dshnarw

I usually consider "reef safe" to mean safe for both the species in question and those that would typically be placed with it. I've seen it successfully done in several public aquaria, usually as part of a lagoon with seagrasses/mangroves and the fish that are typically present in those areas. The one concern would be the possibility of clownfish choosing to host it, though the jellyfish is probably as accepting to this behavior as xenia or frogspawn would be. The fish that are generally questionable in terms of reef compatibility to begin with (large angels and wrasses, for example) would be as likely to pick at it as any of the fleshy corals.

You could try upside down jellies. They're generally reef-safe - about as much so as large anemones. Since they stay on the bottom, you don't need the fancy tanks, etc. They host photosynthetic algae, so food is little concern as long as your lighting is adequate. They're also fairly readily available and cheap. Not quite as neat, I guess...but much easier.

They're VERY hardy - you might lose 1 split out of 20 with care. But you need to be very careful to cut them as perfectly as possible, or they'll grow asymmetrically and take forever to look nice again. Keep them in a separate bowl of water for a half hour or so after cutting, and rinse well with saltwater before tossing back in the tank to reduce the potential for toxins released during their sliming over phase from killing corals and other nems in the tank. On average, it's about a month after cutting for them to reform a mouth, and another month of daily feeding before completely healed such that you wouldn't know it was cut. I only know of a couple of cases of the maxi S. tapetum morph splitting naturally, and those only happened after the anemone was greater than 8" diameter.

Maybe you should set up a QT for your QT then. Or really...give the frag to someone else who'll take that small risk. At minimum, toss the frag into a cup of saltwater until you get an ID. No harm to you, and if you get an okay on the ID, you don't have to spend $100 on a new coral (that'll buy a lot of diapers )

For a starting point, try EV -.7, ISO 400, saturation and contrast at normal, and white balance will probably be best on fluorescent. Check the images for noise, blur, and brightness. Too dark and move towards more positive EV, or the opposite for too bright. Too much camera blur and you'll need a tripod or additional lighting. Too much noise and you'll need to decrease the ISO #.

If you're not looking for HD video and extreme zoom, take a look at the Canon G10 or maybe wait for the G11, which will be out in the next couple of months. The image quality is the best of all the P&S cameras right now, and it should be a bit cheaper than the SX1 IS. (Canon also offers a high quality underwater housing for this series at a reasonable price.) Anyway - I think you'll be happy with the SX1 if you go with it. We all look forward to the baby shots

Based on a few different review sites (DPReview has a good review of this camera, compared to the SX10 IS) the good is obviously the optical zoom range, the addition of HD video for those who like to make movies without the video cam, and the body layout is very similar to Canon's DSLR series. It looks to have full manual controls, in case someone is looking for an intermediate step between a pocket-cam and an SLR. If you have the time to post-process/batch convert the photos, it has RAW format, and macro focus is very nice...you can basically put the camera lens on an object and focus on it. For the wife, it has an automatic mode that makes it a pure P&S + zoom system. If your wife is like mine, the exact camera won't make too much difference, since just about any consumer camera can be put on auto at this point. What made the difference for my wife was the comfort factor when holding it and carrying it around. But ya never know...women are strange creatures. The downsides... While the zoom range is very nice, it also makes for poor optical quality at the superzoom end. I would expect it to be fairly difficult to get nice photos when zoomed to the max. Low light handling is poor - as with all P&S models - and based on the reviews, isn't the top performer in the superzoom/high end P&S range. So, while it has ISO 80-3200, the usable range is still 80-200 in most situations, maybe up to 400 if you're just posting on the web. Expect tank photography to be a lot of misses, especially in regards to fish (although this is the case to some degree with any camera). On the subjective front...it uses AA batteries. Personally, I don't like this because they don't last as long per charge and they can only hold so many recharges before they've died. Just too much expense and too much to keep up with. On P&S cameras with a dedicated battery pack, you can just about shoot all day without worrying about the batteries dying. And a second (off brand) battery pack is $10 on amazon...and they'll last just about the lifetime of the camera. The second thing is the swivel screen. It's really nice to be able to see the screen without bending over to camera level, but I'm also rather clumsy. If it were my camera, the screen would be broken in 3 months. Otherwise, it's a nice feature. I suppose, if I were buying something in this range, my final consideration would be whether or not I'd use the HD video and if post-processing (RAW format) interested me. If not, then the SX10 IS is a better bet, imo, because it has slightly better image quality and a cheaper price. Other cameras you might look at in this range are the Sony DSC-HX1 and the Panasonic DMC-FZ28. I think, if you're looking for a single fixed lens camera that does everything, it's a good choice. If you can live without some options - superzoom, video, etc. - then you can find better options specific to what you want to do. For a good summary of pros/cons on the SX1 IS: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonSX1IS/page17.asp From a personal standpoint, the part of a superzoom that prevents me from ever considering any of them for a backup camera is their size. For me, it's just large enough that I might as well have an SLR, since I'm going to be carrying the camera bag or need a neckstrap for the superzoom anyway. And then, if I'm carrying the camera bag, I have room for a couple of lenses that will serve whatever purpose I have planned that day. If I didn't want to have to deal with the bag/neckstrap, I'd be going for a P&S that fits in my pocket, albeit with some stretch. In my case, it would all be back down to a comfort thing...make sure you (and your wife ) hold the camera and consider how realistically it is you'll take the camera to that event or on that trip, since you can't get the shot if you leave the camera at home.

Boret, if you'll be at the meeting Saturday, I'll undoubtedly have my Canon with me. Feel free to take it for a spin while we're there. If you decide to "back up" and go for a high-end P&S, I'd recommend looking at the Canon G-series. In terms of image quality, they are at the top of the P&S pile. They're larger than the pocket-cams, but smaller than a DSLR or superzoom P&S (I can fit mine in my back pocket, but it fits a bit like George Costanza's wallet). The additional benefit is that, if you decide to upgrade to a DSLR later, you can get used to adjusting settings with this series, since they give you full control of ISO, aperture, and shutter speed in Manual settings. Remember though, no P&S is really going to compare to a DSLR. While, under optimal conditions, the top-end P&S cameras will do a great job, even produce a professional quality pic every once in a while, they don't perform nearly as well in low light situations (like most aquariums), they're slow to focus and take a photo, and don't deliver the consistent results that a DSLR will. That said, I've won contests with my P&S, and I've taken awful photos with my SLR. But if I'm batting .300 with the SLR, I'm batting .100 with the P&S.

Might try Tropical Fish World http://www.tropicalfishworld.com/ if you're in the area, but don't go out of your way to see it, imo. Aquarium One in Rockville might be worth a stop.

Dave, my experience is that you won't see adverse reactions from the rest of the tank as long as you don't go ultra high on the Mg dosing. A slow increase to around 1500-1550 is sufficient to kill of the bryopsis, provided you leave it there for a couple of weeks, and I've never seen ill effects in any of the other livestock I had, with the exception of a few ornamental algaes that neither grew nor receded. Holding Mg above 1500 was the only method besides feeding less that I found effective in preventing bryopsis growth when I had my 30 breeder anemone tank...and less food was not an option.

Yup, it's a coldwater anemone. And it's mislabeled. It's a beadlet anemone, as can be seen by the blue acrorhagi. The malu looks dyed to me as well.

Since Dave's post got me to think about it...these are pets. Are we supposed to be recreating their wild habitat? My dogs don't go out hunting deer, and I don't ask my cat to chase mice or starve. Hilary's birds aren't flying through the house and landing in trees, and Ctenophore's snake gets dead, lab raised mice. My wife's gecko gets crickets from a refrigerated can. To dismiss the argument about genetics - get out your Bob Barker signs...most of our dogs and cats can't reproduce. Why should a fish or coral be any different, whether that's due to an operation, or simply meeting only the needs of it to survive and grow? In every other situation, we've realized that we cannot possibly reproduce the natural environment to such an extent that the animal knows no difference. We've stopped trying, or try minimally, simply for our own aesthetics. I, for one, am not concerned with the concept of "thriving" either. Do we really think ANY pet we keep thrives...excepting maybe a dog or cat? I think we're also at the point of acceptance that animals will always be better off in the wild than in our houses. Do they survive? Seem healthy?

Ah, sorry I misinterpreted. You can tell I've been on the photography forums too long when I start reading everyone statements as "this brand is awesome" with an implied "those other brands suck" behind it. Same kinda thing with cars and my parents' generation. You were a Ford guy or a Chevy guy. Don't try to talk about the other brand, cause they'll just complain about how it's horrible. Camera guys tend to get that way after a while. Anyway...Boret - one nice thing about the Nikon/Canon rivalry is that any lens one company has, the other has some equivalent. The quality is nearly identical and, until recently?, the price was as well. I was just searching out some prices, it looks like Nikon is significantly higher than Canon for equivalent lenses now? Maybe one of the Nikon users can confirm that - I just looked at the Canon 100mm macro vs. Nikon 105mm macro, and it's about $200 difference? The pro-series 17-55 for each is $350 difference? Well, if that really is the case, don't write off Nikon - I would assume prices will come back in line at some point, and you can always get 3rd party lenses of good quality for a cheaper price. Sigma and Tamron each have some very nice lenses, as long as you take the time to read the reviews and avoid their junk lenses.

For the price, I quite like the XS - a friend just bought it as a step up from his P&S and really seems to enjoy it. The standard lens would be the 18-55 kit lens. Decent lens for what you'd essentially be paying for it. In camera terms, options are only available by the model. So an XS is an XS, no "extras" to be added. The only other options are black/silver and which (if any) lens(es) come with it. In the $550 price range, it's a great choice. That Sigma lens is supposed to be a spectacular lens as well, for a great price considering the build quality. thats the one. what a price jump...a few months back those were under a hundred. When shooting for the tank, best to take it off autopilot. The camera tends to compensate by slowing shutter speed too much, causing lots of camera shake issues (especially without VR). If you switch over to manual, go with ISO 800 (back down to 400 if the shots are coming out especially noisy). Set the shutter speed to 1/x, where x is the focal length you're shooting at (for example, I often shoot at 18mm and 55mm, so my slowest shutter speeds would be 1/20 and 1/60 which are as close to those focal lengths as the camera can shoot). Then, set your aperture to whatever will make for a well exposed image. I usually shoot for the exposure marker to be somewhere between -1 and 0, and correct whatever I need to in Lightroom later (huge advantage here if you keep shooting RAW). Remember to keep the lens as parallel to the glass as possible, although you'll continue to have issues from the glass distortion. If you use the tripod, switch the camera over to a 2 second delay, to minimize vibrations from pressing the button. For the fish, you'll have to find some way to increase the shutter speed to 1/100 with tangs and the like that aren't slowing down to give you an opportunity. There's a very nice primer on aquarium photography on nano-reef, in the photography section. While I wouldn't recommend NR as a source of good info in most cases, this happens to be one article they did a decent job on.

It really comes down to choosing the specs you want/like and the price you're willing to pay. This is why DPReview and other sites have a hard time saying "this is the best" about any camera in a certain market. Every camera brand will have multiple cameras in your price range, and they all do very slightly different things. The best of those cameras is going to be so closely matched with the best of the other brands that what you intend to do with the camera is the only thing that makes one better than the other. In terms of aquarium photography, good ISO handling is important, good autofocus is always important. You may want to look for higher burst rates to try and get those nice fish "action" shots. From there, I tend to look at other things as add-ons that may or may not be worth it. More megapixels is nice, but not always needed (although high MP cameras are the equivalent of a free macro lens since you can crop in more for the same effect). Live view is another - some people love it, some people just don't use it. I don't care for it much, since it's pretty slow, but I know others who rave about it. HD video is another one. It's coming out on all the new cameras - so, for example, the T1i has it but the XS and XSi don't. Don't expect production quality video, but if you want home movies without buying a separate system, they do a decent job. If you're looking at the camera for trips as well, this might be appealing enough to consider in the final purchase (saves you taking a video cam along too). The Pentax systems get very nice reviews. I don't know the specs on that particular model, but if they stand up to those of the Canon/Nikons in the same price range, then it's not a bad choice. Image stabilization/vibration reduction in the camera body is a nice feature for making lenses cheaper - any Pentax lens that fits the camera will have the system available. It also makes finding lenses less confusing since both Canon and Nikon make the same lens with and without IS/VR. The trade off is that it doesn't work quite as well to have it in the camera body, so you don't get as much of the anti-shake effect as you would with Canon/Nikon. Still, the cash trade off is not a bad one. Make sure you can get potential lenses of interest to fit the camera as well. Pentax and Sony have been up and coming on the DSLR market, so their lens selection is still small, but fast growing. If you choose Canon, I would recommend getting a kit that doesn't include the 75-300. If Canon has a junk lens, that is it. If you're looking at the XS, just find a kit with only the 18-55mm kit lens, and consider adding a 55-250mm lens to your list of future purchases (for both the XS and T1i). Nikon will be the same I'm sure - there's always that one cheap consumer lens that just isn't quite up to par. If there is one thing you should definitely consider, it is spending LESS on the body, MORE on the lenses. Because image quality is your greatest overall concern, the lens is the most important piece of equipment to deal with. Go with the highest quality you can afford here and cut back on the camera body, and you'll still see better results. Sorry I haven't given you a more definite answer to which camera is better, etc., but it almost always comes down to personal taste at this point. The quality differences between brands are so small, and the features vs. cost issue is something that really comes down to your particular budget and goals. I guess if I were to make a checklist of things I'd do, in order, they'd be... 1. Choose a brand (take a "feel" test. Most models vary little on the outside within the same manufacturer's lineup, so which system is more comfortable for you?) 2. Choose a model (consider cost vs. performance in, for your case, ISO handling, autofocus points, burst rate, and any extras that you happen to like - live view/video.) 3. Choose the lenses you need to start out with and make up a wish list. If the camera comes with a kit lens, you've got one out of the way. Generally, you'll want to cover all ranges for aquarium photos - a nice wide angle zoom, a telephoto zoom, and a good macro lens. Consider your budget and possibly changing the camera model to get better versions of these over some extra feature on the camera body. Add on to your wish list something like the 50mm f/1.8, which is usually less than $100 and will serve you very well for aquarium and family photos.

To be honest, you'll be fine with either the Nikon or the Canon. I personally avoid putting much stock in Ken Rockwell's reviews - he tends to be a bit biased. I do the same for other review sites that tend to be biased the other way as well. I would first recommend going to several review sites. This website will give you a lot of review sites, and point you in the right direction on how to "use" the reviews: http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2009.05.25...he-review-sites You'll notice that Rockwell's is listed under the "personal" type - his opinion and nothing more. They acknowledge that his personal biases often get in the way of his objectivity. The "hands on" category is probably your best choice for reviews at this stage - they do the technical stuff, and then do real situation testing. In terms of gear, no matter the choice of brand, you'll want probably 2 lenses. First, a wider lens in the 17-55mm range to get your full tank shots and partial tank shots. You'll also want a macro lens in the 100mm range for close up shots, or standing back further and shooting the fish. The faster the lenses, the better (f/3.5 is okay, but f/2.8 is better). I generally dont find much use in fish tank photography for the longer end of the zoom range, although I'm sure others probably do. Also, avoid getting too caught up in name brand lenses. Sigma's 105mm macro lens is significantly cheaper than either the Canon or the Nikon, but is as nice as either of them. One thing to note, the Canon does not have vibration reduction (IS for Canon) in the body. I have to disagree with dschflier's assessment of Nikon being a "better made camera". Nikon does some things better, Canon does others. The end result, though, is that both systems are top of the line. If his statement were true, you wouldn't see all those white lenses at the sporting events of the Canon users. If we were simply looking at specs, the Canon wins out - higher resolution, newer autofocus system, better ISO handling. But it's also a matter of how comfortable you are with the system. My recommendation, before you become set on a camera, is to go down to best buy or ritz and hold both cameras, take some test shots, and see which one feels better for you. Hope that helps a bit. I think you'll be happy with either camera choice in the end.

Jon, I think you may have forgotten to divide by 2 when solving for the area of the right triangles. I calculated 43 gallons. Test by measuring the length of one of those side panels. Should be about 12 5/8 inches.

This thing is a real beauty of a setup to see firsthand! Looking forward to seeing more water in those tanks!

So we are only allowed to discuss vendors who AREN'T on this site?

I agree. Make sure TMS is on that list. Remember, it is Tom's post that created negativity towards his store - not Gurnie's. Gurnie's fairly weak comment had already been disputed by his customers, and yet he chose to directly attack him/her. No one has a problem with Tom asking for Gurnie to explain. Without the last paragraph of his post, Tom would not have been called out for his comments. A poor show of customer service/public relations does more harm than any badmouthing by a single customer. As I stated before, Tom's best course of action would have been to ignore the post and let his customers do his public relations, resulting in a positive view towards his store based on the number of good experiences and customers defending him. Instead, he has this.

It doesn't speak well of you or your business, in my opinion, to refer to someone's post as "ridiculous", "meaningless", and "absurd" simply because she has a concern about your store. While she may be wrong in her impressions, she has the right to say it. You would have been better served by ignoring her comments and letting your customers speak for you. Because of YOUR post, I, for one, will be less likely to go out of my way to visit your store.

Just to add more to it for anyone else who is thinking about shipping... USPS Priority is not REALLY 2-3 day shipping. They call it an "average of 2-3 day shipping" - meaning local packages take a day, and packages across country take a week (or more!) to get there. Since they get so much more local shipping business, the average works out to 2-3 days. So unless it's local, NEVER send any corals Priority. In the summer, UPS and Fedex both have 2-day options that often make it overnight. If you're willing to risk an extra day or the coral is pretty sturdy (zoanthids, shrooms, etc), this might be a cheap alternative to USPS Express. Edit: just to make my point... I sent back a rented camera lens that I used for vacation yesterday afternoon via 2-day Fedex. Arrived in Cordova, TN by 11am today.

Thanks Sam, Steve, and Sara.

very nice! good camera choice

Thanks all Tom - I could only dream of having that kind of talent