mark_stevens9

<p>If you are going to replace the kit lens, make a step-up that makes a difference.<br>

I would agree with using a 3rd party lens. They are a great value and in some cases exceed Canon in quality. I have both a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 and a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 for general purpose use and have no complaints about their performance. I would also agree with the earlier poster about the Canon 70-200 f4.<br>

My opinion and only that of an amateur...start out with the best, fastest standard zoom you can afford and then patiently save up for an equally fast tele zoom. For wildlife, 200mm is at least a start. The bigger the better in that respect. With a long lens get as big of an aperture as you can afford. When you are trying to shoot at 200mm you'll be shooting at 1/200 sec. minimum shutter speed. Animals move, and conditions can be cloudy or near dark, so a fast lens is a must.</p>

<p>Out of the box, shooting video on the current Canons is not as easy as a dedicated video camera. Their video capability is more of a novelty at this point. Besides the manual-only focus, has anyone tried to maintain focus outdoors using the video screen? Go try it on a sunny day. You need at least an LCD loupe and a follow-focus setup to make these cameras really perform to their potential. People do it all the time but it IS an added expense. Realistically for "aunt Millie", she is better off with a dedicated video camera AND a separate DSLR (unless maybe she goes Nikon?)<br>

How fast is shooting photos going to be with the video screen? I have done it with the 7D (it can be done) but for most things I'd rather use the viewfinder. It's too slow for action shots. In my opinion it's better suited to special situations like when you need to reach over a crowd or when putting the camera on the ground to compose a shot. Yeah maybe the 60D would be good at that but again, it's not my cup of tea for 98% of shots.<br>

The bottom line is I like my 7D because of the superior focusing system, faster framerate, dual processors, rugged construction, and larger viewfinder.<br>

It is rated for 50% more actuations than the 60D as well so I guess you get what you pay for.</p>

<p>I just don't read CR. It's only a single source, and the internet is free and full of many sources of pro AND user reviews. I read a great deal online when getting ready to make a big purchase. Almost always a general consensus emerges, and after considering MY wants/needs and resources, I make the purchase. That has yet to steer me wrong be it cameras, computers, or even cars.<br>

The 7D IS hands down better in so many ways to the 60D. And it should be for the price. CR is full of manure.</p>

<p>I recently shot my first, (a renewal) for family and worked my butt off. I could have done a little better in my opinion, but I had some decent keepers too. Nothing art gallery quality, but definitely some worthy of enlargement. They were absolutely thrilled with the results. I wouldn't think of sitting down and pointing out my percieved faults in each pic. Instead, I'm going to let them enjoy the pictures.<br>

If you have to point out the problems to them, then maybe it isn't really a problem.</p>

<p>I used an XTi for a couple of years and it underexposed for me much of the time. Google it. My histograms trended to the dark side. I'm talking about a fairly smooth curve shoved to one side. Tricky for any meter is a scene with both very dark and very light objects, but in the second pic the flat stone (ground) even looks a tad dark to me.<br>

I had occasion to pick up a friend's XS and shoot a few pics with it. Instantly I noticed how much more even the exposure looked in the viewfinder than my XTi. In fact, it made me jealous until I got my 7D.<br>

With the 7D it is so much easier to get proper exposure. I hardly ever have to adjust levels now. I ended up shooting in RAW with the XTi and fixing exposure as much as I could before converting to jpg. Using AE lock helps. Meter on something that is neutral (neither darkest or brightest) and that will give you a fighting chance (makes any camera perform better).</p>

<p>I've paid for haste and laziness. "I can always take another one with digital" right? I have gone back and looked at film shots I did 25 years ago when I was a pup, and many were framed very nicely. It reminded me of having limited funds, a borrowed camera, and a finite number of exposures to take (few rolls of film). I was very careful since it cost to get even the bad shots developed, and I wanted all of them to be interesting and well done. In fact, after going to digital I had to change the thought process because I was not taking many shots, and I had to remind myself that it's ok to take a backup shot or two or three. Then I went too far the other way and took too many useless shots.<br>

I've gone full circle now because it's not fun to sit and fix dumb mistakes, (some of which cannot be fixed). I am slowing down more these days, checking exposure, carefully framing, checking camera settings, and enjoying the use of Photoshop for minor fixes and more artful pursuits.<br>

My goal is to combine a careful eye WITH the tech that is available, and not try and compensate for my bad behavior with a big memory card full of pics I'll toss out. I want to use the big memory card for more keepers!</p>

<p>Starting out with only a 50mm prime lens on a crop sensor camera yields some great pics but it does have limitations (effective 80mm). Want to take a group shot of friends? Stand waaay back. If you are in a small room, forget it. Just for more usability, I would start with a standard zoom, then add a prime later. IQ is great but if you can't get the shot it won't help much.</p>

<p>You should consider a 70-200 f2.8. It's a nice thing to have in the bag. The only advantage I see with the f4 version is it's smaller and lighter.<br>

For portraits, it looks like you've got some great equipment to work with already.</p>

 

<p>I'm so glad to find this thread! I have gotten so frustrated with trying to use a conventional camera strap (particularly in portrait orientation) that I have no strap at all on my camera at the moment.</p>

<p>Or you could stand further back from the foreground subject and zoom in to re-frame the same scene.</p>

<p>The 7D is supposed to have much better AF and it has a bigger viewfinder. Wouldn't it be superior for moving subjects? I am seriously considering buying one, and not just for the above but for all kinds of shots. Is the AF noticeably better than the 50D? On paper it sure seems to be so. I already have f2.8 and faster lenses.<br>

I agree with some of the other posters here about the 50D, especially since he has no lenses to work with yet. It seems to me that it would be counter-productive to have a nice camera body with a lens that doesn't measure up to its capabilities.</p>

<p>Sorry to hear about you getting ripped off...that's so frustrating. If you are going to use a crop sensor camera as an experienced photographer, would you be happy with the features of consumer camera? You could even buy a 50D until you get another FF. Then you would have a nice quality backup body.</p>

<p>I have used everything from a kit lens to 3rd party to an L lens on my consumer Canon body, and have gotten keepers and bad shots from all. I eventually learned to figure out why, too. It has always been either technique or situations where any AF system would have problems.<br>

There is a reason that the more expensive lens have full time manual focusing. I'm just an amateur and I know a that our equipment is not perfect, requiring user intervention from time to time. The best eqiuipment is between our ears.</p>

 

<p>For general purpose, an 18-55mm kit lens is good as long as you have plenty of light. The kit lenses aren't fast but they are economical. You can get good results, especially outside (personally I hated my kit lens indoors, however IS versions are better).<br>

If you plan to get serious and use your Rebel to it's fullest capabilities, then you will eventually want to shelve the kit lens, and opt for something with a big aperture. It's like any other hobby. The more you get into it the thinner your wallet gets (in a hurry).<br>

As Robert said, the 50mm or 85mm prime lens are great. They won't zoom so you have to take some steps forward or back. Personally, I use an 18-50 f2.8 for general purpose, reach for my 50mm prime or 70-200 f2.8 for portraits. </p>

<p>As a "four-eyed" shooter, I agree that manual focusing is difficult, and even checking auto-focusing can be touchy at times. I plan on upgrading soon to a 7D. One great bonus (among many) is that it has a bigger viewfinder. I tried out my friend's 7D and the difference in size is amazing from the Rebel series.<br>

I did not try it out but wonder if the "Live View" function might be of help to some people, too?</p>

 

<p>With any expensive purchase I have always asked myself, "What am I trying to do?" I love my toys, but the tightwad in me also has to justify each purchase in regard to what it can do for me.<br>

I don't think a novice should go out and buy a bag full of lenses until there is a specific need they need to fill. With experience they will make better choices, because they will know which questions to ask.</p>

<p>Popular Mechanics has an article in their August 2010 magazine regarding this subject. I was glad to see that it was written in favor of photographers. It quotes an attorney who states that neither the Patriot Act nor the Homeland Security Act have laws restricting photographers. It also points out that we may be safer with more cameras around, since it would give the general public a greater chance of capturing something beneficial to law enforcement.<br>

As good as small cameras are these days, if someone wanted to photograph a prohibited subject, they could do it undetected anyway. It seems fairly pointless to stop someone who is being obvious about it.</p>

<p>Sometimes I just want to document and tell a story. Other times, the artsy part of me comes out more and I explore that. But there is rarely a time when I don't want to be capturing something. My wife and I go for evening walks often, and I always bring the camera bag. Sometimes it doesn't come out of the bag, but occasionally I see something cool to shoot and I get a nice keeper. Photography is something I just HAVE to do, and it's become part of who I am more and more. <br>

I am always looking to express something in a unique way, while documenting everyday life. When I get in a slump I go out in the yard and shoot bugs, or try to capture something around the house in an unusual way. The fun and challenging part to me is to get the capture "just right" technically, while creating something beyond the typical dull snapshot.</p>

<p>Look at it this way...you were once satisfied to get $1350 for the lens. It was only after you saw the chance to make even more that you had doubts.</p>

<p>Unless your in a hurry to make the shot, you don't have to crop your pics. Just lock focus and recompose the scene.</p>

<p>David, I have to disagree...a monopod is very useful in the right situations. It takes some technique but you can pull off some pretty slow shutter speeds. They are indispensible in sports photography.<br>

Besides, monopods are much lighter and easier to carry around and set up. In a situation where it's impractical to carry a tripod, I would at least rather have the monopod than nothing. They both have their place. It's much nicer when shooting with a long lens and it's sitting on the tripod ring, vs. trying to balance it handheld.<br>

One exception is the monpod that sprouts the 3 small legs so it will stay upright. With their instability, I can't think of one good reason to have one of those. Just my opinion.</p>

<p>I agree with the "practice" school of thought, because many times you won't be able to stop and figure out distances. Reading about it gives you a basic understanding and place to start.</p>

<p>"We are writing to let you know that the item about which you inquired is <br />permanently out of stock. We hope to have the item in stock again soon."<br>

That was funny! I had a good laugh out of that.<br>

Anyway, Walmart is what it is. I don't work with film anymore but if I did, my first call would be to a*real* camera shop, and I'd get their recommendation on processing. The right person might tell you more than you'd ever need to know. Those guys are a wealth of knowledge. You will never get that kind of expertise at Walmart...ever. Thank goodness for the pro shops.</p>

 

<p>You could always rent a 70-200 f2.8 or whatever you like, and then you'll have what you need.<br>

For the areas where you are going a wide angle is going to be your friend. I agree with others here that 300mm is a bit too much unless you catch some wildlife, or just the right composition comes up. I'd default to a 70-200 since it is so versatile, especially if you don't want to switch lenses.<br>

I've been to Grand Canyon, Page, Lake Powell, and I use a crop sensor camera, so that's my frame of reference. I've heard that the star-gazing is good there in Utah, so you may want to get some night shots too.<br>

We stopped in Tuba City, Az once not knowing anything about it. The wind was swirling around and blowing sand in Arizona at the time, and that little town had more than its share of dust. We stopped at a KFC there and sand was literally piling up in front of the door. We turned around, and kept driving until we got to Page, lol.</p>

<p>I'm using Rilex and Hoya and have no complaints. I once tried one of those cheap filters from a popular chain store and it had a magenta cast to it I could easily see. I DID see issues with that one, and stopped using it.<br>

The ones I use now have no discernable color tint. I think that in terms of image quality, having a dirty lens or forgetting to use the hood is going to be more of an issue than adding a quality filter to the front.<br>

The bottom line is: if you're gonna use filters, then for goodness sakes get quality ones.</p>