Some Rebel XT questions

Yea I've heard BuyDig is good, but at this current moment in time B&H offers a lens/body combo so unfortunatly BuyDig wouldn't save me any money. I was also thinking about the lens hood, per suggestion, and cool-looking factor. That would take care of the flare I'd presume
 
is this the Rebel XT Digital SLR? Because the Day after thanksgiving the 35 mm Canon Rebel is on sale for 249.99 at BB I think and iirc that is the price for both body and a lens.
 
Ahh I remember when I got my DRebel spring. Oh what a time it was and after about 30 days and shooting a wedding later (not a good idea but it was becuase I was the only one with a good camera) I hated it!! Granted I did alot of research and learned the terms F-stops, ISO's, shutter speeds, and the list goes on. Up til the wedding I practiced and practiced and practiced. After all that my photos where not that great.

Well now days: another wedding(another bad idea that turned out great), 26 locally pubilshed sports pictures, and a few thousand other photos later, I love my DRebel.

Hey I understand wanting to wait to save some cash but experence is priceless with a SLR and even more so with a DSLR. I 1st though it was my lens that was limiting me so I got a Tameron 28-75mm F2.8 lens after a while I though I hated it and blamed it on the fact it was a 3rd party lens. I was wrong and now love that lens. Then for the 2nd wedding I got the 70-200mm F2.8L the thing is you cant blame anything on that lens because its one of the best lenses IMHO. So I had to work on my skills, and I did but I cheated with tons test shots so I knew my setting by area and lighting 1st in real life you dont always know but for a weddign you must know. Once I saw the wedding pics turned out good, I was into it more so I took more pics and that lead to steady freelance work from an editor with a local paper shooting sporting events. Sports will teach you alot, they are fast paced, lighing and shadows are always working aginst you and if you dont know how to use your camera in M mode and meter the shot right its not good. So I learned quick, and shot of ton of sports until my ediotor moved and a new one took her place.

The point of the story: dont wait too long until you have to have the camera for something special, DSLRs are amazingly power but even with all the technology they are only as good as the person behind it, and trust me even with Photoshop CS2 and having shot the picture in RAW you can only do so much to save a photo that is a once in a lifetime shot, and I dont think saving $100 is worth missing a shot becuase you waited too long.

As for lenses get the lens kit and learn from it and push it to do the most you can get from it. Then rent the lenses you think you want to buy 1st and test it every way you see yourself using it and them some. That can save you money in the long run by preventing buying gear that you may not like or you decide isnt what you want/need.
 
n64man120 said:
Very good story

Question: You can rent lenses?
Click to expand...

Yes, for a nominal fee. You can rent cameras and lenses for $x a week to try out. Some camera stores do it, some don't. E.P. Levine in Dorchester does, but I'm sure you can find a much closer location to NEU to find camera rentals (like Calumet photo or something).
 
Very interesting. I'm leaning towards going with the kit lens to start, and then taking it from there with a 17-85 possibly. Even though it's the kit lens, think I should bother with a cheap/expensive UV filter, or a lens hood, for now?
 
wow. I got wordy.

The story above is a good one. It's the same story my band teacher used to tell us as students: "the problem's from the mouthpiece back". Wise words in a new age. :D (???) Those words apply to camera gear too:

The difference between a cheap UV filter and a pricey one is generally how the glass was made. Here's the skinny: anything you put in front of your film plane will further degrade your image. Yes, that includes the seemingly clear UV filter. Your run of the mill Tiffen is punched out of a big sheet of glass. Your B+W or Roddenstock is cut off of cored glass, much highter density, and lower percentage image degredation.

Some pros will tell you "don't put a filter on there unless is you're changing the colour of the light" but other folks will tell you "better to replace the $15 filter than risk a scratch on your front element." The choice is yours. I always have one on when I'm out photographing rock climbing or skiing or if I'm travelling, but if I'm indoors or about the garden shooting macro stuff, I don't have it on to make sure things are as sharp as possible.

From where you sit, you won't notice the difference in image quality right now. :) If you can get a lens hood, use the lens hood; it just prevents lens flare.

Definitely start with the kit lens first though. If you were going to start with just the body, I would have said get the 35mm (close to a 50mm in film) to start: constraining your options when you're starting out teaches you better composition because you have to work with what you've got. But otherwise, the kit lens will do you just fine.

Basic tips:
- if you get IS, turn it off when your camera's on a tripod, it won't know what to do.
- low light is fine with higher f-stops, just buy a tripod. (remote switch is nice too)
- shooting nature (landscapes) you generally want more focal distance (= higher f-stop, dial in the f/16 and f/22 on a tripod)
- shooting nature (macro) take your kit lens, buy a set of $200 kenko estension tubes.
- shooting nature (wildlife) you'll eventually buy a telephoto lens.
- don't be concerned with aperture ranges right now; people get bogged down wanting fast lenses, but in the end it doesn't matter; buy a tripod lol. (unless you're shooting sports, then big $$$ fast telephoto lenses hehehe)
- prime lenses are sharper than zoom lenses (in general).
 
sulfur_lad is dead on aabout the tripod. A tripod will do more your photography for the cost than anything else, granted its a kinda lame gear per se, but it can make the difference between getting a shot and not.

Also I always leave on my U/V filter unless it something speical, plus its better to kill a filter than a lens pros may disagree but most of them that do have the $$$ to replace gear if it breaks. I do not on short notice hence i dont take the chance.

As for filters if you buy a $1200 lens dont buy a $20 filter on the other hand if you got a $50 lens I wouldnt spend more than $20 on a filter but thats me.

Also plan out the system you want in advance Im glad I leanred that early I was very close to buying the 70-200 F4L but I knew that if I need a longer lens than the 200mm and faster than F5.6 I'd be looking at a more costly soulition so I went with the 70-200 F2.8 so I can use both the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. Granted its not as good as a 300mm or 400mm prime lens it works.
 
VictorEM83 said:
Also plan out the system you want in advance Im glad I leanred that early I was very close to buying the 70-200 F4L but I knew that if I need a longer lens than the 200mm and faster than F5.6 I'd be looking at a more costly soulition so I went with the 70-200 F2.8 so I can use both the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. Granted its not as good as a 300mm or 400mm prime lens it works.
Click to expand...

the 70-200 f/2.8L is golden, I'm glad I got it; it's one of the sharpest zoomers on the market. The f4 is also quite nice though, and is a great travel alternative: it's very lightweight L glass... it doesn't need its own tripod mount lol
 
most the time when I shoot sports I dont use a tripod because Im always on the move on the other hand when doing portrates I ALWAYS use a tripod becuase a little motion wont hurt a 4x6 but can kill a 11x14 print.

honeslty I think gear is a personal thing so its a kinda try and see what you like deal thats why I now rent before I buy execpt for a 85mm F1.2L that I must have next or if i win the lotto the 50mm F1.0L.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top