Newbie requesting advice on Digital Rebel XT

[debsilbert]

Hello, everyone:

 

I'm an advid digital point and shoot user who is dying to upgrade to a camera

I can use to shoot action shots -- something with "fast glass". I'm also a

cyclist and would love to learn how to take pictures like the action

photographers who usually shoot our events. The other type of photography

that flips my lid is macro photography of animals and flowers. I've been told

I have a "good eye" and take great pictures with the Fuji S5000 I currently

own. With that all said, I'm looking for some advice. One of our event

photographers recommended the Digital Rebel XT as a good introductory SLR.

The issue I have is what lens to buy that will be best suited for my current I

interests. I'd never quit my day job, but thought if I could get some great

pictures at the events in which I participate, I might be able to make a few

greenbacks on the side for the retirement fund. I'm hoping to get some advice

from the experts on the following:

 

1) What lens is the best value for the quality for shooting action shots with

the Digital Rebel XT?

2) What's the most reasonably-priced service for uploading and offering

pictures for sale to customers? I've seen PhotoReflect and note they take a

15% cut from every purchase. Is that standard? I'm in the IT business and

have extensive experience with Website design and photo retouching with

Paintsho Pro.

3) I'm assuming the limitations of my FUJI S5000 are the AF speed and

recovery and the fact that I can't attach fast zoom lenses. Am I on the right

track with the next step being upgrading to the Rebel XT?

4) Where can I go to get the going price on a used Fuji S5000 in perfect

condition?

 

Again, I have A LOT to learn. I'm not skilled at quickly deciperhing the 28-

80 mm / F/3.5-5.6 shorthand, but expect that will come with a more powerful

camera with which I can experiment.

 

I'm not looking to turn pro -- not even close to that caliber. I do take good

shots and would like to offer what I shoot during my sport of choice to

subjects for purchase.

 

Thanks for any support!

Deb

[zacker]

i had the xt..its a great beginner cam for action id use the fastest les you can afford...a great lens for the xt is the sigma 24-70 f2.8 ex dg macro..although its not anything near a true macro lens, its a very nice all purpose lens.for action youd really want to keep the arpeture as small an f number as you can... (it lets in more light..) the smaller the number, the faster the glass... so to speak..lol but, i have the canon 70-200 f 4 L series lens and its pretty fast out in the sun too! I have the canon 100mm f2.8 macro and love it alot. there are some nice, less expensive third party lenses though..sigma and tamron to name a couple. i use a smug mug pro account..i think about 15% is standard, whats nice is, all you do is upload the photos and promote your site, they handle all the sales and the shipping..not to bad.. the downside is, they only cut checks quartly i believe.. you have to read about it on their site smugmug.com

 

If you can, jump into a good used 20D...even better for action.. faster auto focus and all and more pro feel. i just got the 30D and i love it...

 

what kind of cycling? mountian biking, road race? stunt? a good wide lens like a 10-20 sigma is great for stunt, it really gets a great picture..

hope i helped!

-zacker-

[KenPapai]

If you're on a budget, an introduction L zoom to consider with an XT body for bike racing photos is the 70-200 f4 L. If you have a larger budget then the fast zoom, the 70-200 f2.8 L is Highest recommended. The former lens is around $700 while the latter is $1100. Shooting bike races properly, or any fast moving sporting action, is not possible without a zoom lens.

 

In Canon lingo lenses that are f/2.8 or wider are "fast."

 

As for macros get the 100mm macro lens from Canon.

[ericreagan]

Debbie,

<p>

I'm kind of like you - I really dig both cycling and photography. I'm not quitting my day job for either though. I was faced with a similar choice earlier this year and thanks to the great advice I got here on photo.net I ended up with a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. I had originally intended to get the Canon 70-200 f/4 L lens, but I'm thankful that some wise folks in these forums encouraged me to grab the f/2.8 lens. It's about an $800 lens from reputable dealers, but that's still a significant savings over the Canon L f/2.8 at $1000+.

<p>

Like I said, I'm not a pro and never will be, but I enjoy sharing my cycling shots with other. Feel free to take a look at my blog/gallery at <a href="http://www.cyclingshots.com">www.cyclingshots.com</a> and let me know what you think.

<p>

I share my photos on smugmug.com. I don't charge anything, I'd have a smugmug account anyway so it's not a big deal to me (like I said, I'll keep my day job), but you can get a "pro" account where you can set the prices there. After you upload there it's totally hands off - they allow ordering directly from your customers and ship the prints straight to them. It's worth the consideration at $150 per year. If you want to give it a shot, you can use the following coupon code and get $5 off: 7jCtURK05RxCQ (yes, they give me a $10 credit - but I wouldn't have gotten the discount when I signed up if someone hadn't posted a similar post in these forums).

<p>

Good luck.

[ericreagan]

Also, let me recommend that you buy a good book with your camera. One of my personal favorite "beginner" books is "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson or, perhaps, "Understanding Digital Photography" also by Bryan. It's worth the $20 or so and will save you tons of time on things that you "figure out" or "come to you."

[debsilbert]

Eric:

 

Holy cow! Those pictures are awesome! I see you're doing an MS Tour. I just did the Richmond to Williamsburg ride and was inspired by our photographer, Mike Zinski with Virginia Action Sports(www.vasphoto.com).

 

So you did those with the Rebel and the 70-200 f/2.8 lens? To transcribe, that's 70-200 focal length with a maximum aperture of 2.8? I haven't figured out how to factor focal length into the exposure equation yet. I'm still working on shutter speed and aperture ... So the difference between an 2.8 and 4 lens translates to what functionality? I've discovered it's never just one component ... it's a combination of factors that form.

 

Thanks for the recommendation on the book. I was going to ask that as well. I have a couple already, which I'm studying. I'm just at a standstill because I don't have a camera with a fast enough AF to take action shots.

[debsilbert]

Ken:

 

<quote> Shooting bike races properly, or any fast moving sporting action, is not possible without a zoom lens.</quote>

 

So zoom is just more than telephoto; they also have faster shutters?

 

Thanks!

[debsilbert]

Craig:

 

Now why would somebody be selling a 30D? Upgrading, maybe? Is there anything else about the model that I would need to know to search? Are there any good used camera sites?

 

I'm a road cyclist. I was a regular diamond frame rider until last year when lower lumbar degeneration drove me to a recumbent. Now I'm a crazy middle-aged woman on a recument with fenders, a luggage rack, and a penache for whooping the burley men in our bike club. ;-)

 

I love road cycling events, especially tours, and see so many incredible photo ops that I would love to start seizing. THe only problem is that I'm also a participant and traveling with expensive camera gear is a challenge. Oftentimes our tours are supported, but with tents and gear, having camera equipment hoisted up into a SAG wagon is very risky for its livelihood. ;-)

 

Is there an unspoken protocol about shooting events where a photographer has already arranged with the tour organizer to shoot the event? I mean, would they get upset if there was another photographer lurking in the bushes? ;-)

[gdanmitchell]

I'm also very interested in cycling - used to cycle about 10,000 miles/year. I'm also a 350

XT owner.

 

I recently did some photography of track racing and I found the 70-200mm f/4 to be

pretty useful for certain shots, but I would't want to work with _only_ that lens. I also used

by 50mm f/1.4 and my 24-105mm f/4.

 

If you are just getting started at this it might not be a bad idea begin with teh 17-85 EF-S

lens. It is pretty good, though not as stellar as the "L" lenses - but it covers a very useful

range in one package.

 

Dan

[kbroderick]

<p>On the question of bodies and glass, the XT and 30D would be on the top of my list if

I was shopping for another body right now and couldn't consider a 1-series. Handle both

of them, read the reviews, and make your own decision; the additional speed of the 30D

will probably come in handy, but I think it's about twice the price of the XT when Dell does

a special on the latter. With regard to glass, the 70-200/2.8 is a staple sports

photography lens. It's probably the best place to start, unless you can't afford it; the

70-200/4 is about half the price and will do almost as well (and is lighter), while the

Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM is between the two in cost and gets you the extra f-stop.</p>

 

<p>By now, you may or may not have guessed, but you're probably going to have to learn

to "decipher" the shorthand so that you can make an intelligent choice buying a lens. The

numbers before the slash are focal lengths (in your example, 28-80mm indicates a lens

where the widest possible position has a 28mm focal length and the longest possible an

80mm focal length), while the ones after indicate maximum f-stop values. The closer the

f-stop to 1, the faster the lens. Lenses with multiple values (such as 28-80/3.5-5.6) have

different values throughout the zoom range; better lenses, such as the 70-200/2.8 and /

4, have the same maximum aperture throughout the zoom range. Read up a little on the

link between f-stops, shutter speeds, and exposure, and you should understand this a

little better.</p>

 

<p>If you want to handle fulfillment yourself, there's also <a href="http://

gallery.menalto.com/">gallery2</a> with the checkoutpaypal plugin, which I use <a

href="http://www.kevinbroderick.com/gallery/">on my skiing / riding / biking / et. al.

photo site</a>. It's not hard to set up, and the webhosting requirements aren't that bad (

a lot of Linux-based hosts will let you install gallery2 directly from fantastico / cpanel, so

you don't even need to deal with a normal setup).</p>

 

<p>Keep in mind, of course, that it's virtually impossible to shoot and participate in the

same event (the only time I've tried is <a href="http://www.kevinbroderick.com/gallery/v/

Sports/2006-VSAA-SkiBums/">2006 VSAA Ski Bums' Championships</a>, and I only

managed to get action shots of two out of the six other folks on my team), and that some

events already have event photographers with exclusive deals. In general, you shouldn't

expect that you'd be allowed to show up, shoot, and sell without getting permission first;

for more general concerns about setting yourself up to do event photography, check out

the archives here, particularly in the sports forum, and over at <a href="http://

www.fredmiranda.com/">fredmiranda.com</a>.</p>

[jim_d5]

Great camera, get it.

 

Also, the 70-200 f/4L is an excellent lens in every respect, get that.

 

You are set!

[ericreagan]

<i>So you did those with the Rebel and the 70-200 f/2.8 lens? To transcribe, that's 70-200 focal length with a maximum aperture of 2.8?</i>

<p>

Right.

<p>

<i>So the difference between an 2.8 and 4 lens translates to what functionality?</i>

<p>

Twice as much light, which translates to a faster shutter speed for the same exposure. An f-stop of f/2.8 is one full "stop" faster than f/4.

<p>

Where a darker scene meters at 1/30 of a second at f/2.8, the same scene will meter 1/15 of a second at f/4, which results in the same "exposure" (read light striking film or sensor). Each "stop" that you drop in aperture (f-stop) raises the "stop" in shutter speed for the "exposure" of your shot.

<p>

I think I've spelled this out properly, but I'm sure I'll be corrected if I missed something. Again, I don't do this for a living but I think you get the idea. If you pick up one of Bryan's books, you'll see that he explains it much better than I do.

<p>

The point, which I hope you see, is that on a cloudy day or shady area in a bike race you might need that extra stop to boost your shutter speed to an acceptable speed. On the time trial, which you'll see many of my individual rider shots, it was cloudy most of the day - so I really needed the f/2.8 aperture for a lot of those shots.

<p>

Cheers,

<p>

Eric</br>

<a href="http://www.cyclingshots.com">www.cyclingshots.com</a>

[todd_fox]

I would like to offer some advice that is counter to the rest. First, you do not NEED L lenses. They do not make the pictures look great by themselves. Do not assume that if you stick an L zoom on your camera then your pictures will suddenly turn into eye-popping, dramatic, beautiful photos. It sounds like you have a lot to learn about photography in general before you start selling anything. What is your budget? If you cannot decifer the 28- 80 mm / F/3.5-5.6 shorthand, how do you know you need "fast glass"? Fast glass equals big money (at least $1000 for an f2.8 telephoto zoom). I would recommend getting a film or digital SLR with a 50 mm prime lense and learning photography from scratch. If you are on a tight budget you can pick up a used 35mm manual SLR and lens for $100-$200 now. I guarantee if you know how to take photos, the quality from an old manual SLR will equal any digital camera today.

[kbroderick]

<p>Eric is dead-on with regard to needing f/2.8 on some sports shots. Another poster

suggested that you don't need L zooms to learn photography, which is true; however, you

do need fast glass, good reach, and quick focus mechanisms to do sports photography

well. A 50mm/1.8 lens runs $70 and is a great way to learn a lot, but it will rarely be ideal

for sporting events. I regularly use a Tamron 70-210/2.8, which qualifies as fast glass

from an aperture standpoint but lacks the high-speed autofocus of a 70-200 L or a Sigma

HSM lens. It works reasonably well, but I've got plenty of shots that would probably be

sharper with quicker AF.</p>

 

<p>Another functionality benefit provided by fast glass is the ability to better isolate your

subject from the background by limiting depth of field (DOF). Particularly when you can't

get a really clean background, shooting with a wide-open aperture (e.g. f2.8) will throw

the background out of focus and make it less distracting than if it was in focus. Of course,

this also means that your focus has to be dead on to keep your subject sharp--if you

focus a few feet in front of or behind your subject, you may find that the short DOF has

thrown the subject out of focus instead of the background.</p>

 

<p>Regarding shooting when another event photographer is already there, you should try

to do two things. First, contact the event hosts prior to the event to get permission to

shoot; without their permission, you're on thin ice with regard to shooting and selling.

(Editorial or art-only use would be an exception to the extent that the First Amendment

generally allows you to use any photo you've captured in editorial or artistic pursuits

whether or not you had permission to take it; the same protections do not apply to print

sales or other commercial use.) Second, if you do encounter another photographer

shooting the event, talk to him or her. If the other photographer has an exclusive

contract, you should have already known about it when the event organizers denied your

request for permission; however, mistakes do happen, and it's generally best to respect

the established relationship between the other photographer and the event / organization

(i.e. pack up your stuff and don't shoot). In some cases, though, the other photographer

may not mind. For example, one of the events I shot last winter had contracted with

another photographer (I have a relationship with the hosting site but not the event

organizers), and I talked to him during the event and asked if he minded me posting

images and offering them for sale. As he had a different business model (he was paid to

show up and the print sales for him were not a big money maker), he didn't mind.</p>

 

<p>Another professional courtesy to consider is pricing. Please try to price your products

in such a way that you are actually meeting your costs and not just subsidizing a hobby. If

you start giving away high-res images and/or selling prints at prices barely above printing

costs, you undercut working photographers in the area and have a detrimental effect on

the market overall. From a purely selfish perspective, this is a bad idea because you're

effectively pissing in the pool that you might want to swim in at some point in the future--

if you ever start treating your event photography as a business, you'll find that your

existing pricing structure makes it impossible to break even (never mind turn a profit).

From a member-of-a-community-of-photographers perspective, you make it much

tougher for the people already swimming in the pool to stay afloat. If you're producing

professional-grade results, you should be able to get professional-grade compensation.

(From a marketing standpoint, reducing your prices too much can imply that you aren't

offering professional-grade products, which may also have a negative impact on sales.)

So please consider all your costs--equipment wear and tear, capital to purchase new

equipment, travel to and from events, your own time at the event shooting, at the event

marketing, after the event post-processing, after the event doing general business-related

tasks, etc--as well as obvious consumable expenses (ink and paper or outsourced printing

costs) when setting prices. Even if your existing sales volume is low enough that you're

never going to cover your expenses, try to set a pricing structure where a reasonable

target volume (which you could presumably reach with serious marketing efforts) would be

able to meet your costs.</p>

 

<p>Other good sites to visit if you do want to go down this route include (as I mentioned

above) <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/board/forum/47">the Sports Corner at

fredmiranda.com</a> and <a href="http://

www.sportsshooter.com/">sportsshooter.com</a>.</p>

[kbroderick]

<p>Whoops..that link should be <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/

47">http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/47</a>, not /board/forum/47.</p>

[debsilbert]

I haven't seen the vernaculars "L" or "HSM" defined. Based on contexts, it seems an attribute of the Lens shorthand. Does that determine a particular category of lenses?

 

Sharpness and ability to "zoom" to a subject from a distance are key requirements for me. I agree with Todd that I probably don't need "top of the line" as a novice. The reality is I may never sell a picture, but that doesn't mean I don't want to take great pictures as a hobby. I also love shooting candid shots - for example, my son graduated last night and I would have loved a lens that would have let me grab some very high emotion shots with sharp detail from a distance. I don't know how fast something has to be moving to be considered "sports," but these seniors were covering some ground very quickly and my shots from the stands of my son getting his diploma were all out of focus; very low light in an auditorium and too far away. And the other problem was his gown was bright red so everyone's faces have a horrible red glow. I'm assuming that's just a limitation of a point and shoot camera with color balance.

 

I've gotten lots of great advice about the "fast glass." The ability Thank you to everyone. I am out to purchase Bryan Peterson's books that Eric suggested. Can anyone suggest any other great reads, especially as it relates to "the link between f-stops, shutter speeds, and exposure?"

 

Another lens need would be for shooting kids at summer camp. My son will be a camp counselor this summer and I thought it would be fun to get some experience getting great shots of kids at play. Is the fast glass lens described here also the best for that type of photography?

 

I went and held the RebelXT last night at Circuit City. It feels great. They have a $100 rebate and it comes with a Canon 18-55mm 2x zoom f/3.5 thru f/5.6 for $799. With the body for sale at B&H for $649, is the lens at CC worth $150 or does it make more sense to just buy the body and put the $150 toward a real lens?

 

 

Kevin:

Thanks for the great advice on professional practices. Again, I may never sell but if I do because I have the "luxury" of not having specific responsibilities and I've had the opportunity to capture some great shots, I would definitely respect the professional community's pricing standards. The photographer who shot our event photos last weekend is charging $40 for a high-res digital image and $10 for a 4 x 6. While at first blush that seems really high, I can now see the justification. I read with interest someone on this forum who presents a pamphlet detailing why he charges what he does. Sounds like a great approach to help educate the customer. I wonder how many casual bicyclists will pay that kind of money, though. I would because I can do so much with a good digital image. I guess it depends on how much they like seeing themselves and the financial composition audience. For example, I live in a very high end of town. I can imagine people out here wouldn't think twice about paying that for a picture of their little Bobby at bat.

 

Againk, thank you everyone for your time and your offers of help. It amazes me how willing people are to share and help. The magic is being able to return the favor at some time in the future.

 

Deb

[jake_v]

In trying to explain (briefly) to my wife the technical side of photography, I think it can be easily summed up as:

 

Your camera (and its settings) manipulate light to form a picture. You have an aperture (F 2.8 for example) which increases (lower number) or decreases (higher f number) in size to let in more or less light. You have a shutter, which opens and closes faster (higher number, lets in less light) or slower (smaller number, lets in more light). You have ISO speeds (how sensitive your "film" is to light), which can be more sensitive (higher number) or less (lower number).

 

Each one of those 3 things, when changed, will need to be compensated by one or both of the other two things, if you want to keep your picture exposed properly. So if you let in more light by raising your ISO (making your film/sensor more sensitive to light), you could for example have a faster shutter speed (lets in less light to compensate) or use a smaller apeture (less light), or a combination.

 

So, when people are suggesting you get a "fast" (2.8 or lower) lens, this is especially true/important for sports over "snapshots" because in sports your subjects are oftentimes moving very fast. If you leave your shutter open for 1/30 of a second, you will see motion blur. Being able to let more light in with your lens will allow you to speed up your shutter speed... which can make a HUGE improvement with fast moving subjects.

 

There are many things to consider which are effected by the size of the apeture, speed of the shutter, and sensitivity of the ISO... they each will change things differently, which is important to learn. But as a brief overview, just know they all interact with each other directly. Now you just need to learn WHY to use one over the other to get the results you want/need.

 

As far as lenses, while I agree as many have said... that you should consider the 70-200 2.8L (the "L" on Canon lenses just indicates it is a "pro" lens... higher quality), I think you MIGHT want to consider something a bit cheaper to practice and learn on to begin with. You also said you're into macro photography, and the 100 2.8 macro is a very good macro lens. This could also be someting to practice with, before investing thousands of dollars into a zoom lens.

 

The 100 macro does not zoom (change focul lengths), which would require you to move around and plan out a bit more... but should certainly be doable, and save you a bunch of money up front while you decide whether or not you really need/want a more expensive lens.

 

JMHO

[ericreagan]

Debbie,

<p>

Your thread is getting on down the list, so you may not get much new info. I thought I'd try to fill in what I can.

<p>

As far as "L" and "HSM" goes, Canon uses the "L" designation for its professional line of lenses. In these lenses, you'll usually see several ultra-low dispersion elements that are considered the best glass for lenses. I don't think I can explain the physics of why an ultra-low dispersion element is better than a low dispersion element or even what a dispersion is. I'm sure other folks on here would be glad to explain the physics involved. I'll take their word for it all and simply rely on Canon L lenses as "pro-quality glass."

<p>

You can also check out <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-L-Lens-Series.aspx">The Digital Picture</a>, which is a good source for Canon lens info.

<p>

HSM refers to Sigma's hypersonic motor, which is their equivalent to Canon's USM or ultrasonic motor. Put simply, it means faster focusing speed. I can't hardly use a lens without it anymore because I'm so use to it. I rarely use manual focus. I know there are a lot of folks that swear by using manual focus in certain situations. Chances are for me though that the camera's AF is going to be better that my eye in most situations.

 

<p>

As far as additional books go, I'd suggest reading Understanding Exposure first and then decide for yourself what you want to look at next. If you grasp everything in that book, you'll have a very good understanding of what you should be reading. You'll be able to choose for yourself what the next book or topic for book that you want to tackle is. Then, ask this question again.

<p>

As far as kids at the camp. Clear it with the camp first. Folks get especially touchy when you start taking pictures of their kids - Especially if you're planning on putting them on a website for you or your son. When it comes to lenses, if you're shooting outdoors in the sunlight, you probably won't need as "fast" of a lens as f/2.8. Overcast days? Probably so. I know I needed that extra stop during the individual time trial at the Tour de Georgia this year because it was overcast for most of the stage.

<p>

As far as the kit lens (18-55mm) for the Rebel XT, I've got it and I still use it a lot. It's a range that you really need on it. If you want to upgrade, consider putting that $150 toward a Canon EFS 17-85mm IS lens. Dig around on Bob Atkin's site and see what you think about it.

<p>

That's about all I've got for now. Good luck. And post some shots as you're learning with your new camera.

<p>

Cheers,

<p>

Eric</br>

<a href="http://cyclingshots.blogspot.com">cyclingshots.com

[debsilbert]

You've been incredibly help and kind with your suggestion, Eric. Thank you!

 

The big decision now is whether to buy "body only", putting the $150 difference in price toward the fast glass or pay the extra $150 and get the stock lens (18-55mm 3X zoom). I'm not sure what the stock lens is most appropriate for. Also, do you have an opinion about shopping eBay for "new unopened product?" There is a storefront selling for $639 - $100 Canon rebate = $539 for body only. It's new, unopened, and they are a Canon retailer.

[ericreagan]

Debbie,

<p>

As far as the kit lens goes, that's going to have to be your call. It's a good range to have for your camera. I've currently got 3 lenses: the 18-55mm, a 50mm, and the aforementioned Sigma 70-200. There's no way I could use the Sigma indoors for things like Christmas, birthdays, informal family snapshots, etc., because it's just too long of a zoom. I find myself using the 18-55mm more than the others on family outings because of the convenient zoom range. If I had the change to spare I'd probably go with the Canon 24-105 f/4 L for my all purpose zoom, but I don't so I use the 18-55mm. I don't get any complaints from family members on birthday parties and impromptu portaits at such events. Truthfully, I probably couldn't tell the difference between the quality of the 4x6's that we most often print from the kit lens or the L series of lenses. I'm sure that others on here could though. Again, take all I say with a grain of salt - I just do this for fun.

<p>

Example of impromptu portrait with 18-55mm kit lens:</br>

<img src="http://ericreagan.smugmug.com/photos/72615995-M.jpg">

<p>

As far as ebay sellers go - make sure their feedback is near 100% before handing them out that much cash. I've passed on a lot of good deals because the feedback was less than perfect. Use Paypal to make sure that you are protected. Things to consider: Is the camera a "USA" model or a "gray market" model? This will affect your warranty. If it's gray market, do they offer a warranty? Is it extra? .... My personal (I stress personal) opinion - I'd shell out a little extra at a place like Circuit City where I know it's warranted under Canon USA and it's a business that I trust. I spent about $100 more on my Sigma lens from B&H than what many ebay sellers had it priced (even though they had great feedback) - I consider that $100 well spent on peace of mind. Again, this is my personal opinion and buying habits - I may be a little more apprehensive than the average guy though.

<p>

Again, good luck in your purchase. Stay in touch with us all. Send some cycling pics to cyclingshots.com (via email) and I'll be sure and post them!

<p>

Cheers,

<p>

Eric</br>

<a href="http://cyclingshots.blogspot.com">cyclingshots.com</a>

[debsilbert]

Thanks, again, Eric. With the $100 Canon rebate ongoing for the Digital Rebel XT I am very pleased with the $649 price so am going to place my purchase wth B&H this week.

 

I purchased Bryan Peterson's Understanding Exposure book last night and am immensely enjoying that read. I also picked up the Canon Digital Rebel XT "Field Guide." Pretty popular camera for their to be a book especially for it.

 

Thanks for the advice about the stock lens. I am looking for an everyday lens with a bit of a zoom beyond what's on my point and shoot digital and am wondering how that stock lens will fare. I'll read up on that in the lens area of Bryan's book.

 

We have Bike Virginia the 23rd of June, but I have the dilemma of being a rider and no way to transport the camera equipment. It's a five-day tour and your luggage is "loaded" onto a truck and transported from one stop to the next. I'm already contemplating a camera pack on the rack on the back of my recumbent. Yeap, I'm a crazy recumbent rider. ;-) I will be sure to share pictures as I get going. This will be my "purchasing" week.

 

Thanks again, Eric! I will be a frequent visitor to Cyclingshots!

[ken munn]

It's a while since I've shot cyclng - when I did I used my 80-200 f2.8L on film 90% of the

time. It depends how close you can get (road racing = pretty close). The XT equivalent to the

80-200 would be about 50-125 (or 45-125 in the more modern 70-200 parlance) because

of the crop factor. Strangely, neither Canon nor the 3rd parties seem to offer such a lens.

Maybe digital owners are expected to stand further back?

[ericreagan]

Debbie,

<p>

One final thought. I was thumbing around online today and saw the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?link_code=ur2&tag=cyclingshots-20&camp=1789&creative=9325&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fgp%2Fproduct%2FB0007QKMSC%2Fsr%3D8-2%2Fqid%3D1150135497%2Fref%3Dpd_bbs_2%3F%255Fencoding%3DUTF8">Canon Rebel XT on Amazon.com </a> body only for $694.95 with a $100 rebate. You have to add it to your cart to see the price, but it's free shipping and $50 less than B&H on top of that. I've ordered several photo items from Amazon with nothing but good experiences and Bob Atkins also praises them. Just some more food for thought.

<p>

Cheers,

<p>

Eric</br>

<a href="http://cyclingshots.blogspot.com">cyclingshots.com</a>

[debsilbert]

Eric:

 

I guess at this point there are two considerations:

 

1) I need an "all purpose" lens that is lightweight and can meet the needs of trips to the park (macro capabilities would be nice), family events (a somewhat strong zoom would be nice). I may hold off on the "fast glass" lens until I get better with things. I just don't want to buy "body only" and end up with something I can't use until I buy the fast zoom lens. Circuit City is offering the body and 18-55mm lens for $654 (incls. 100 rebate), plus they're throwing in a 4 x 6 photo printer.

 

2) Circuit City also has an accident protection policy, covering the body for basically anytihng you can do to it as long as you can bring it -- in pieces if need be -- back to the store. That's 140 for two years. Are there other companies that offer insurance for things not covered by the warranty and accidents?

 

Deb

[ericreagan]

Debbie,

<p>

As for your all purpose lens, I like the kit lens as I'd previously mentioned. It's not a macro lens though and I don't know that I can really offer you any advice regarding macro lenses. I don't own one myself, but I do often read that the Canon 100 f/2.8 Macro is held in high regard for consumer level lenses.

<p>

The only other lens I'd consider if you're not looking at "L" glass right now is the EF-S 17-85 IS. I think it runs in the $500 range and it covers a better range than the kit lens, is a good walk around range, and has image stabilization. I think I might recommend you go with the package at Circuit City. For the price you're paying you can't go wrong with it.

<p>

As far as the extended warranty... I stay away from those for the most part. That's just my personal view. If I bought every one that I was offered I would've spent thousands of dollars on nothing. I know I said I was risk averse, but I think they're a gimmick and a huge profit machine for electronic stores. Again, my opinion. If it gives you peace of mind, then go for it - remember, it's almost a 25% markup of your purchase price though. And the camera is warranted from Canon for a year. That's just my $.02. You spend it however you please. Also, I've heard that Mack, who offers extended warranties on camera equipment is a rip off.

<p>

Cheers,

<p>

Eric</br>

<a href="http://cyclingshots.blogspot.com">cyclingshots.com</a>