Canon Digital Rebel

[JetsFan73]

Anyone own this camera? Any opinions or advice on it? Things to know about it?

 

[Pam]

I have always been a lover and advocate for 35mm - a strong advocate..... - BUT - my husband bought a digital Canon EOS Rebel for our business two months ago.

I LOVE IT! We have purchased the telephoto lens as well. The colors are amazing. The camera is super easy to use - but gives you the freedom of creativity.

I recently bought an Epson PictureMate printer - in my opinion, it prints better photos then the photo lab we were using.

 

[Dan Murphy]

I myself do not, but have seen a number of folks here with it and the resultant pictures, and they are great. SLR digitals take much better pictures, in general, than the P&S's like the one I use, I just wish I could find one that was the size of a P&S, and could use the LCD screen as a composer, not just a reviewer. SLR's are great, and that one is a good one, from what I have seen and heard here.

 

[Pam]

Dan - we use our for photos for our newspaper, and the finished, printed images just can't be beat. We don't mind hefting around the big camera and the bag with all of the lenses and bells and whistles.

But - for short outings, etc. I know what you mean about not wanting to lug a big camera around. DH has a digital Kodak for those purposes. I just bought DD a Canon Elph as she requested something small to stick in her pocket or tiny purse at college.

DS will be going to South Dakota next summer to do mission work on a reservation and then off to the BSA National Jamboree at Fort AP Hill. I am looking at buying him the Sony digital camera that is streamlined with lots of megapixels and has the Carl Zeuss lens.

 

[helenabear]

I have the camera just above it in level (well, before they just replaced it with the newer model) but the 10D by Canon. I am so in love with this camera!! It does take amazing shots that none of my previous cameras could ever match. I know it is bigger than the Rebel, but I managed to tote it around with me all over WDW for 8 days and I managed. They have great bags that are just slightly larger than the camera that you can sling over your shoulder so you don't have to take the lens off. Not as easy as the Canon Elph I have or the S20 or G3 I used to have (sold them), but easier than I thought it would be.​

​

The one thing I do understand about the Rebel is that the lens that it comes with probably isn't the best one in the world, so do invest in some good lenses. I believe Nikon makes a great lens and Canon isn't too far behind either. I am in love with Canon for digital picutres, and really am glad I did move up to a digital SLR. I do not miss using the screen at all (which was nearly impossible in bright light) and you usually get a better shot (stability wise) if the camera is up to your eye. If you are coming from film world, then it won't be any different for you anyway Enjoy the camera, and I always suggest going to play with one at a store before you buy. I played with a friend's 10D and I knew it was the camera for me. Have fun!​

 

[Pam]

I do not miss using the screen at all (which was nearly impossible in bright light) and you usually get a better shot (stability wise) if the camera is up to your eye. If you are coming from film world, then it won't be any different for you anyway

Elaine is right about that - I still use my Minolta 35mm and there is no adjustment switching between the two cameras!

I am a little ashamed to admit that I cannot use the screen on the little digital cameras to frame my shots! It makes me dizzy and more than a little loopy! (Hush, Elaine!! ) So - the Rebel is perfect for me.

 

[dmadman43]

I myself do not, but have seen a number of folks here with it and the resultant pictures, and they are great. SLR digitals take much better pictures, in general, than the P&S's like the one I use, I just wish I could find one that was the size of a P&S, and could use the LCD screen as a composer, not just a reviewer. SLR's are great, and that one is a good one, from what I have seen and heard here.

Actually, the resultant pictures, quality wise, aren't that much different than a P/S. Image quality differences are a function of your skill in fine tuning each camera's adjustments and not the quality of the camera.
It's the photographer that makes the picture, not the camera. And for the type of prints most people make, the difference is not that noticable. Megapixels do not really matter until you start making larger prints. SLR's are just more flexible with shutter speed and aperture control, as well as focal lenght and lens choices. AND, the major difference between a DSLR and a DP/S if the avoidance of shutter lag. That makes a world of difference in getting a good shot.

As for anLCD as a composer, you actually don't want that, even in a P/S, but unfortunately that is what you are left with. unless you use the little peephole direct optical viewfinder the electronic viewfinder or LCD is actually delayed a fraction of a second. Just wave your hand back and forth in front of it if you think I'm kidding. Because of this you cannot use the LCD finder for photographing things that move, like people, because you'll miss the shot. This is just as bad for the expensive "EVF" electronic viewfinder cameras which make you look through a little peephole to see an even smaller LCD screen through a magnifier. Manufacturers love to lie about the EVF cameras: they claim that they are real time and you can plainly see for yourself with a moving hand that there is a delay in what you see. Even a fraction of a second is the difference between a great photo and the delete button.

 

[Dan Murphy]

Actually, the resultant pictures, quality wise, aren't that much different than a P/S. Image quality differences are a function of your skill in fine tuning each camera's adjustments and not the quality of the camera.
It's the photographer that makes the picture, not the camera. And for the type of prints most people make, the difference is not that noticable. Megapixels do not really matter until you start making larger prints. SLR's are just more flexible with shutter speed and aperture control, as well as focal lenght and lens choices. AND, the major difference between a DSLR and a DP/S if the avoidance of shutter lag. That makes a world of difference in getting a good shot.

As for anLCD as a composer, you actually don't want that, even in a P/S, but unfortunately that is what you are left with. unless you use the little peephole direct optical viewfinder the electronic viewfinder or LCD is actually delayed a fraction of a second. Just wave your hand back and forth in front of it if you think I'm kidding. Because of this you cannot use the LCD finder for photographing things that move, like people, because you'll miss the shot. This is just as bad for the expensive "EVF" electronic viewfinder cameras which make you look through a little peephole to see an even smaller LCD screen through a magnifier. Manufacturers love to lie about the EVF cameras: they claim that they are real time and you can plainly see for yourself with a moving hand that there is a delay in what you see. Even a fraction of a second is the difference between a great photo and the delete button.

Actually, the CCD sensor on my camera, an old Nikon 995, is about 38 sq cm. A Nikon D70, an entry level Nikon SLR (and the model that all the Disney park photographers currently use) has a CCD sensor that is more than 367 sq cm's. That is almost 1,000% larger and does indeed contribute to a much more enhanced image file, able to be pushed to much further limits, such as ISO, etc.

As for the LCD, I highly prefer that method, much easier for me, in the type of photgraphy that I do. You may prefer through the lens, I don't. A fraction of a second, in my type photography, matters little to me.

 

[dmadman43]

Actually, the CCD sensor on my camera, an old Nikon 995, is about 38 sq cm. A Nikon D70, an entry level Nikon SLR (and the model that all the Disney park photographers currently use) has a CCD sensor that is more than 367 sq cm's. That is almost 1,000% larger and does indeed contribute to a much more enhanced image file, able to be pushed to much further limits, such as ISO, etc.

As for the LCD, I highly prefer that method, much easier for me, in the type of photgraphy that I do. You may prefer through the lens, I don't. A fraction of a second, in my type photography, matters little to me.

Again, it's not the camera, it's the photographer. A Steinway piano doesn't produce a better piano player. You are right about the CCD sensor. But, for the general public that difference won't matter much for the types of photos they take, nor will the number of MP's. I agree that for many the computer processed LCD will not matter much when taking photos of non-moving objects, or posed pictures, or test charts.

 

[WillCAD]

A Steinway piano doesn't produce a better piano player.

Very true. However, a moderately skilled player will make better sounding music on a Stienway than on a piece of junk.

A moderately skilled photographer like myself can make better pics with a good camera than with a bad camera. No amount of skill in the world will make up for crappy equipment, although a crappy photographer will still make crappy pics even using a top-of-the-line camera.

The equipment does make some difference, so long as the photographer is familiar with the equipment's capabilities and limitations, and has some skill and talent for using it.

The Digital Rebel is an excellent digital camera, although at $1000 it's priced more for the photography enthusiast than for Mom and Pop's vacation photos and pics of the kids eating ice cream at Chuck E Cheese. The Digital Rebel has a lot more flexibility than point and shoot cameras because of the interchangable lenses, hot shoe for external flash (Canon Speedlights are fabulous additions to your camera bag!), and the other optional equipment like the battery grip and wireless remote. Each of these lets you alter the camera's performance to get shots in a wider range of situations than the base model is capable of handling.

I can't afford a Digital Rebel myself, though I certainly wish I could. It's a perfect camera for me, and I will most likely buy one in a year or two when the price has come down substantially.

 

[helenabear]

We have quite a lot of avid photographers in my family, and we actually had the same argument about the camera vs the photographer... I think the end result was that the camera does matter to a certain extent. Especially in the digital world. The lens matters as well. But the one taking the picture matters a heck of a lot more than just the camera. the only reason why I can say the camera *does* matter, is especially doing shots like fireworks or other night shots around a place like WDW, for example. On my most beloved G3, there was no way for me to get hte quality of shots with fireworks that I can now with the D10. I can get 100% clear night shots and am able to use different levels of ISO w/o a bit of noise. THAT is something a photographer has nothing to do with. It isn't just one or the other... but a bit o both. My husband can't get as clear of shots with my camera as I can, so that makes me realize it isn't just the camera.

I think when talking about using the LCD screen vs an eye piece you both totally missed the framing issues that comes with using the LCD. It is much easier to get a straight, clear, composed shot with an eyepiece. By using screens, angles do get a little messed up, and of course as I said before, stability (camera shake) is severely decreased by using an eye piece. I found out that ages ago when I got my S20 (about 4 years ago).
Pam no comments from me... I can see exaclty why you can't use the screen. I tried when I first got mine, and it drove me bats! Not sure why they push them so much. I did use mine more with the G3 (swivel screen) but the end result, I found, was that my pics weren't that great when using it anyway.

 

[dmadman43]

Very true. However, a moderately skilled player will make better sounding music on a Stienway than on a piece of junk.

A moderately skilled photographer like myself can make better pics with a good camera than with a bad camera. No amount of skill in the world will make up for crappy equipment, although a crappy photographer will still make crappy pics even using a top-of-the-line camera.

The equipment does make some difference, so long as the photographer is familiar with the equipment's capabilities and limitations, and has some skill and talent for using it.

The Digital Rebel is an excellent digital camera, although at $1000 it's priced more for the photography enthusiast than for Mom and Pop's vacation photos and pics of the kids eating ice cream at Chuck E Cheese. The Digital Rebel has a lot more flexibility than point and shoot cameras because of the interchangable lenses, hot shoe for external flash (Canon Speedlights are fabulous additions to your camera bag!), and the other optional equipment like the battery grip and wireless remote. Each of these lets you alter the camera's performance to get shots in a wider range of situations than the base model is capable of handling.

I can't afford a Digital Rebel myself, though I certainly wish I could. It's a perfect camera for me, and I will most likely buy one in a year or two when the price has come down substantially.

You are making my point. The photographer has to be familiar with the equipment and how to use it. I can guarantee you I can produce the same photo on a P/S camera as I can on a DSLR. The only difference will if you want to change the resultant printed size of the photo. Giving a DSLR to someone unfamiliar with the functionality of the camera will not produce better pictures I agree that a DSLR offers more options and flexibility, but that, in and of itself, does not produce better pictures. I have produced better pictures on disposable cameras than my neighbor has on his D1.

 

[dmadman43]

We have quite a lot of avid photographers in my family, and we actually had the same argument about the camera vs the photographer... I think the end result was that the camera does matter to a certain extent. Especially in the digital world. The lens matters as well. But the one taking the picture matters a heck of a lot more than just the camera. the only reason why I can say the camera *does* matter, is especially doing shots like fireworks or other night shots around a place like WDW, for example. On my most beloved G3, there was no way for me to get hte quality of shots with fireworks that I can now with the D10. I can get 100% clear night shots and am able to use different levels of ISO w/o a bit of noise. THAT is something a photographer has nothing to do with. .

Give me your G3 set to manual with a tripod and I can guarantee you I can produce the same quality night shots as you can on your D10, all other things be equal (focal length, size of print). That's not to say I would not prefer to shoot with the D10, with it's added flexibility,

 

[helenabear]

Give me your G3 set to manual with a tripod and I can guarantee you I can produce the same quality night shots as you can on your D10, all other things be equal (focal length, size of print). That's not to say I would not prefer to shoot with the D10, with it's added flexibility,

And this is when I will say back, that giving you a tripod totally defeats my point. You cannot take a picture at ISO 400 on the G3 w/o getting noise. I can take the exact same shots w/ the exact same situation and get a better shot out of my D10. THAT is my point. Same photographer, same knowlege, yet the different equipment allows me to take those shots and have them come out 2x better with the D10. In THIS case, it IS the camera, not the photographer. If it were the photographer, I would nto have felt the need to replace my now sold, G3. Taking a tripod around with me at all times is NOT an option, thus the camera makes the difference.

Sorry, you can argue with me all you want, but in some cases, the camera will make a difference.

 

[Dan Murphy]

....I can guarantee you I can produce the same photo on a P/S camera as I can on a DSLR...

I wish I was a similar miracle worker as you, madman. I would never have to think about buying a new camera.

 

[Razor Roman]

With an SLR you can't view through the LCD anyway - with an SLR the camera's lens doesn't do anything until you press the button, then the little mirror flips and it takes the picture - same reason a digital SLR can't do video .... I had a future cousin-in-law congratulate me on my rebel, only to say "Ohh, it doesn't take video? Even my $300 camera does that". I just smiled and said I would use my Canon GL1 for video instead

 

[dmadman43]

And this is when I will say back, that giving you a tripod totally defeats my point. You cannot take a picture at ISO 400 on the G3 w/o getting noise. I can take the exact same shots w/ the exact same situation and get a better shot out of my D10. THAT is my point. Same photographer, same knowlege, yet the different equipment allows me to take those shots and have them come out 2x better with the D10. In THIS case, it IS the camera, not the photographer. If it were the photographer, I would nto have felt the need to replace my now sold, G3. Taking a tripod around with me at all times is NOT an option, thus the camera makes the difference.

Sorry, you can argue with me all you want, but in some cases, the camera will make a difference.

Okay, throw out the tripod. All things being equal, one can take the same photo with your g3 as they can with your d10. In the end, I think we agree. A DSLR allows the photographer more flexibility. But it doesn't guarantee better pictures. That's my point.

 

[dmadman43]

I wish I was a similar miracle worker as you, madman. I would never have to think about buying a new camera.

I has nothing to do with being a miracle worker. The point I'm trying to make is that one should not think more Megapixels, more expensive camera, and more features will make a better picture, or better photographer.

 

[Dan Murphy]

I has nothing to do with being a miracle worker. The point I'm trying to make is that one should not think more Megapixels, more expensive camera, and more features will make a better picture, or better photographer.

Yeah!!!! We agree.

 

[dmadman43]

With an SLR you can't view through the LCD anyway - with an SLR the camera's lens doesn't do anything until you press the button, then the little mirror flips and it takes the picture - same reason a digital SLR can't do video .... I had a future cousin-in-law congratulate me on my rebel, only to say "Ohh, it doesn't take video? Even my $300 camera does that". I just smiled and said I would use my Canon GL1 for video instead

That's what people get confused about between DSLR's and P/S. With an SLR what you see it what you get. The mirror flips up and you get the shot you see through the viewfinder. With an LCD you are seeing a processed view of your shot--also a delayed viewed.

I never understand the need to take video with a point and shoot camera.