lens help

[lavatea]

Not that I have the funds, but I've been considering getting a new camera. I currently have an old Canon Rebel EOS XTi, which takes great auto pics in outdoor light. I've also played with it enough that I do OK with fiddled settings if the light is just right. But I HATE the flash and yet have a terrible time getting good pics in low light settings.

Is there a lens that could help me? I'm just using the kit lens. Yes, I could buy a diffuser or external flash. Just really more of a natural light fan. I also love shallow DOF.

 

[havoc315]

Not that I have the funds, but I've been considering getting a new camera. I currently have an old Canon Rebel EOS XTi, which takes great auto pics in outdoor light. I've also played with it enough that I do OK with fiddled settings if the light is just right. But I HATE the flash and yet have a terrible time getting good pics in low light settings.

Is there a lens that could help me? I'm just using the kit lens. Yes, I could buy a diffuser or external flash. Just really more of a natural light fan. I also love shallow DOF.

The cheapest simplest lens to add is a Nifty fifty. 50/1.8.... They run about $100. They let is significantly more light than the kit lens.

 

[SkaGoat]

if you want a zoom, you could also look into the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 $499 for the non-stabilized version, and $649 for the version with image stabilization.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

if you want a zoom, you could also look into the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 $499 for the non-stabilized version, and $649 for the version with image stabilization.

IMO, if he's going to spend that much money right now, I think he'd be better served with a new camera/kit. The XSi sensor is WAY antiquated at this point. Any modern body is going to give him significantly improved ISO.

Lenses can really make a difference once you're in the modern ballpark regarding the rest of the triangle but I think he needs to solve that issue first.

 

[lavatea]

Is an entry level DSLR from Canon still a good camera? (the newer ones)

Would a 50/1.8 be helpful now and work with a newer camera down the road? (quick fix that will work long term)

 

[WilsonFlyer]

Is an entry level DSLR from Canon still a good camera? (the newer ones)

Would a 50/1.8 be helpful now and work with a newer camera down the road? (quick fix that will work long term)

You're never going to go wrong with faster lenses (the 1.8). The lower the "f" number, the wider they open which lets more light in but reduces depth of field. this is what you need for "darker" settings.

The "Nifty Fifty" is an EF lens so it works with virtually every Canon DSLR ever made and likely will in the future.

Just know that it's not magic. Higher ISO with no noise is the ultimate goal.

1600 is the max for the XSi (if I remember when I had one correctly) but the images are so noisy that they are not usable. 400 is the practical limit in my experiences with the XSi.

By today's standards, the XSi is a caveman. Literally. 12,800+ is not uncommon in today's DSLRs with little to no noticeable noise. The higher this number, the less light that's NEEDED to take a shot. As you can see, there's a lot of difference between 400 and 12,800. It's not linear, but you get the point. Higher ISO speeds (think of the old film speeds if you go back that far) means less light needed to get a particular shot.

NOW lenses come into play. Faster "f" stops, etc.

Make sense?

 

[WilsonFlyer]

Is an entry level DSLR from Canon still a good camera? (the newer ones)

Yes. Within reason. Try to buy as new a model as you can afford. Think T5i or ideally, the 70D. It's all about what your budget and needs will allow. Generally, the more you spend, the better the light gathering capability of the camera.

Would a 50/1.8 be helpful now and work with a newer camera down the road? (quick fix that will work long term)
Yes. See detailed comments in the post above.

See embedded comments.

 

[bob100]

The XSi sensor is WAY antiquated at this point.

1600 is the max for the XSi (if I remember when I had one correctly) but the images are so noisy that they are not usable. 400 is the practical limit in my experiences with the XSi.

By today's standards, the XSi is a caveman. Literally.

LOL !

I regularly used the Canon XSi at ISO 1600 and up to ISO 6400 !
(with a little help from Neat Image processing after 1600)

but the OP has a XTi (small difference)
and I agree that a newer model with large aperture primes will certainly be better than the kit lens

what the heck, I'll post a few high ISO shots with the very old, very antiquated, "caveman" Rebel XSi and old antiquated Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc ($200 used!)

ISO 1600

Accelerator Operators
is it usable?

Rebel XSi

ISO 4200 !!

 

[Patrick in Oregon]

^^ I feel bad for what's about to happen in the girl in red. Nice capture.

 

[havoc315]

Is an entry level DSLR from Canon still a good camera? (the newer ones)

Would a 50/1.8 be helpful now and work with a newer camera down the road? (quick fix that will work long term)

The quick answer is yes to all the above.

It's all counting "stops" -- gaining stops with larger aperture, with higher ISO.

Depending on the exact settings of your current lens, you'll get 2-3 stops by upgrading lens. You'll also get noticeably sharper images.

If you currently are limited to approximately 800 ISO... A newer entry level dslr would get you another 3 stops or so. (The difference between 800 and 6400 is considered 3 stops).

So 2-3 stops from the lens. Potentially 3 stops or so upgrading body.

Combine both, you're looking at a 5-6 stop improvement, which is huge.

 

[photo_chick]

OK... why does everyone keep bringing up the XSi (450D) when the poster said XTi (400D)? They are two different cameras.

OP.. the nifty fifty is the fastest way to increase your ability to shoot in low light. I agree that if you're serious about increasing your capabilities then it might be time for a new body. However, you'll still need that fast lens for low light so either way it's a good thing to add to your bag.

FWIW, Rebel XT (350D) with the nifty fifty. ISO 1600, f/1.8 and I think the shutter speed was like 1/15. With that light lens and light body I could hand hold at really slow shutter speeds. Looks pretty useable to me.

 

[lavatea]

Thanks, everyone. I don't have the budget for a new camera just now so I think I'm leaning toward quick fix then new camera long-term.

I was messing around with camera today and was shooting outside (partial cloudy + shade) at 3.5 with ISO of 800. I always thought that you wanted a lower ISO to reduce graininess? So lowest number that will keep a quick enough shutter speed to not get camera shake. Is that inaccurate? (Everyone is mentioning really high ISOs. Or is that just for low light settings when you need them?)

 

[mom2rtk]

Thanks, everyone. I don't have the budget for a new camera just now so I think I'm leaning toward quick fix then new camera long-term.

I was messing around with camera today and was shooting outside (partial cloudy + shade) at 3.5 with ISO of 800. I always thought that you wanted a lower ISO to reduce graininess? So lowest number that will keep a quick enough shutter speed to not get camera shake. Is that inaccurate? (Everyone is mentioning really high ISOs. Or is that just for low light settings when you need them?)

It's really a balancing act. You do want the lowest ISO possible under the circumstances you have in front of you. But if you are in a low light situatin, you will likely be willing to trade a higher ISO for a chance to get a shot that is not blurry because the shutter needed to stay open too long.

Before you spend anything, I recommend reading Understanding Exposure as your first step.

 

[havoc315]

Thanks, everyone. I don't have the budget for a new camera just now so I think I'm leaning toward quick fix then new camera long-term.

I was messing around with camera today and was shooting outside (partial cloudy + shade) at 3.5 with ISO of 800. I always thought that you wanted a lower ISO to reduce graininess? So lowest number that will keep a quick enough shutter speed to not get camera shake. Is that inaccurate? (Everyone is mentioning really high ISOs. Or is that just for low light settings when you need them?)

Correct. It is preferable to keep ISO low to keep noise low. (And get better dynamic range, etc).
But sometimes it is necessary to use higher ISO. And newer cameras can push ISO higher and cleaner.
For example, my first dslr-- images were clean up to ISO 400. Ok at 800. Terrible at 1600.
My current dslr -clean up to 1600. Ok up to about 10,000. Terrible above 12800.

 

[firemanchip]

Correct. It is preferable to keep ISO low to keep noise low. (And get better dynamic range, etc).
But sometimes it is necessary to use higher ISO. And newer cameras can push ISO higher and cleaner.
For example, my first dslr-- images were clean up to ISO 400. Ok at 800. Terrible at 1600.
My current dslr -clean up to 1600. Ok up to about 10,000. Terrible above 12800.

What is your current DSLR; If you don`t mind me asking?

 

[havoc315]

What is your current DSLR; If you don`t mind me asking?

Sony a99. It's full frame, so not directly comparable. But even entry level dslrs now can achieve pretty nice results as high as 3200/6400 range.
And the better full frames can get good results at 25600 and higher.

 

[TheLovins]

Not that I have the funds, but I've been considering getting a new camera. I currently have an old Canon Rebel EOS XTi, which takes great auto pics in outdoor light. I've also played with it enough that I do OK with fiddled settings if the light is just right. But I HATE the flash and yet have a terrible time getting good pics in low light settings.

Is there a lens that could help me? I'm just using the kit lens. Yes, I could buy a diffuser or external flash. Just really more of a natural light fan. I also love shallow DOF.

While others are correct that the camera itself is old, a new lens will make a huge difference as well. I have bought and sold a number of them and was very happy with my 50 1.8. It is not a bad choice on a budget, but remember that it is fixed zoom so you will have to walk forwards or backwards to adjust how large an object is in your focus.