Deciding on New Camera

I have been wanting to upgrade cameras for a long time and may finally be ready to do so. Currently for underwater photos I just use a Sealife DC600 point and shoot camera. On land I use an old Canon Rebel XT (350D), although I just started a new job at which I am using both a Nikon D200 and several Nikon D2Hses (I don't own any of the work cameras though and thus can't take them diving). Since I only have one lens (in addition to the pathetic kit lens) for my Rebel XT, I'm not stuck in a brand yet.

For new cameras I am looking at three mainly. The Nikon D300S, Canon 7D, and Canon Rebel T2i (550D). The lower cost of the 550D is VERY tempting to me, but the smaller size and lower build quality could be an issue (not to mention look unprofessional if I ever start freelance photography).

So I guess the main question I have for everyone here is which do you think would be best for underwater photography? Would Nikon or Canon have a better selection of lenses for underwater within reasonable prices? Does one have a better auto focus underwater or low light performance? Does the live view option on these work about the same and do any even work well underwater (I've heard it's slow)? And of course if there are any other deciding details I'm missing, please let me know!

I have a feeling this new camera will lock me into whichever brand for years to come, but both brands are just so similar in offerings currently.

Thank you everyone for your help!

Hi Peter,

I'm guessing you'll get a couple of different answers. Both camps are well represented on Wetpixel. At the end of the day the photographer's skill is what matters the most. I found a recent review by Berkley White of Backscatter very helpful. You can check it out here; http://www.backscatter.com/learn/article/article.php?ID=66

Good luck!

Steve

Well first off, if you are trying to stir the pot...asking which is better, Nikon or Canon...that should do it.

Price the lenses you think you would buy and the housing you might buy for u/w use. Then you can compare the pricing that matters to you. You accurately state, whichever you pick now will likely be the one you stay with.

I have a Nikon D90 and the live view seems to cause slower focusing and shutter lag so I do not use it and I really had planned on using it. I started with Nikon yrs ago and never switched but I have no inclination that its a better brand. It matches my lenses, I know how to use them so it fits me.

Since you have experience now with both systems, which one do you find easier to understand and use? That might have a greater difference in your performance than equipment quality.

One could state its rather like being a partiot...which some claim is the concept that your country is best because you were born there. But that stirs up a different pot and I think we are limited to one pot per thread.

I'd suggest you go and play with both makes in a camera shop and get a view on the one that "feels" better to you. Then check out the prices. Housings are available for all the major camera models of Nikon and Canon. Price does not vary very much between the two brands (although it does between models)

You can provoke endless arguments about which is faster, which produces better colours, blah, blah.

Nikon and Canon are both excellent and there is not much to chose between them. I reckon it's down to personal preference. Both companies make excellent lenses - and you can always add the occasional 3rd party lens: such as the Tokina 10-17 which is very popular for WA.

And you are right for most users, once you have settled on a manufacturer, most of us stick with it.

Pick what feels good.

Then once you have decided on the camera THEN comes the housing! So many choices. Just make sure that it is right for you personally.

Good luck.

Thanks for the help everyone. I will try to get by a camera store when I can. I just moved to the Florida Keys for work and there aren't any camera stores around here that I know of (Miami would be the closest ones), but I will see if I can find something. I also only just started work this week so I haven't had much experience with the Nikons at work. I just didn't know of one of those particular models was better for underwater or not. I had read that the 7D was slightly better for video (partially just due to being newer), but video doesn't matter much to me.

Ok, and now the question that anyone could answer...do you think it is at all possible for someone holding a Rebel (like the 550D, in black of course) or the entry level Nikons (D3000 or D5000, whichever is the counterpart) to ever look professional in a freelance job? Almost everyone in those jobs seems to have at the very least 50D's if not 5D's and Nikon's equivalents (sorry but I am only just learning the Nikon models).

And just for the record I wasn't trying to get a Nikon vs Canon debate on anything, but just how these particular cameras compared. I guess they are just so close that it really does come down to brand preference. Good to know! Thanks!

Hi Peter,

When you look at an underwater photography system, the camera body is a SMALL part of the cost indeed. Don't skimp on the body.

You'll find a HUGE difference between the entry level bodies and the 7D or D300s when you look through the viewfinder. You want as big a viewfinder as you can get. You'll also get separate command dials, which is key to making fast adjustments underwater.

HTH

James

I hadn't thought about the viewfinder being a different size or the speed of adjustments. Thanks for pointing those out!

.do you think it is at all possible for someone holding a Rebel (like the 550D, in black of course) or the entry level Nikons (D3000 or D5000, whichever is the counterpart) to ever look professional in a freelance job?

Forget about that ... listen to James ... the better bodies are better not because they make you look more "pro" but because they do things the others don't - like auto-focus the very popular Tokina 10-17FE.

Peter,

Do yourself a huge favor and drive up to Ft Lauderdale and spend some quality time at Reef Photo. You're very lucky to have an outstanding resource so close to you.

As to looking professional, I'm assuming you're talking about on land, go find a second hand photo vest and put a bunch of crap in the pockets you won't use. Then find yourself a big old tripod, the more dents the better. Some cool plastic stuff to wrap around your strobes looks cool too. Get yourself a huge used pelican box on wheels to drag around (good place to carry your lunch). Most importantly practise looking a kinda frumpy and harried. Wrinkled clothes help. This is the look you're going for. Don't forget to wear your hat backwards and knee pads are a nice touch.

All of this is very important until about 30 secs after you show your client your images.

Have fun,

Steve

I shoot a Nikon D90 (and have all Nikon fitted glass) and would highly recommend one if your looking to save a little cash. That said, uw photo equipment is expensive, housing, etc., etc. So if your budget now can afford a 7D and the video option is appealing to you, as much as I love Nikon, I would say go with a 7D.

If you don't care so much about the video quality and more rugged (and larger for that matter) body and want to save a bit on the housing/body, I say get a Nikon D90, you would be hard pressed to see a difference in picture quality between the two, its a bit smaller/lighter and overall a great camera.

I think the lower end of the Nikon/Canon range are pretty limiting in a lot of factors for uw use so would say at least to get a D90/D300s 0r 50D/7D range.

Also check which cameras are about to be updated. I suspect the D700 and I'm pretty sure the D300s will be updated soon, and Nikon have said that they intend to add more pixels to many/most of their bodies. Whatever housing you buy will only fit that particular model, so try to choose a model that will remain current for a while. Although an alternative is to seek out a discontinued model complete with housing, for the tremendous saving it is likely to give you. If you buy a used housing/camera combination with whatever lens(es) go with it you won't be trapped into that make, as you can in due course sell the whole lot again.

If I were buying right now I'd probably get a D700, as I know what superb results it can give. But as I said I do expect it to be significantly upgraded soon, so in fact I'm waiting to see what happens. That's despite my current setup being Canon.

Another decision you must make is whether to get full frame or cropped. FF can give higher IQ (usually does in fact) but at the cost of much bigger, heavier and more expensive lenses. I have full frame (a Canon 5D) and won't change from it, but today's best crop cameras can give superb results. Make sure you understand the implications of sensor size on the effective focal length of lenses, so you can make an informed decision.

Despite having a good DSLR I decided long ago not to take it underwater. I have seen too many incredibly expensive floods. A friend with a Nikon D70 and housing now no longer takes it diving, as she finds it just too much of a handful both out of and in the water. She prefers to use a good compact with housing. I have a Canon G10 with housing for underwater use, and I can get superb results.

Once one of the fine shops out there confirms whether the 550 will fit in the 450/500 housings I would consider it a great option.

Just a thought.

Jeff

Entry level cameras are able to take very good shots. However, the feature you may want as your skills grow (be it faster AF, more controls, megapixels, new name etc) will mean an upgrade to the next level of camera AND housing. Depending on what you plan to do, it may be better to buy one level up from entry level if you can afford it. I know a few people who regret buying a D90 or 450D because they wanted more out of their rigs after a while. Then again I know one or two people who have their Seacam rigs sitting collecting dust because they got bored with photography. Buy the best that you can afford without getting into debt is always a good suggestion

You will also want to look at which camera brand suits your tests. Each brand has a "look" which can be changed in post, but I've found certain traits in the lenses of Nikon and Canon which contribute to that 'look.'

I second what Steve said; you have a great opportunity to drive to Ft. Lauderdale and spend some time playing wuth cameras and housings at Reef Photo.

Richard, who co-owns Reef Photo with remarked in June 2008 that the difference between brands was now cataloug-ware. He rated the best cameras of 2008, the Olympus E-3, Nikon D-300 and Cannon 40D as basically equal. In 2010, the D-90 is equivilent to the D-300, the newer models have video (if you care) BUT I think Richard's advice still holds -- No difference.

Generally a Nikon takes better pictures but that is typically due to the added intelligence and good looks of the photographer, not the camera itself.

What he did not comment on, since the issue wasn't really around in 2008, is cropped sensor versus full frame. There is a lot of disagreement in this area. Alex Mustard did several tests and concluded that the FF was better for low-light, wide-angle shots but the cropped sensor was better for macro because lenses matched up better.

The above being said, I do have a friend with a 5D. Dispite his uninspiring appearance and general lack of intelligence, typical of all Canon hooters, he does seem to get some good shots.