 60mm focal length underwater of limited use.

 

[PapaBob]

With my 60mm micro, I can use it in macro mode as well as regular telephoto mode, but I find that the 60mm focal length underwater of limited use.

Warren:

I dont know about the Nikon 60mm but I am really pleased with the Canon 60mm macro. In my Nikonos days I had a pre dive choice between an extension tube and framer (pick the right size before the dive) or the "close up kit" usually mounted over my 28mm nikor to give a little more frame. The 60mm macro gives me 5 macro modes down to 1:1 and "out of macro" still functions as a nifty close up lense. This is Nikonos Neanderthal heaven as far as I am concerned. Just another POV.

---Bob

 

[PapaBob]

P.S.

About two weeks ago I took my granddaughter to see "March of the Penguins". She gets a real kick out of your Avatar.

---Bob

 

[Warren_L]

Warren:

I dont know about the Nikon 60mm but I am really pleased with the Canon 60mm macro. In my Nikonos days I had a pre dive choice between an extension tube and framer (pick the right size before the dive) or the "close up kit" usually mounted over my 28mm nikor to give a little more frame. The 60mm macro gives me 5 macro modes down to 1:1 and "out of macro" still functions as a nifty close up lense. This is Nikonos Neanderthal heaven as far as I am concerned. Just another POV.

---Bob

Hmmm... maybe I haven't given the 60mm out of macro mode a fair shake. Perhaps on my next trip I'll give it a go. There really is no practical use for the 60mm on my local dives, but next warm water trip I'll give it another look.

PS. Glad she liked the avatar. For some reason I like the penguins too.

 

[ssra30]

but I find that the 60mm focal length underwater of limited use.

One limitation of dSLR is that whichever lens you choose for the dive, none will be as flexible as built in lens on PnS ie you can't do wide angle and macro on the same dive.

In the past I am not a big fan of 60mm lens either eventhough it has the fastest autofocus of all Nikkor macro lens and best low light focusing ability. However you have to get very close for a real macro shot (not always possible) so I kept it for fish portrait and stuffs that are at least 2-3 inches long. For general all purpose macro shooting, I much prefer the 70-180mm macro.
However, recently I started to experiment with 60mm with 2x teleconverter +/- Nikon 5T or 6T diopter and really like the result especially for the extreme macro shot.

All in all, with dSLR, you better plan your dive, plan what kind of pictures you want to take and pick the right lens. There is no shooting macro and then stick on a wetmount wide angle lens when a whaleshark happen to come by.

 

[Warren_L]

In the past I am not a big fan of 60mm lens either eventhough it has the fastest autofocus of all Nikkor macro lens and best low light focusing ability. However you have to get very close for a real macro shot (not always possible) so I kept it for fish portrait and stuffs that are at least 2-3 inches long. For general all purpose macro shooting, I much prefer the 70-180mm macro.
However, recently I started to experiment with 60mm with 2x teleconverter +/- Nikon 5T or 6T diopter and really like the result especially for the extreme macro shot.

Boi, this intrigues me. For the 70-180mm, looks like it's a bit of a beast of a lens. I presume there is a dome port that works with this lens? Or do you use a flat port of some sort which would probably work better with macro mode?

As for the 2x TC for the 60mm, that could be something I could work with as well. I've been toying with the idea of getting the 105mm micro, but as far as the port, I would presume you would need a port extension?

 

[justleesa]

Thanks for all the great input I have to start making a list and comparing here!

Chippy, the 350D out your way is the Rebel XT here. From what I saw there are only one or two things (besides the price) different from the 20D....is that difference worth it? Not really looking at the money (well kinda, but you know what I mean)- but what I am getting for it.

but your work has come a LONG way since I've known you and I think your ready to take the plunge!!!

Why thank you! :blush:

 

[justleesa]

Alcina, of this board, seems to have made the switchover recently and have been through the pain, so maybe she'll chime in, but I think most folks narrowed it down to:

Alcina is out of town for a month...I think she is picking up her camera while she is gone too