trothwell

Right, see, people on the street are more likely to confuse the black Rebel XT for a 20D (or even 5D), and thus be totally impressed with your purchasing decision, whereas EVERYONE has a Rebel XT, and it's nowhere near as awe-inspiring. :-)

Alexander: I took <a href="http://www.trevisrothwell.com/photography/20051029-nature-

photos/viewer?pid=IMG_1357.JPG">this photo</a> using the <a href="http://

www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?

O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=169267&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

">Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III</a>... pretty much the least expensive telephoto zoom

lens you can get. No IS, no USM, no L's. I thought it wasn't half-bad for such an inexpensive

lens, although it may not focus well enough for birds in flight. Haven't really tried that much.

Hmmmm... looks full-frame to me! :-) :-)

<div></div>

Taylor: take a lot of pictures! I wish I would have gotten into photography while I was in

college; there were a lot more interesting things to take pictures of on a daily basis on

campus than there are in the suburbs. :-)

 

Other than that, I too really think you should go for the 50mm 1.8 lens. The difference in

what kind of pictures you can get with that vs. your kit lens is remarkable, and, depending

on the situation, I find it easier to put a single prime lens on my camera and take pictures

with it than figure out which focal length to use on a zoom.

 

If cash is sufficiently tight, buy the tripod before the remote; you can get acceptable use of

the tripod without a remote, but probably not as much use of the remote without the

tripod. (YMMV, I personally don't tend to use filters for protective purposes very much,

but there are a lot of people who do. I do find a circular polarizing filter useful, though,

because it can help to get better color saturation in ways that are hard if not impossible to

do in post-production.)

<div></div>

In the nonprofessional eyes of a humble software engineer...

 

<p>

When I first saw Paul Gribble's film example, my thought was, "Wow, that looks nice." The

other portraits are also very good, but there's something about his that I find much more

aesthetically pleasing. Is it the film? Could be.

 

<p>

The difference might be something like CDs (or MP3 files now) vs. vinyl records. The CDs

are digital, pristine, and technically better sounding... but some people still prefer listing

to the records. Looking at the samples here, I see much more technical perfection in the

digital portraits (and there's certainly a place for that -- the digital crop of the eye is

stunning), but much more art and warmth in the film portrait.

 

<p>

Ah, well, back to my programming... I need to write a few lines of code to earn my two

cents back. :-) I do both film and digital, by the way. I would probably ditch the digital

altogether if I could have infinite film exposures on a memory card, and a roll-of-film to

USB cable...

Adam: I have some <a href="http://www.clearps.com/tjr/photography/fisheye-

experiments/">sample photos</a> taken with the 350d and the Canon 15mm fisheye. It's

kind of disappointing as a fisheye lens on this camera, with the 1.6 crop knocking off so

much of the "fishiness", but there's still some there.

The 15mm is a lot of fun, but doesn't seem to be very useful for most photography that I

do. My guess is that it's not very useful for most photography that ANYONE does, but I

still enjoy it. :-) It's nifty.

 

<p>

On a more practical note, you might also consider the Canon 20mm f/2.8 lens. It's not "L"

quality, but it is USM, and can take some decent pictures. <a href="http://

www.clearps.com/tjr/photography/20051126-mt-vernon/">All of these</a> were taken

with this lens, and a circular polarizer filter. I've heard some people express

dissatisfaction with this lens, but for me (a software engineer and hobbyiest photographer)

it's good enough.

 

<p>

(Sorry, don't have any full-frame shots with the 20mm lens yet.)

Mark: can you post some sample comparison photos? I also have a RebelXT, and have been

contemplating getting the 5D. I would like to see what kind of difference to expect.

A <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?

O=NavBar&A=search&Q=&ci=448">photo vest</a>?

Thank you for all of the responses! ("Investment" was meant to indicate finding it valuable for my own use, not for financial return later on; sorry for the confusion.)

 

> You say you are a novice. In that case (and no

> offense meant) you will probably not need all

> the stuff a 3 can do anyway.

 

No offense taken. I hope to not be a novice forever, and perhaps someday the extra features will prove useful to me! :-) The main feature that makes me consider the EOS 3 over one of the other models is the supposedly weather-resistant exterior. But, just as I only want extra-wide angle capability about 15% of the time, I probably only want weather resistance about 1% of the time. I shall more seriously consider the other less-expensive options before making a purchase though. Thanks again!

I am a relatively novice photographer, using a Digital Rebel XT. I'm a software engineer by

trade, but have found photography to be a delightful hobby after picking up the DSLR

camera for a website project.

 

<p>

Anyway. The Digital Rebel has so far been a great camera for me; it seems to handle

about 85% of what I want it to do. For the remaining 15%, I'm wanting to get wider-angle

shots with my EF lenses (17-40mm, 15mm fisheye... 14mm L eventually. Don't really

want to get EF-S lenses, as I want maximum compatibility later on, although I know you

could argue either side of the matter with gusto.)

 

<p>

My original plan was to use the Digital Rebel for a while longer, to get plenty of good use

out of it, and buy a 5D, but I got to thinking: do I really need to spend $3200 just to get

that additional 15% worth of desired usage? If I'm mostly happy with the Rebel, the cost of

the 5D might be too much waste for me. I wondered if it would be more to my advantage

to get a reasonably nice film body, like the EOS 3, and use that when I want full-frame

shots. I wouldn't mind dealing with film for 15% of my photos, and I don't expect the

extra costs of film to overshadow the cost of the 5D for two or three years, based on my

current rate of photo consumption.

 

<p>

<b>So my question is</b>: would this be a viable route to take? Is there any reason, in

this world of digital toaster ovens and RFID jelly beans, to believe that the EOS 3 (or any

decent film body) will be a bad investment?

 

<p>

Pardon my novice point of view, but I do not want to wake up this time next year to find

no more 35mm film to be had, and film development shops banished to bad locations in

obscure strip malls with a tavern at one end, an exercise club at the other, and a series of

failed skinless fried chicken restaurants somewhere in between.

...in fact, B&H shows them in stock on their web site right now!

I got on the B&H mailing list for the 35mm f/1.4L about three or four weeks ago, and

received an email about a week or two later stating that they had the lens in stock. Indeed,

their web site showed that this was the case.

 

I did not place an order for one, and now they are out of stock again. If the mailing list isn't

being beneficial for you, you might just want to check every day on their web site.

If the return policy will allow for this, since you've already ordered, you might as well try it

out and see how you like it. Maybe you can find a local 85mm f/1.8 that you can borrow/

rent and compare the two, to see if you think it's worth spending extra for the f/1.2.

I have the 350D, and use the 17-40 on it. I'm happy with the zoom range (something like

26-60 with the 1.6x) as a multi-purpose walkaround lens. I would kind of like to get the

10-22 as a more wide-angle lens, but I am planning on getting either the 5D or the

potentially full(er)-frame camera that Canon may or may not introduce in Februrary, and I

don't want to get the 10-22 at this point if I won't be able to use it on my next camera.

 

The only thing that I don't like about the 17-40 is that it can be too slow (f4) for using

indoors without a flash. But most of my photography tends to be outdoors in daylight, so

that's not a big problem for me.

 

(On a side note, the 17-40 _does_ make your camera look cool.) :-) :-)

I took this with the Canon 20mm (and a circular polarizer filter) on a 350D:

 

<p>

<a href="http://www.clearps.com/tjr/photography/20051111-st-louis/viewer.php?

pid=20051111-

st-louis-001.jpg">20051111-st-louis-001.jpg</a>

 

<p>

I personally don't see any light fall-off, although, of course, it may be different on a FF

camera.

I just got a 50mm f/1.4 from B&H yesterday. Haven't had a lot of time to play with it yet, but so far I'm impressed with how you can make use of <a href="http://www.clearps.com/tjr/photography/misc-photos/viewer.php?pid=chesspieces.JPG">

shallow depth of focus</a>. It does seem kinda fuzzy even for what's in focus, but I don't think it's too bad. Depends on what kind of shot you're after, I guess.

The 18-55 doesn't seem necessarily bad, but, as a beginner, I found it much easier to take

interesting / nice-looking shots with a better lens. This probably means that I have more to

learn, in order to make the most of the 18-55, but since photography is a hobby for me, for

which I do not have a lot of time to take pictures, it seems better for me to use nicer lenses.<div></div>

Hello, Simon!

 

<p>

I was in a similar situation a couple of months ago. I was working on a web site project,

and needed some photographs of my city. I got a 2.1 MP Hewlett-Packard digital camera a

few years ago, which was perfectly fine for taking a few snapshots here and there. But I

decided that I wanted to move up to something nicer.

 

<p>

Not being a "real photographer", I didn't know if the seemingly steep price for the 350D

would be worth it or not, but I finally decided to buy one.

 

<p>

Since then, photography has become one of my favorite pass-times. I didn't really expect

to enjoy it as much as I do, and I credit this enjoyment mostly to getting the 350D, with

which I can take much better pictures than I could with my little HP camera. I kind of wish

now that I had splurged for the 20D, but oh well -- I'll use this for quite some time, and

then upgrade to the 5D or something. :-)

 

<p>

But, the standard lens that comes with it isn't anything to write home about. At first I was

kind of disappointed when I saw that the pictures taken with it didn't seem much better

than those taken with my HP. But, well, one of the reasons I got the 350D was so I could

get a telephoto lens. When I got that, my eyes started opening to things like aperture (no

pun intended) and what affect that has on photos.

 

<p>

If there was any doubt left in my mind that this was a good camera for me, that was gone

when I took some test photos with a 50mm prime lens. I was very impressed. I didn't

think I could take pictures that good! And the only thing I changed was the lens!

 

<p>

The 350D may not be the choice of a professional photographer, but if you're wanting to

get a better idea what more serious photography is like, this seems to me to be an

excellent choice. (But replace that kit lens as soon as you can!... or don't even buy that

lens in the first place!...) :-)