It's finally happened, the photography bug hit me with a lethal dose. Im not satisfied with my point-and-shoot anymore, i need faster shutter speed and better AF. I want more control.
So...im looking into purchasing a single lens reflex camera. I went to some local stores to play around with the Nikon D40 and the Canon Rebel XT. The Rebel really stood out because of it's speed, almost instant on and go! I've been looking around at CNet reviews and they really like the Rebel so im more or less shooting for it. I don't have enough money to buy a better lens kit so ill stick to the 18mm-35mm stock kit. My questions as follows:

1. Anyone here have the Rebel XT or looked at it before they purchased an SLR? Please give your opinion.
2. This my first time into the SLR world, is this camera (Rebel XT) going to be too difficult to use?
3. What are some good places online to buy an SLR for a good price?

Thanks,
S

It's finally happened, the photography bug hit me with a lethal dose. Im not satisfied with my point-and-shoot anymore, i need faster shutter speed and better AF. I want more control.
So...im looking into purchasing a single lens reflex camera. I went to some local stores to play around with the Nikon D40 and the Canon Rebel XT. The Rebel really stood out because of it's speed, almost instant on and go! I've been looking around at CNet reviews and they really like the Rebel so im more or less shooting for it. I don't have enough money to buy a better lens kit so ill stick to the 18mm-35mm stock kit. My questions as follows:

1. Anyone here have the Rebel XT or looked at it before they purchased an SLR? Please give your opinion.
2. This my first time into the SLR world, is this camera (Rebel XT) going to be too difficult to use?
3. What are some good places online to buy an SLR for a good price?

Thanks,
S

my mom's a professional photographer. I'll pose these questions to her later and let you know.

-Steakboy

I think you might look at the new Canon XTi, which will replace the XT. It has 10 mega pixels, and a system to keep the sensor clean. A big step up.

An alternative is the Nikon D80.

I would visit Steve's Digicams for reviews. And I like The Luminous Landscape for basic lessons and info on doing good photo work.

I think either camera would make you happy. Both can be used as totally automatic or you can do some manual adjustments. The more advanced cameras let you do more, but I don't think you will miss those features.

At the rate that SLRs are changing I would stay in the Rebel/D80 class until digital is mature. Buying new camera bodies gets expensive. Digtal mature, an oxymoron!

I would also look into stabilization for the lens. It helps save shots you want to crop, but may be just enough out of focus that cropping shows that flaw.

I like B&H Photo for purchasing. they have been great to me despite being 2000 miles away. Good reputation.

Once you buy into the Canon or Nikon families you may be stuck with a set of lenses, so pick carefully.

Personally I like Canon. Sometimes I am jealous of Nikon though. It is another Z and 8 story.

Oh and I am not a guru, just a man with camera and photo hardware lust!

I am looking into the XTi as well, but im having doubts about the sensor cleaner. Is it really necessary? What is the conventional way to clean the sensor? The D80 and the XT do not have this feature.

Thanks for the tips.

pen and paper

I have the Rebel, I love it. Everything I need, compact, easy to use. I read many reviews and opinions and one of the very few downsides seems to be it's material quality...some of the outside plastic seem to scratch easily, but it's just a camera, not a showcar.

Experimenting with it got me to understand the other functions besides automatic, which is just point and shoot and just uses default settings.

Don't know about online...I wanted to get mine in person, so I just shopped around in my area at places like Bestbuy, Compusa, etc. Found the best price at Fry's with a nice rebate.

I don't know how much the upgrade to the XTi is worth. Sure, 10 megapixels over 8 sounds good, but are you really going to need that much? I don't even need the 8, the default resolution on photos is really high to begin with. Not sure about the sensor cleaner, probably something to google on. So if you could find sales on the XT instead of getting the XTi, that might be your better choice if you don't want to spend too much.

And ask dmp =]

I've got the XT as well and I love it. I've had it a little less than a year...I'm ont a professional, but I love taking tons of pics, and all the pictures in my house are pics that I took, blew them up and framed them.

A guy I work with is a profesional photographer on the side, and he coached me a lot while I was looking for a camera...the Rebel is a great 'inexpensive' camera for a high quality starter SLR. You can put the normal lenses as well as the professional lenses on it, so that is nice when you upgrade to the better lenses.

The other big difference in the XT to the XTi is that the XTi has a 2.5" picture viewer on the back...so that is pretty nice. I don't think you'll really notice any difference in the 8mp to 10mp though, unless you blow up a picture to be completely massive.

If you're looking at the Xt or the XTi, they are both awesome cameras....I definitely recommend eithe rone of them! Also, if you don't want to spend megabucks on professional lenses, I LOVE the Canon Image Stabilizer lenses. They give great quality for their price!

I consider myself as a serious amateur photographer and i have the Rebel XT (350D) as a back up. it is a great camera, but if you have normal to larger (male) hands, i would seriously consider getting the vertical grip. not only des it alllow you to hold two batteries, but it make the camera much easier to handle. the kit lens is very OK, but decent, especially for the price. I am partial to Canon since i have been usin them for more than 10 years now and have spent a small fortune on lenses! a great travel / all rounder lens is the Canon 28-135 IS. Just remember that the Rebel has small sensor, like the lower end Nikons, which mean that you have a 1.8 conversion factor to your lens. that is great for close up but very bad for wide angles. (a 50mm lens wil actually shoot like a 90 mm with a 35MM camera... i hope that was not confusing.) i really like the reviews on photo dot net. they will also tell you everything that you need to start up.
good luck and happy shooting!

Have any of you guys had any problems with dust on your sensors? Do you guys swap lenses often?

And i will send dmp a pm.

Thanks,
S

I haven't had any problems....but when (if) you buy an SLR camera, make sure you buy one of those air puffer thingies...I can't remember what they are really called...they look like those snot sucker things that you use on babies to suck the snot out of their nose. When you get dust on the sensor, you just give it a few nice blasts of air from it, and the dust blows off. NEVER try to wipe the dust off with a rag or anything like that because you can easily damage the sensor.

I am constantly changing between my lenses, swapping them all the time and I haven't had any problems with dust. You can bring your camera to a camera shop and they can clean your sensor (and the rest of the camera) for like $30-$50. I'd recommend doing that at least every year.

A trick that I've had a lot of camera people tell me is when you are changing lenses...to turn your camera off, and point the camera down towards the ground. I guess there is some magnetic force or something that will attract dust to the inside of the camera when you pop the lens off, and turning it off and pointing it down cuts down on the amount of dust that can get in there. I've never really had a problem with dust though, and I used to live in Southern California...took thousands of pictures out there...and there is TONS of dust out there.

Thanks for all the input guys.

Im definitely leaning more towards the XT now. I can't justify the extra cost of the XTi for my needs and, alarmingly, the D40 lacks the focusing motor built into the body of the camera. The motor has to be on the lens. I really don't want to purchase these special lenses only to never use them again when i switch bodies in the future. Im going to take a look at the D50 instead although i can't find it in local stores.

Thanks,
S

First off - are you sure you 'need' a DSLR, or do you just 'want one'? Keep in mind, it's HARDER to get good shots w/ a DSLR than a good higher-end P&S. I put the following up on another board to illustrate how good pics are more a function of photographer/effort than hardware:

These Photos were taken with either a FujiFinePix 2300z ($70?), Canon A75 ($110), Canon S2IS ($250), or a Canon 20D($1100 - with kit lens) (One has two pics shown). Can you guess which camera took which photograph?

1. http://www.sph33r.net/upload/files/16/gravesite1a.jpg

2.
http://www.sph33r.net/upload/files/16/barryconwaymenu2a.jpg

3.
http://www.sph33r.net/upload/files/16/leg7.jpg
4.
http://www.sph33r.net/upload/files/16/falls2.jpg

5.
http://www.sph33r.net/upload/files/16/miatabridge3a.jpg


Assuming your set on a DSLR, i'm a huge fan of Canon stuff - their high-ISO performance is amazing. Their glass is stunning. On Nikon vs. Canon, a good friend said this:

Canon went to in lens focusing motors, USM, and image stabilization before Nikon. That's likely where they stole much of the market in the 90s. Wink

With digital, the sensor is your 'film'. Canon makes their own, and they are superior to the Sony CCDs that Nikon uses. Canon also makes three full frame dSLRs, Nikon doesn't. I'm sure I don't need to explain how larger photosites and better sensor technology improve the 'film'.

That said, you can get great shots with both. Use what you're comfortable with.

re: Dust -

I cleaned my camera's sensor once - last month, after nearly 10k shots. Cleaning the sensor took all of about 5 minutes. Not a big deal.

I'd not let Megapixels factor into ANY decision. dv/dt said, and I agree, one camera would probably have to offer DOUBLE the MP for it to be a major consideration point over another.

If you choose Canon, I'd HIGHLY suggest finding a Thrifty Fifty - Canon's $80 (MSRP) 50mm f/1.8 Lens. Get that lens until you figure out what your real needs are. You won't need to zoom, because you can 'crop' images as a way to zoom them quite often. Plus, the 80mm ( effective focal length due to the sensor) is perfect for portrats. :)

My guess would be the last picture was taken with the 20D. In any case, you make good points and i need some time to consider.

Thanks,
S

dmp, assuming that is your leg....what the heck did you do to get those colors?! Whatever you did, it had to hurt!

My guess would be the last picture was taken with the 20D. In any case, you make good points and i need some time to consider.

Thanks,
S

Incorrect. :D

I hope I'm not talking you out of getting a dslr - just be prepared to put time into learning it. Stay OFF the 'green box' (Fully automatic). :D


dmp, assuming that is your leg....what the heck did you do to get those colors?! Whatever you did, it had to hurt!

Motorcycle wreck - my leg struck a telephone pole at about 40mph? or so, as I'd just low-sided my bike. :(

Nothing broken. Course, it's been over 2 years and my leg still hurts -feels like a fresh bruise over most of my leg, although all the visible bruising has cleared up. :)

Quick question for you guys. How does the EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 compare to the EF 28-70mm f/2.8-4 DG AF.

What are the differences between EF-S and EF?

Thanks,
S

I've already lost count of all the D-SLR's I've owned - Nikon D200, Nikon D70, Nikon D70s, Nikon D2H, Nikon D1X, Fuji FinePix S2, Canon D20. What I still have are the D200 and D70s because I like how they work and feel better than others. Trying to argue that one takes better pictures than another is pointless, it all boils down to the person operating the camera ...

Just choose one based on what feels best in your hand. Snap some pictures and see what shutter you like best, see what camera is easiest to review pictures - change settings - etc.

For Canon vs. Nikon lenses, I think Nikon makes better 'cheap' glass. But the Pro glass from each is pretty much equal - Canon does make more BIG lenses with Image Stabilization however, which only matters if you're employed by National Geographic :)

I say the two brands are so equal that simply choose based on which one feels best in your hands during use. Don't waste your time trying to disect the specs and choose based on that ... spend that time after your purchase instead learning how to use the camera, and how to take good pictures.

Actually, one of the things I really like about the Canon Image Stablilizer lenses is that they are great for low light....so I don't need the tripod for some of my low light shots...

Canon stabilized lenses are called IS, Nikon has VR ... they're both essentially the same, except that Nikon has VR II on the 18-200 and 105mm which is essentially twice as effective as the regular VR and Canon IS lenses - 4 stops of stabilization.

Sony puts the stabilization in the camera body which has benefits, all lenses are then stabilized. The downside is that it's not as effective as in-lens stabilization, only good for about 1-2 stops depending on conditions.

Personally, I don't care for the VR/IS lenses. Instead I have all f/2.8 glass and a good external flash. A f/2.8 lens gives many more real world benefits than say a f/4.5 lens with stabilization. Of course, the best choice is a f/2.8 lens with stabilization, but then you're talking big bucks.

Good point....better f-stop would pretty much eliminate the need for the IS. Until I can scrap up a couple grand for some really sick lenses, I guess I'll have to stick with my regular IS lenses!

I would like to take some photography classes to learn more of the manual functions...

Well, i finally came to a decision. Pentax K100D!

I went to a local camera shop and held and used all of the cameras they had. The Rebel is a little small and light, feels cheap and LCD is a little small. The D50 felt a lot better to hold and on par with the 100D in feel. The 100D, like the Sony alpha, has the IS built into the body. It is said that the mechanism involves sensor movement and can act like an elementary dust removal system. Prety cool i think. Pentax is also claiming full compatibility with all their old lenses, but this affects me only if i choose to buy any of those old ones.

It looks to me like the entry-level Pentax models are one the best kept secrets in the market right now. I can get the Pentax new for $550, about the same as the D50 and slightly less than the Rebel XT. Unless i can find a damn good reason not to get it, the Pentax won me over.

Thanks to everyone for all the help and suggestions. Ill probably be back here when im looking to buy some new lenses.

The K100D is a good camera, but the lens selection is pretty pathetic. Although 3rd party lens manufacturers like Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina also release most of their lenes in Pentax mount as well. I couldn't do my work with the Pentax lenses - you just need to decide if it's enough for you. The lens selection is every bit as important as the body though.

The Pentax anti-shake is pretty lame too, under good conditions you only get about a 1 stop advantage. I wouldn't let that 'feature' factor into your decision making.

I think their lens selection is fairly good, enough to satisfy my needs as an enthusiast. Im already hunting around for some used portrait lenses. The quality of the kit lens is also better than what comes with the Rebel, and this is important until i can build up my lens collection. Also, Pentax's merger with Hoya means a steady supply of glass in the future hehe.

I've seen some comparisons with and without the SR feature and it seems to be prety good. The important thing for me is i can't afford IS lenses and even f/2.8 lenses are a bit much for something that won't be more than a hobby.

Canon stabilized lenses are called IS, Nikon has VR ... they're both essentially the same, except that Nikon has VR II on the 18-200 and 105mm which is essentially twice as effective as the regular VR and Canon IS lenses - 4 stops of stabilization.

Sony puts the stabilization in the camera body which has benefits, all lenses are then stabilized. The downside is that it's not as effective as in-lens stabilization, only good for about 1-2 stops depending on conditions.

Personally, I don't care for the VR/IS lenses. Instead I have all f/2.8 glass and a good external flash. A f/2.8 lens gives many more real world benefits than say a f/4.5 lens with stabilization. Of course, the best choice is a f/2.8 lens with stabilization, but then you're talking big bucks.



:D ISO Capability > IS/VR. :)

f/2.8 isn't even required unless people are doing VERY low light-shots and want one? two? stop advantage. For practical purposes a camera with better high-iso performance is betta. :)

I like this thread...its exactly what I was thinking about myself. I think some of the advice that has been given here is extremely helpful and I want to thank those who contributed (even though its not my thread or question) because this has helped me decide what I should do myself.

I am also considering a new camera and have been reading all I can find. I have almost made my decision. I believe I will go with the Nikon. The Canon is a close second. That said, if Pentax lenses were better, I would go the Pentax route, just because of it being weather proof.

When it comes down to image quality, there is not a lot of difference betweeen the 3. I think that lens selection is the most important part of the equation.

Pentax said they are releasing a new line of lenses, DA* i believe. It's rumored they will be released in march, although i expect them to be fairly expensive.

:D ISO Capability > IS/VR. :)

f/2.8 isn't even required unless people are doing VERY low light-shots and want one? two? stop advantage. For practical purposes a camera with better high-iso performance is betta. :)
I don't agree with that at all. You can't control your depth of field with ISO. The only camera with functionally better high ISO is the Canon 5D, and I don't want full frame - because then lenses are way more expensive, and you get lots of soft edges.

Pentax said they are releasing a new line of lenses, DA* i believe. It's rumored they will be released in march, although i expect them to be fairly expensive.
Pentax does have one lens I wish Nikon would make - that 10-17mm fish :) That would be a fun lens!

Don't be too excited about Hoya/Tokina working with Pentax. Tokina is notoriously slow for releasing new announced lenses, and they only make one or two true quality pieces of glass.

When it comes down to image quality, there is not a lot of difference betweeen the 3. I think that lens selection is the most important part of the equation.
They're very equal based on image quality, and probably always will be. Choose based on the features you want, the feel and operation of the body, and like you said - lenses.

I don't agree with that at all. You can't control your depth of field with ISO. The only camera with functionally better high ISO is the Canon 5D, and I don't want full frame - because then lenses are way more expensive, and you get lots of soft edges.


Right - but you spend ungodly amounts of money on camera crap. "Real" folks don't. The guy asking the questions wanted a decent - better camera. A f/2.8 lens won't make the guy take better picture. I'm saying anything he could gain from a 2.8 could be compensated-for using ISO (assuming he got a good high-iso camera).

The only camera better? than what? I thought we were talking lenses? If you want to play the brand game, I'd bet dollar for dollar Canon's High-ISO performance meets or beats that of any other major brand.

fwiw, MY f/2.8 with IS wasn't "that" expensive...only a bit more than the camera-body itself. :D

That's just not true, and bad advice. High ISO is only used in extreme cases, 99.9% of your pictures are going to be ISO 800 or lower ... and pretty much every D-SLR is equal below ISO 800. Being able to manipulate depth of field with a f/2.8 or even f/1.4 lens is something you can use every day in any light.

So the truth is being able to manipulate DOF can help you take better pictures. There's a reason why f/2.8 lenses are commonly refered to as 'Pro' lenses, because the Pro's who take good pictures demand the ability to control DOF. In about 3-4 years of working as a Professional Photographer, I have yet to see anyone talk about high ISO performance ... but they all have f/2.8 or lower lenses.

Canon guys always try and bring up ISO performance as a reason to buy Canon, but it's not anywhere near that simple. Canon may have lower luminance (shadow) noise, but generally higher chroma (color) noise. Shadow noise is much easier to clean up in post processing. And the fact is, they're both so close in real world use, it's a silly reason to base your purchase on.

There are plenty of f/2.8 lenses available to 'real' people. Some examples for the Nikon camp:
- 50mm f/1.4 $250
- 50mm f/1.8 $90
- 35mm f/2 $250
- 20mm f/2.8 $200
- 35-70mm f/2.8 $300
- 180mm f/2.8 $400
- 85mm f/1.8 $300

And lots of good 3rd party 2.8 lenses
- Tamron 28-75mm $250
- Tamron 17-50mm $400
- Sigma 18-50mm $300
- Sigma 50-150mm $600
- Sigma 30mm f/1.4 $300

I could go on. The point is it's silly to say enthusiast photographers shouldn't be interested in buying Pro quality glass, but that a minute difference in ISO performance IS important.

That's just not true, and bad advice. High ISO is only used in extreme cases, 99.9% of your pictures are going to be ISO 800 or lower ... and pretty much every D-SLR is equal below ISO 800. Being able to manipulate depth of field with a f/2.8 or even f/1.4 lens is something you can use every day in any light.

So the truth is being able to manipulate DOF can help you take better pictures. There's a reason why f/2.8 lenses are commonly refered to as 'Pro' lenses, because the Pro's who take good pictures demand the ability to control DOF. In about 3-4 years of working as a Professional Photographer, I have yet to see anyone talk about high ISO performance ... but they all have f/2.8 or lower lenses.

Canon guys always try and bring up ISO performance as a reason to buy Canon, but it's not anywhere near that simple. Canon may have lower luminance (shadow) noise, but generally higher chroma (color) noise. Shadow noise is much easier to clean up in post processing. And the fact is, they're both so close in real world use, it's a silly reason to base your purchase on.

There are plenty of f/2.8 lenses available to 'real' people. Some examples for the Nikon camp:
- 50mm f/1.4 $250
- 50mm f/1.8 $90
- 35mm f/2 $250
- 20mm f/2.8 $200
- 35-70mm f/2.8 $300
- 180mm f/2.8 $400
- 85mm f/1.8 $300

And lots of good 3rd party 2.8 lenses
- Tamron 28-75mm $250
- Tamron 17-50mm $400
- Sigma 18-50mm $300
- Sigma 50-150mm $600
- Sigma 30mm f/1.4 $300

I could go on. The point is it's silly to say enthusiast photographers shouldn't be interested in buying Pro quality glass, but that a minute difference in ISO performance IS important.


You're biased. That's the difference tween you and me. It seems like unless a guy purchased the exact lenses YOU have - or more - you wouldn't be happy.

Nobody said enthusiasts shouldnt buy pro-quality lenses. I'M saying the guy should focus FIRST on a camera w/ GOOD/GREAT High-ISO performance, THEN worry about available lenses. As you pointed out, f/2.8 and better lenses tend to be VERY expensive. People can get around that w/ a good f/4 on a camera with excellent high-iso performance. I shoot at ISO 1600-3200 OFTEN, and am glad I chose Canon - although the newer Nikon lines are much better than those of a couple years ago.

I couldn't be any less biased ... I've owned just about every DSLR and lens imaginable, and enjoyed them all. I'm just giving advice as a working Pro, not some Canon or Nikon fanboy. Us Pro's don't give a crap about the typical internet bickering about minute brand differences, we just want the best tools to get the job done.

That's the real difference between you and I.

The only group who trys to make high ISO performance some priority are the Canon fanboys, they think they have some advantage there ... but they don't as I pointed out earlier. Sure Canon typically has lower overall noise above ISO 800, but that's because Nikon took the approach of minimizing Color noise at the expense of Shadow noise - and that's an approach I agree with.

Still, the difference is SO SMALL between then that basing a decision upon it is ridiculous. If you want to make this some brand argument, why not bring up the fact that Nikon metering has for years been ahead of Canon. And if you're shooting low light, proper metering is EVERYTHING. It doesn't matter how good the high ISO performance is, if you underexpose an ISO 1600 shot, it's trash, period. How about the fact that you have to move up to a Canon 30D just to get spot metering!

But still, just like choosing Canon for high ISO is silly ... choosing a Nikon for metering accuracy is missing the point. If you choose either one because you think it'll produce better pictures, you're wrong. In the end, its all up to the guy behind the viewfinder.

Don't make this some debate about the tiny differences between brands. Read what I said before, I never once even suggested to the OP he should buy what I have. For every incremental performance benefit Canon can quote, I can give a counter in favor of Nikon ... which is exactly why I don't even bother with getting into those things. It's all about how the camera feels and operates to the person buying it, that and which SYSTEM offers the best lens and accessory choices for your purpose.

For the OP, don't for a second think you can buy a good body and skimp on lenses. The quality of the glass attached to the front of your sensor is even MORE important to final image quality than the body is, I can't imagine anybody arguing that fact. My lens list above is simply to point out that you CAN get pro quality lenses on a budget ... and I listed Nikon lenses because that's what I'm most familiar with, but Canon and Pentax also offer similar options. Canon for example has more USM (internal focus motor, faster focusing) prime lenses which I'd like to have with Nikon, and Pentax offers some really cool pancake primes that would make for a tiny travel kit of high quality glass.

I say just pick a body, and then come back for lens advice. That's where the real fun begins :)

Bringing this thread back to ask a for some advice.

I'm considering purchasing a cannon rebel xt or xti body. I'm looking for suggestions as to where I can get a good deal on a new body...anyone have any thoughts?

Second up is lens selection. Figure something capable of decent portraits and with a decent wide field for the car pics :). Any suggestions or advice would be greatly appreciated.

I'm glad I found this thread. I have a pile of old Pentax lenses from my darkroom days and have been dreaming about the k100d. So sephiroth, are you still happy with your camera?

Anyone?