Canon EOS 8.0MP Rebel XT - YES OR NO?!!!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'm thinking of going out and getting my first digital SLR -

Have my eye on the Canon Rebel XT - I'll be using this camera to take photos
for my graphic design work, as well as for taking "fun" pics of stuff here
and there - I want a camera that will let me do as much as possible, and let
me generate a good high quality photo for use as Stock Photography, and who
knows what else - I will probably be pursuing some nude photography to
complement my art work - So lots of low light photography -

the price is right, and from what I hear its a great camera to get -

Any advice? anything I should know about this camera that is bad?



zigt @ mts . net

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

b18[at]ii[dot]net ([BnH]) wrote:
> "Z" <zigt@mts.net> wrote:
> > I will probably be pursuing some nude photography to complement
> > my art work - So lots of low light photography -
> a big YES
> and just get a decent lens on it. the EF-S 17-85 is a good lens.

Good as the EF-S 17-85 IS may be, it's f/4-5.6, and IMO that's not
at all what you want for low light photography. The fastest zooms
are f/2.8 (and quite expensive) and even those are often too slow
for anything I'd consider "low light."

I do have an f/3.5-5.6 zoom that I use outdoors on my Rebel XT, but
most of the time I have an f/1.8 prime on it. Canon has 3 of those
available - 28, 50 and 85mm. The cheapest is the 50mm (about $100,
less by mail-order), then the 85mm (between $300 and $350 mail-order;
mine should be here Tuesday and the 28mm (between $350 and $400
mail-order).

You can get even faster stuff - there are some f/1.4 and f/1.2
lenses out there - but it's much pricier.

--
http://08016.com/ - Burlington City history on the internet, since 1995.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <PXOUe.3179$qP3.34250@news1.mts.net>, "Z" <zigt@mts.net>
wrote:

> I'm thinking of going out and getting my first digital SLR -
>
> Have my eye on the Canon Rebel XT - I'll be using this camera to take photos
> for my graphic design work, as well as for taking "fun" pics of stuff here
> and there - I want a camera that will let me do as much as possible, and let
> me generate a good high quality photo for use as Stock Photography, and who
> knows what else - I will probably be pursuing some nude photography to
> complement my art work - So lots of low light photography -
>
> the price is right, and from what I hear its a great camera to get -
>
> Any advice? anything I should know about this camera that is bad?

I have a friend who has a Rebel XT. Of course, any camera is only as
good as the person who uses it, but my friend takes wonder photos with
her camera.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Z" <zigt@mts.net> wrote in message
newsXOUe.3179$qP3.34250@news1.mts.net...
> I'm thinking of going out and getting my first digital SLR -
>
> Have my eye on the Canon Rebel XT - I'll be using this camera to take
> photos for my graphic design work, as well as for taking "fun" pics of
> stuff here and there - I want a camera that will let me do as much as
> possible, and let me generate a good high quality photo for use as Stock
> Photography, and who knows what else - I will probably be pursuing some
> nude photography to complement my art work - So lots of low light
> photography -
>
> the price is right, and from what I hear its a great camera to get -
>
> Any advice? anything I should know about this camera that is bad?

No camera is perfect. But the XT is a wonderful cam, and is more than
capable of delivering excellent pix. Like any other cam, you just have to
read the manual, learn the controls and their proper use, and then learn to
live with the camera's limitations. Image quality is excellent, and there's
plenty of bells and whistles to please most people.

>
>
>
> zigt @ mts . net
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have one with several lenses:

1 The kit 18-55. Not for low light, but it's performance at f/3.5 and up
is as good as any lens. Some barrel distortion at the shortest focal
lengths. Good CA

2. Sigma 55-200 f/4-5.6. Again, not for low light but very sharp. CA
seems to be very good.

3. Sigma 20mm f/1.8 prime. This is a great lens when stopped down some,
but I wouldn't expect a lens this wide to be much good a large aperatures.
The distortion and CA are very low. Weighs a ton, of course. It's great
for low light, especially when the camera is set for ISO 800.

4. I had, but sold to get the 20mm Sigma, a 50mm Canon f/1.8. That was a
good lens as well, quite sharp, but again a little soft at the widest
aperatures. If the effective focal length of 80mm on a Digital Rebel XT is
not too long for your low light work, I'd reccomend it. Canon also makes a
50mm f/1.2, I believe, but I have no experience with it.


"Z" <zigt@mts.net> wrote in message
newsXOUe.3179$qP3.34250@news1.mts.net...
> I'm thinking of going out and getting my first digital SLR -
>
> Have my eye on the Canon Rebel XT - I'll be using this camera to take
> photos for my graphic design work, as well as for taking "fun" pics of
> stuff here and there - I want a camera that will let me do as much as
> possible, and let me generate a good high quality photo for use as Stock
> Photography, and who knows what else - I will probably be pursuing some
> nude photography to complement my art work - So lots of low light
> photography -
>
> the price is right, and from what I hear its a great camera to get -
>
> Any advice? anything I should know about this camera that is bad?
>
>
>
> zigt @ mts . net
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jim wrote:
> I am very happy with my rebel XT, it does a great job. One major reason I
> chose it over other really good D-SLRs it that it is smaller and lighter to
> carry around. I also recommend the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens, it is inexpensive
> and great for low light photography
>

same here, I don't care what the whingers here say about it, I quite
like the size of the camera, I also have the 50mm f1.8, great lens for
the price.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dan Birchall" <nobody@imaginary-host.danbirchall.com> wrote in message
news:slrndi80gh.cs9.nobody@malasada.lava.net...
> b18[at]ii[dot]net ([BnH]) wrote:
>> "Z" <zigt@mts.net> wrote:
>> > I will probably be pursuing some nude photography to complement
>> > my art work - So lots of low light photography -
>> a big YES
>> and just get a decent lens on it. the EF-S 17-85 is a good lens.
>
> Good as the EF-S 17-85 IS may be, it's f/4-5.6, and IMO that's not
> at all what you want for low light photography. The fastest zooms
> are f/2.8 (and quite expensive) and even those are often too slow
> for anything I'd consider "low light."
>
> I do have an f/3.5-5.6 zoom that I use outdoors on my Rebel XT, but
> most of the time I have an f/1.8 prime on it. Canon has 3 of those
> available - 28, 50 and 85mm. The cheapest is the 50mm (about $100,
> less by mail-order), then the 85mm (between $300 and $350 mail-order;
> mine should be here Tuesday and the 28mm (between $350 and $400
> mail-order).
>
> You can get even faster stuff - there are some f/1.4 and f/1.2
> lenses out there - but it's much pricier.

Is there any possibility of using a flash creatively for the low-light
photography?

I ask this because I simply don't know, but it occurs to me that you could
use a flash to iluminate the subject enough for a f1/4 lens and then adjust
the shot in photoshop......

If I am way off base please let me know.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1126541064.767110.269940@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"zach" <victorthecleaner@gmail.com> wrote:

> Z wrote:
> > I'm thinking of going out and getting my first digital SLR -
> >
> > Have my eye on the Canon Rebel XT - I'll be using this camera to take photos
> > for my graphic design work, as well as for taking "fun" pics of stuff here
> > and there - I want a camera that will let me do as much as possible, and let
> > me generate a good high quality photo for use as Stock Photography, and who
> > knows what else - I will probably be pursuing some nude photography to
> > complement my art work - So lots of low light photography -
> >
> > the price is right, and from what I hear its a great camera to get -
> >
> > Any advice? anything I should know about this camera that is bad?
>
> Hmm. On sale at Fry's now for $849, here in Nor-Cal. I saw an ad for
> $999 "8MP Canon DLSR" and rushed in, foolishly thinking it was the 20D.
> IIRC, I think the sign in the store said $849.

dell.com is selling it (body only) for $764.15.

great camera, i have on myself. tough times though and im looking to get rid of it for some extra money.

hookermania@yahoo.com