Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT

New Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT Announced! John Vitollo - 07:33pm Feb 16,
2005 Pacific Here's the upgrade to the Digital Rebel: <http://www.pma-show.com/review/canon/001_EOS_digital_rebel_xt.html>
Looks pretty sweet.




I dug this out of the archives, but it's a read only thread. I would like to revive the conversation, because I am seriously thinking of buying one of these.

Now that it has been on the market for a few months, can anyone share their opinions of it? Likes, dislikes. It would also be great to hear from someone who has one and what you think.

I'm going to be moving up from a Kodak CX7530 point and shoot. I would like a regular lens, a telephoto or zoom lens, and a macro lens.

I don't own a digital camera but from what I see of your work I would say this is a good move for you.

Thank you Wade, I'm hoping it will be a good move. Of course, I'm already spending money I don't have yet, but I'm working on a 200-page book right now, and I will be getting paid in the next 2-3 weeks. So I still have a little time to try things out, research, etc.

Cathleen
My brother uses that and is very pleased with it. He's sent me a few jpegs that look quite nice. I can't say how it would compare to a 20D, but he is pleased so I'll pass that along.
Have you looked at any of the online reviews?

Also, depending on your budget, you can get good coverage with the 28-135 and 70-200 zooms. If you have enough budget, the L-series glass is very good. The 70-200 is L series and comes in two speeds. Both have Image Stabilization as does the 28-135. Since most of what I do is mounted on a tripod the IS isn't a big deal, but if you do any action photography like kids' sports or local news type stuff it'll come in handy. Or if you like to pan with wildlife it's good also.

Also, depending on your budget, you can get good coverage with the 28-135 and 70-200 zooms. If you have enough budget, the L-series glass is very good. The 70-200 is L series and comes in two speeds. Both have Image Stabilization as does the 28-135. Since most of what I do is mounted on a tripod the IS isn't a big deal, but if you do any action photography like kids' sports or local news type stuff it'll come in handy. Or if you like to pan with wildlife it's good also. The 100 macro is an excellent lens.

Personally I have always considered the "Rebel" series, film and digital, not good for reasons of quality (as well as ergonomics, but ergonomics are solely a matter of individual preference based hands-on testing). However I have no specific experience with the XT. My preferences are the Canon 10D & 20D and the Nikon D70s & D50.

have you looked at any of the online reviews?




Not yet, but this months MacWorld puts the Rebel XT at the top (of the ones they reviewed, anyway).

but if you do any action photography like kids' sports or local news type
stuff it'll come in handy. Or if you like to pan with wildlife it's good
also.




Yes, that's what I will be using it for.

My preferences are the Canon 10D & 20D and the Nikon D70s & D50.




I will certainly have a look at those, too. When you say "not good for reason of quality", do you mean the quality of the camera itself, as in it looks and/or feels cheap?

I know I have read a lot of comments and discussions here about various cameras. On my list of research is to also go through the archives here and re-read threads about various camera models.

I've seen some photos from the Rebel XT and was impressed. I think they were John V's.

Here's a thought,
The original Didital Rebel 300 is still around, and very cheap new.An excellent 6mp camera. Save your money on the body, spend the diff. on glass, wait/save for the 20d replacement.

Good idea Barry

There are rumors going around (I'll post a link at the end of this post) to the effect that a new 13 megapixel Canon 5D is about to start shipping this month. For several reasons, I'm inclined to believe it's a hoax.

This link downloads a three-page PDF document ostensibly from Canon. The first page is in Spanish, but the other two contain the tech specs in English:

<http://alex.netfun.ro/Canon5D-specs.pdf>

(Note the domain: "netfun" in Romania.)

Ramón, That sounds quite interesting. I assume you mean the timing is a hoax and not the camera. I wonder what kind of price tag it will have.

Interesting, the 20d prices have been falling dramatically as of late. Hmmm!

Maybe the 20D will end up being my backup camera. :)

Linda,

Methinks the whole thing is a hoax.

That thought crossed my mind as soon as I began reading the first page in Spanish:

"Fecha de embargo" (Date of legal seizure), as opposed to the correct "Fecha de embarque" (shipping date).

Also, if you look at the PDF's properties, you'll find the title as "Slide 1", the author as "Jim Bowes"; Subject = version 0.2; Application PDFMaker 7.0 for PowerPoint; No security settings whatsoever, Changing of the document is allowed; Company - cayenne communications [sic, all lower case]; Manager = Mariska van Geel; etc. …

Cathleen, the Digital Rebel 300D (predecessor to the XT) is what I have been using for around 21 months now. The Rebel series is at the bottom end of the Canon DSLR line (read "plastic"). Having said that, my camera has performed admirably, any any "impression" of cheapness has LONG been forgotten. BTW, I have used Hasselblad, Nikon, Leica, Olympus and Linhof film cameras, so I do know what quality feels like. As far as picture-taking performance, I would say that the 300D's weakest suit is reportage/sports/action. It's most annoying attribute to me is the viewfinder, which is smaller and darker than a regular 35mm camera.

As far as lenses, this will depend on the subjects you wish to take. For landscapes, look for something that is at most 17 or 18mm at the wide end. I use the Canon 17-40 F4L, a premium-price choice. The less-expensive 17-85mm IS and even the economy 18-55mm kit lens have their adherents, but these choices also come a few more tradeoffs.

For a true macro lens, I would recommend looking at something in the 90-100mm range for working distance. I use the Tamron 90mm because it is much cheaper in Canada. The Canon 100mm macro is superb, of course, and the Sigma 105 is also a fine choice. Try one out to decide if you really need a lens that will focus as close as 1:1. Some other "general" lenses will focus as close as 1:4, and you can also think about close-up filters and extension tubes, though these are less convenient.

Telephoto zoom lenses run the gamut. Suffice it to say that faster speed, sharper optics and higher magnification go hand in hand with rapid increases in size, weight and cost. The Canon 70-200mm F4L is a very popular, but "upscale" choice for general telephoto use. The Canon 55-200mm F4.5-5.6 is a budget choice that is often overlooked, but is actually a pretty good performer. I use a Sigma 55-200 F4-5.6 that is DIRT CHEAP, has suprisingly good optics, but somewhat poorer auto-focus. If birds/wildlife is truly your game, I don't think 200mm cuts it at all. Look LONG and fast and be prepared for sticker shock.

this months MacWorld puts the Rebel XT at the top




MacWorld is a computer mag. If magazines were to sway my decisions, I'd at least look at a photography mag for hopefully more properly formed opinions, being that the thing is primarily a camera and not a computer... :-)

JNB, thanks for your suggestions. I'm writing everyones recommendations down so when it comes time to look, I can weigh what everyone said and hopefully make a decent choice.

I seemed to remember something in a thread about the Rebel looking cheap and plastic-y. You seem to post some pretty awesome (I'm not afraid to use that word) photos, so...

Fred-I agree. And it was being to compared to an Olympus Evolt E-300 and a Pentax ist DS, neither of which I have heard anyone mention here on this forum. I am just beginning the search and research, though, so I'll be sure to check out the photography mags, too.

As I said I don't own a digital camera but I would do what you are doing take it slow and keep looking at the reviews and other people's experience. It is always enticing to want to have the best right away but as you don't know where it will lead you should take it all with that consideration in mind. Don't run and buy thousands and thousands of dollars just to have what some would consider a must have.

JNB does very well with his Rebel while others do very well with their equipment.
Keep in mind some of these people a equipment crazy!

Keep in mind some of these people a equipment crazy!




I noticed that! I have a tendency, when starting new things, to buy on the conservative side until I see if it will pay for itself. One can always upgrade to the biggest and best.

Keep in mind some of these people a equipment crazy!




<pointing to everyone else> Who's equipment crazy? </pointing to everyone else> :)

:D

Regarding

wait/save for the 20d replacement.




The 20D is an excellent modern DSLR and there is no reason to necessarily wait for a replacement. However the $2000 price point is empty right now so Nikon (D200?) and/or Canon are IMO likely to create a camera near that price point soon. It sounds, however that you are looking at the lower price points. Hence the cameras I mentioned.

Regarding

lenses




Buy only lenses made by the camera manufacturer. Although third party lenses can be excellent lenses, they will not function properly with all aspects of a given Nikon/Canon DSLR system over time and future DSLRs.

To the extent that you buy better lenses you will have them for a lifetime. Less good lenses will end up being upgraded if you stay in photography.

Regarding

reviews




There is very little dissonant information published in reviews. Magazines will not offend advertisers and online reviewers want to keep getting cameras from manufacturers to review. Reviews are mostly good for understanding features, specs and operation of cameras. Camera reviews in non-camera publications are usually ludicrous.

Buy only lenses made by the camera manufacturer.




Good tip.

Cathleen,

If you were to aim for these 3 lenses you would have a really good start:

- 70-200 4/L
- 17-40 4/L
- 50mm 1.8 or 1.4

Faster lenses are very expensive but these first 2 L lenses are the best in their cost range. Both between $550 - $650 range

Thanks Cindy!

The 350D has some very good features - it has most of the bells and whistles and controls and a prety similar sensor (in terms of high ISO noise levels) to the 20D. Whereas the 300D is limited in a few ways that made it not a choice for me - although there are firmware hacks that open up these abilities to a large extent. The downside of a 350D for me - I don't like the size of it - it's very small and doesn't balance well in my hands (I've got large hands for a female!). The build quality isn't a major issue unless you really treat things roughly - and if you take a serious quantity of photos as I would guess the expected shutter life would be lower than that of the 20D.
I bought a 20D as the 350D wasn't available then - but I'd have had a tough decision if it had been as the 350D can do pretty much everything that I need it to.

Lenses - it depends a lot on the budget. You can spend silly amounts of money (I've spent more than I considered reasonable already and I only have three lenses). I started off with the 17-85IS - which isn't cheap, but covers a good range, the image stabilisation is very useful, and has reasonable quality - the longer end of the zoom is really excellent but it is not as good by a long way as the 17-40L at 17mm. I use the 40-85 range such a lot that I wouldn't be without it, but for landscapes and architecture the 17-40 f4L would be better (and it's not hugely more expensive in the US). As for longer lenses, I was in the end unimpressed by the quality of consumer telephoto zooms and bought the 70-200f4L after trying out a second hand EF90-300 to see what range I took most of the shots in. It's not long enough for serious birding (neither was 300mm)- I use it mainly for kid's sport and portraits, dogs and cats and with the aid of screw in close up filters, macro-ish shots. It's a glorious lens to use. I just wish it had IS - I tend to use it with a monopod as a focal length of 200mm is hard for me to hold still.

I've abandoned for now the idea of getting a lens for serious bird pictures (I'll stick to watching them!)- I simply can't afford what I'd need, which is a reasonably fast long telephoto (at least 400mm). Not only are those beasts hideously expensive, they are very very heavy and take a great deal of practice and decent support equipment (tripods, monopods and associated gadgetry) to use effectively.

I may get a decent macro lens at some point, but I get quite good closeups of flowers with the 70-200 and a close up filter - not perfect but good enouugh for me for now, and it's one less lens to carry around. I also have the 50mm f1.8 as a low light lens (which is very cheap but has decent optics even if it feels like it would fall apart if you said boo to it).

Don't forget to think about the cost of the extras in your budget - compact flash cards, maybe a spare battery, a decent bag, a flash if you want; tripod, monopod, etc etc etc -

…And it was being to compared to an [xxxxxxx] and a Pentax ist DS, neither
of which I have heard anyone mention here on this forum.




Let me chime in on the Pentax DSLRs.

I have the Pentax *istD, which uses the same sensor as the Nikon D100. I would not recommend either the Pentax *istDS or the *istDL to anyone who is not simply looking for a camera body to play with his/her existing Pentax and Pentax-compatible lenses and who is interested in maximum control over his/her photography.

The *istD was a no brainer for me and it has proven to be one of the best camera purchases I've made in the last six decades or so.

I say it was a no brainer because I already had a whole bunch of lenses (about three dozen of them) to use with it. But I also borrowed, rented or at least tested a bunch of other DSLRs, including Nikon, before settling on the *istD. And I do own some Nikon glass and camera bodies.

Ergonomically, it's hard to beat the *istD. It was the smallest DSLR ever when it came out (the DS and DL are smaller now), and with the battery grip I have an extra shutter and control button so I don't have to change the position of my hands when shooting in portrait format, which is the majority of the time for me.

Where the Pentax *istD leaves all other DSLRs in the dust is the viewfinder. Especially compared to those dim tunnels that Canon and Nikon euphemistically call a viewfinder in their DSLRs, the *istD is a joy to use. This is especially critical to me because I extremely seldom use autofocus, even when using AF lenses.

The Pentax *istD also had all the features that are important to me, such as true mirror-lockup for shooting, PC Sync contacts, remote flash, infrared remote control, etc. It also has more settings accessible by way of external buttons and switches than most other DSLRs that force you to set most things through a menu (that's ugly!). Of course, the Pentax *istD also uses menus for a number of things; it just has a lot more feature available through buttons than other DSLRs.

It also happens to be very solidly built, on all-metal frame. Yet, it's lighter than Canon or Nikon models.

The sensitivity range of the Pentax *istD is ISO 200- IS0 3200. The reason Pentax decided to forego ISO 100 is because, with its sensor, there was absolutely no increased noise at 200 over 100. Sometimes, rarely, I use an ND filter if I want a longer exposure.

Nikon and Canon lenses are excellent in their medium and high price ranges, but the cheaper kit lenses and less expensive lines are of better quality in the Pentax line than comparable Canon or Nikon lenses. (Keep in mind that I'm only referring to entry-level lenses.)

Sure, Pentax does not offer IS or AS lenses, but I have been using image-stabilization anti-shake devices for many decades. They're called tripods.

Pentax is one of the very few manufacturers that are fully cooperating with Adobe in connection with Adobe Camera Raw, as Thomas Knoll has pointed out. ACR does a FANTASTIC job on RAW ".PEF" images from the Pentax *istD! Canon and Nikon are not being cooperative with Adobe at all.

In contrast to the Pentax *istD, the *istDS and the *istDL are stripped-down, cheaper models that lack external flash connections and include consumer-oriented shooting modes like, "portrait", "landscape", "sports" and the like. There's no bottom grip available for any of the two cheaper models. They also use SD cards instead of CompactFlash cards. They are meant for a different market, that's all.

Now, a successor to the Pentax *istD has already been announced for "later this year" and I'm eagerly awaiting its release.

Pentax has already announced a full-frame Kodak sensor model built around their medium-format 645 (4.5x6) camera and that will be most welcome news for those of us who also have a lineup of Pentax 645 lenses. It won't be cheap, though.

Recapping: the Pentax *istD is a great camera.

On the other hand, I would not recommend the DS or the DL in the context of someone who is looking to upgrade to a more pro-oriented camera. The *istDs has been wildly successful, though. It even outsold Canon and Nikon in Japan during the last Xmas selling season. Its success has pushed the price of used Pentax prime lenses through the roof. Second-hand prime Pentax lenses that could be bought on eBay for under $100 are now selling for $800, $1,500 and even more.

> RC: Its success has pushed the price of used Pentax prime lenses through
the roof.




Those lenses are also being bolted onto Canon and Nikon DSLRs via adapters. Zeiss/Contax/Leica lenses are also eagerly sought, especially by those seeking wide primes for a "crop factor" camera, even when the compromise includes the loss of auto-focus and, in many cases, loss of automatic aperture stop-down.

Leica lenses need an optical adapter to work on other bodies, otherwise they will not focus to infinity and even middle and long distances. at least the rangefinder Leica lenses, and that degrades the image considerably. But they can be used for macrophotography with bellows or extension rings without the need for additional corrective glass.

Even so, Zeiss and Leica lenses have not gone up quite as fast as the Pentax primes in the last two years or so. They were expensive to begin with. But would you believe $1,850 for a fully manual 85mm Pentax lens that was selling for $250 in late 2003?

Ramon, the Leica lenses I've seen adapted have been the R (SLR) rather than M. The M-series body/lens configuration seems to be the one of the main reasons that Leica has not released an M-like digital.

As for the Pentax manual lenses, I'm entirely sure what the attraction is. As with any of the major manufacturers, there were some lenses with a real reputation for sharpness and contrast, but I wasn't aware of anything that would justify the prices you quoted.

In reference to message #4 (Stephen Gingold, "Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT" #4, 10 Aug 2005 1:40 pm </cgi-bin/webx?14@@.3bbbe50f/3>), the Canon 70-200/4 does not have Image Stablization. The 70-200/2.8 lenses do, as does the 28-135.

Doh!
Sorry about that.

EF90-300 to see what range I took most of the shots in. It's not long
enough for serious birding (neither was 300mm)




IMO 300mm when multiplied by the 1.5 Nikon focal factor or 1.6 Canon focal factor is very adequate for serious birding, since that gives a 35mm equivalence of 450-480mm. Using a good DSLR and good lens the image can also be cropped a _lot_ and still print to larger than 8x10. Key is the lens quality rather than the magnification per se. E.g. Nikon makes 300mm lenses from $300 to $4500; obviously the $4500 lens will tolerate a lot more cropping and telextending than the $300 lens will. Also, a high quality telextender can do a decent job of doubling a 300mm lens to 600mm (900mm in 35mm equivalency!).

Note that whenever we deal with long tele images lens quality becomes paramount. A good 300mm is much better than a mediocre 500mm any time. That is one of the good things about focal-multiplied DSLRs: a $3000 300mm lens functions effectively like a $6000 450mm lens, a huge savings.

Not only are those beasts hideously expensive, they are very very heavy
and take a great deal of practice and decent support equipment (tripods,
monopods and associated gadgetry) to use effectively.




Too true. And although Vibration Reduction/Image Stabilization is a great benefit for many types of tele pix, a birder can save money by buying high quality older tele lenses without the VR/IS feature if they always use quality tripods.

I have decided on the Rebel XT. I have a question about buying a lens. I can get it with an EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 lens, or I can just get the body and a different lens.

Question: I want to ease in slowly and not go hog-wild buying a bunch of lenses and stuff (like most you people do here in this forum :) )

I would like to have some telephoto/zoom capabilities. Does that lens above have any of those capabilities or would I be better off getting the canon EF 100mm f2.8 macro usm lens? And if I get this 100mm, does that mean everything is a close-up shot? Or is there something else in between the two that might be better.

I'm trying to find a middle ground using one lens for now. Or is that a bad idea? If I sound ignorant, it's because I am. Help!

The 18-55 lens is probably a good starter lens but the lens I had a ball with was the 28-135 IS lens. It is pretty sharp and has image stabilization. It served me very well for the first year I had the camera.

I also have the 100mm macro. It is a very good lens for macro, product shots and even portraits but it will not give you the same versatility.

Cathleen,my condolences on choosing canon. seriously,if you only will take an occasional close up,then canon makes an excellent screw on close up filter. the 5oo d. dare i say,i bought one for my nikon 70-200,because they make the filter in 77mm sizes. If close up work,will be done a lot,then a macro will serve you well,and it also can be used for normal shooting. If you are serious about persuing photography,my experience has been,to buy the best,because inevitably you will probably wish you had the better optics.

The lens nikon packaged with their d70 is pretty good,and i felt was a good deal,but i would never buy that lens alone.it was just two good an offer to pass on.

I am not familiar with canons lenses,but i think cindy has a good suggestion there,and i dont think canon has the multiplier effect,so it is 28-135,unless i am wrong. also,never underestimate the usefulness of a tripod. it slows you down,and helps you deliberate more closely what you want,plus the sharpness gained is desirable.

When you get a lens,test it right away,and send it back,if it is soft. i checked three lenses,when i bought my 70-200,and one was sharper than the other two,so lemons are out there. b&h is good with returns.

Good luck with whatever choice you make.

Cathleen, 55mm on an XT is like a very mild telephoto – more of a short "portrait" length, really. The 100mm macro is like a mild telephoto lens and, of course, it has very close-focusing (macro) capabilities as well.

I don't know about others, but shooting telephoto is when I appreciate the versatility of a zoom. There are two inexpensive tele-zoom candidates that you might consider. Should you decide to move up to Canon L lenses later, you won't be out of pocket a lot. And both of these lenses can render surprisingly good results.

Canon 55-200 F4.5-5.6 USM III ~ $209. <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=300600&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation>

Sigma 55-200 F4-5.6 DC ~ $159 <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=335762&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation>

The Canon auto-focuses more reliably and faster. The manual focus ring is tiny and difficult to use (similar to the 18-55 in that regard). The Sigma is a parfocal lens with a generous focus ring, so you can focus at 200mm and pull back without focus changing. The Sigma is a digital-only lens, meaning that it can't be used on a "full-frame" camera.

Cathleen,my condolences on choosing canon




Sorry, Donald. I was down to choosing between the XT and Nikon D70. Each had features the other didn't, and it was very hard choosing. I went with the rebel because it has a little higher resolution, fast processing and low noise on the higher isos. And 2 more frames in the buffer capacity. I know there are down sides too, but also with the D70. They don't make it easy to pick.

JNB-I have those lenses in my wish list.

Great Cathy! I'm excited about your new camera.

Me, too, Linda! I can't wait! I will have lots of questions, I am sure.

Cathleen , congrats to Canon choice

XT is a great camera , and beeing so much lighter then D70 will
help you taking it with you more then D70 would.

My assistent have D70 (after comparing files he wants to )
and I recently bought XT as my "pocket camera "

( I have 1Ds Mk2 and older 1DS )
IMHO Raw XT files are way better then D70 with similar optics .

That said I still have many Nikon lenses in my drawer waiting for a competitive camera .
Kit lens can vary from one to another in sharpness very much .

Hard to tell which way i would choose,if i was just getting into this. for years,nikon seemed to be everywhere,and canon was hard to find,but now i realize canon seems to be the big dog ,as far as camera companies go,and they do seem to be pushing things,but i am encouraged by nikons committment to staying in the race. we all will benefit by the competition.

Donald
I agree with you about the competition. When I got started with Canon, it was not a Canon good/Nikon bad thing. I just liked the F1n that had just been introduced. Because of the lenses I have stayed. It would appear that with professionals Nikon is a bit more popular. But Canon has a much stronger lineup of lens choices. There are lots of tests being done on various websites and in magazines and quite honestly I've never seen anything that shows one better than the other. Each has an advantage at one given time or another. Of course, the mags and sites all are looking for sponsorship so that colors the articles for sure.
As far as Cathleens choice of lenses, I personally use and would suggest the 28-135 for the reasons Cindy mentioned. But the two John suggests would be a good start also. Canon does also have the multiplication factor. I believe that any camera or most anyway that has less than a full frame image will "suffer" from the multiplication factor.

Stephen,good you mentioned that factor for her. that 28 becomes a 42?,and that aint much wide angle if she needs it. perhaps the 18-55 should be snagged. any thoughts?

I had the misunderstanding that all canon made was full frame. not sure were that idea came from though. just bad memory i guess.

Donald
If that were the case I'd be dancing in the street! I hate the multiplication factor for the reason you just stated. I do more closeup and landscape than anything else. That's the end where the"cropping" factor is a pain. I'd much rather achieve it by choice. Unfortunately, I will not be able to afford a full frame for the forseeable future. And probably not a 14mm lens either. That is almost enough to get me shooting film again. Almost.

By the way, Donald. Shouldn't you be off frolicking on vacation somewhere?

Cathleen - Again at least look at the 50mm Macro it is a great close up and infinity (and everything in between) lense.

Depending on where you see your future camera brand loyalties, Nikon has possibly one good thing going for it (seeing that it has decided to progress with the Dx format and appears to have abandoned "full-frame" sensor intentions) in that it is now building pro-quality lenses for the Dx format. The multiplication factor is thus being reduced as a perceived problem with the specifically built lenses. Canon are effectively running two formats between the pro and pro-sumer models on the other hand, so lenses might not be the best match full size to 2/3 size.

As far as Nikon is concerned, I've now come across three film lenses that perform very poorly with the Dx sensor (a Nikon 24-120G f4.5-5.6, a Sigma 28-105 f3.8-5.6 and a Sigma 18mm f3.5 prime lens, which all performed acceptably with film).

On the other hand, I've had good to superb results with the Nikon 24mm f2.8, 35-70 f2.8, 50mm f1.8, 60mm f2.8 micro, and 80-200 f2.8 on the D70s. The big surprise was the quality of the "standard" 18-70 Dx zoom. Designed for Dx, it is sharp, has good contrast and at f3.5-4.5 is reasonably fast for such a cheap lens.

In light of this, whether buying Nikon or Canon and if going for the budget end of the lens spectrum, I would definitely insist on trying the lens with the actual camera before buying if the lens is of "full-frame" design. There would appear to be less risk of poor performance if buying the top-line lenses or those specifically designed for the 2/3 size sensor, however.

In the D70 thread I discussed the case of a client's on going problem of the mismatch between her new Fuji S3 and the 24-120 Nikkor. Be wary.

Fred Nirque, "Any D70 owners?" #326, 5 Aug 2005 3:52 pm </cgi-bin/webx?14@@.3bb4937d/326>

Also I'm not beating the Nikon drum here - I bought Nikon only because of the extensive number of top-line Nikkors I already had and the fact that I still run two Nikon film cameras, which effectively ruled out any non-Nikkor fitment digital. This would not be a concern with regard to the OP.

Personally I'd get the 18-55 kit to start with - it's cheap enough and using it for a few weeks will give you an idea of what focal lengths you'd like to invest in with a better lens later... for example I knew from the previous cameras I've owned the 28-135 IS isn't wide enough for me on a camera with the 1.6 crop factor like the Canon Rebels and 20D - the 17-85IS is a better choice for me, but if you use the telephoto range more then the 28-135 might be better for you.

I'd wait a bit before investing in a macro lens - just see what the kit lens (or whatever else you get) can do, perhaps with the aid of a screw in close up filter (As Donald says, the Canon one is supposed to be very good - but even the cheap Hoya ones I have work pretty well if I use it on a sharp lens (50mm f1.8 or the 70-200f4L)) The 100mm macro is a lovely lens though - but it's pretty expensive here in Australia. I'm not sure that it would be a good choice as the only lens you have as it's a pretty long lens for a prime. I could imagine just having a 35mm or a 50mmm prime for starters, but 100mm is a bit too long.

18-55 kit




I really did not like that lens. I let it go when I sold the Rebel.

The Canon 18-55 kit lens is a dog, plain and simple. I tried it, under the best possible conditions and on a rock-solid tripod when I was borrowing a Canon body. I wonder whether Canon even manufacture that lens themselves or whether they outsource it to Cosina or the like.

Stephen, thanks a lot for getting me depressed again. i have not taken one photo all week,and did nothing but yardwork today. i am amazed how i feel lost without that digital in my bag,and just film. contemplating the cotswalds in fall possibly,and zion in november,so i hope nikon releases this d200 soon,so i can get on board. still might shoot waterfalls this weekend if i feel frisky.

I would not go wit that lens either though I had a field day with Linda when she was using it.

I told her almost immediately on seeing the first image she posted to send it back, I bet she wished she did. It was worthless.

Well, it's interesting to see a variety of poor opinions on the 18-55mm kit lens. I also didn't keep the copy I tried, but it was truly flawed. I thought it was an anomoly, particularly because I've seen comparative tests between the kit lens and others, where the 18-55 wasn't too bad at all. I guess there's tremendous variation amongst copies.

The difficulty might be in choosing an alternative. The 17-85mm IS is the "other" Canon kit lens, but it will be $520 more (!) bundled at B&H). I think both Susan and Linda have had good luck with their copies, but not everyone is a fan. The Canon 28-135mm IS has been suggested, but it leaves the wide angle end uncovered (a concern for me but maybe not for others). Another possibility is the Sigma 18-50 F2.8 EX (about $420 more for a body + Sigma vs. body/kit lens combo). 3rd party, yes. But constant f2.8, and pretty good feedback from users.

It's a tough choice. I agree with whoever said (was it Donald?) that you should "test" your lenses for obvious faults as soon as you get them. With the "kit" lens that I tried, for example, there was pronounced softness on one side with wide-open aperture, between 18mm and 24mm. The softness was gone by around 35mm and not noticeable at smaller apertures of F8 or smaller. I should note that I had a very similar experience with a Tamron 28-75mm lens (which is normally rated very highly) but the softness was on the opposite side.

FYI -
Both me and my colegue ( professional food photographer )
bought XT with dreaded kit lens .
His was really bad and mine was quite good .
( Obviously at 18-24 mm it loses on the edges , much better on longer settings )

I have a 35 mm F2 on my XT now , but I would consider using 18-55 again because of its low weight and versatility .

Of course for me it is a "pocket camera " - I keep it in my shoulder bag all the time , so weight is most important .

So - my suggetion - be prepared that your kit lens ais a piece of crap , but before putting it away give it a try .

BTW- Some days ago I made four different 8x11 glossy photographic
( RA4 - fuji frontier ) prints .

Two of those were taken with 1 DS MK2 - and L glas and two with dreaded kit lens.
I showed those for 3 people - working with images professionals .

Only one person ( very succesfull graphic book designer )
could correctly recognize one XT image .

Donald
Sorry about depressing you. I've been there with some vacations too. The dreaded honeydew vacation. Just kidding. I take one of those every year to catch up with myself on all the neglected yard stuff. Hope you get some nice waterfall shots.

I agree with whoever said (was it Donald?) that you should "test" your
lenses for obvious faults as soon as you get them.




I know this was discussed before, I think when Linda bought some lenses. Anyone remember what thread that was, or can someone give a brief explanation of what I should do?

I did not go with the kit lens. I did go with the 28-135mm with the understanding that it was not going to be "the all" for me. But as someone said with the kit lens, I wanted to get it and see what it does, then can make a choice for a second lens after that. When I have a better idea of what I want to do and can't, I'll ask here for opinions again. You all have been a great help. I appreciate all the input.

It comes today...I can't wait to get started! I did buy a couple of books too...a book from ShortCourses about the Digital Rebel and a book about exposures, etc.

Cathleen, the lens you purchased is a big step up from the "kit" lens. Though it does not cover the wide-angle perspective, there are a number of options in that range that are TRULY wide (such as the 10-22). A combination such as that would also be very useful. There have certainly been times when 17mm was not wide enough on my 1.6x-frame camera.

Give me a couple of months, I'll have a dozen lenses, like the rest of the big boys here! :)

Congratulations! What great fun you'll have this weekend and beyond.

You made the right decision.

You can wait a bit to go for the wide angle and you were given very good advice by JNB.

That would be a good choice for you next lens and you will probably not need any other lens.

Of course you can go macro nuts but I see no way for you to ever get a return on the cost as you probably will be able to incorporate the work you do with your Rebel XT into your graphic design work and of course generate additional income from it.

I would wait for that to materialize and I am certain it will then expand or upgrade. Make certain you get a project that will more than pay for the upgrade

Thanks Larry. I am anxious!

Thanks Wade, good advice from you and others.

Cathy, I think you made a good choice. I took thousands of pictures with that lens. Be sure and keep us posted.

Yes I will. Most definitely!

It's here! I just want to jump in and play but I have work to do! Ack! On first inspection, looks pretty cool though.

Cathy
Congratulations on your new lens. Enjoy. You made a good choice. I've been very happy with mine. Your plan is a good one also. Find out your needs and then fill them. Have fun, it's the weekend!

Two of those were taken with 1 DS MK2 - and L glas and two with dreaded
kit lens. I showed those for 3 people - working with images professionals

Are you getting the camera and the lens on the same day or did you have the camera already?

Got the camera body, the lens, and the CF card today. Never had the camera. So far I put the lens on, put the battery in, put the card in, read the quick start instructions to get a basic idea of what the settings are, went through the various menus. Was going to start off shooting RAW and try my own settings. Got overwhelmed, changed the setting back to full auto and went outside and took some pictures. This is going to take some time to get comfortable and learn about ALL the settings and buttons on the camera.

I did have a 35mm film Minolta with a regular lens and a telephoto lens about 25 years ago, so some things came back to me (ok, so I figured out how to line up the two red dots and turn and click the lens on :) ) but many of the gadgets are new, and I suppose because it's digital.

Going to unload what I shot and see how things look. I'm especially interested to see how that IS lens helped with my blurry photos.

Cool Cathy!

We will be waiting. :)

OK this was on auto everything, 135mm:

<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?pic=1fGWNep2GAqzMRX4JlT6ZFCs83JKke0>

I am already impressed with the lack of noise at 100% in the dark areas vs. my p&s. I have to go to 300% before I start seeing any (ISO 100).

This camera can shoot 1600 ISO. When would you ever use that?

Taking a photo of a black cat in a coalmine at midnight.

You are off to a great start there. there are plenty of times you may need the high iso. a gym,a church,concert,were flash is not allowed. its good to have it if needed. just remember good technique in holding the thing will make for good results,so dont get sloppy,just because image stabilization is available.

Taking a photo of a black cat in a coalmine at midnight




Aha! I figured it would be for low light things. But would there be a lot of noise or does it depend on the other settings.

so dont get sloppy,just because image stabilization is available.




Rats, I was expecting miracles.

Very nice Cathy.

There are several things that will help you in low light.
- A fast lens f2.8 or so but the faster the more expensive
- High ISO
- IS helps a stop or two.
- Of course a tripod but not practical for action

I wanted to mention that if you are going to do sports shots this weekend you want a fast shutter to capture the action. If it outdoors you probably wont have any problems. If it is indoors you may need to increase your ISO for desired results. Also an f stop of around 5.6 on that lens. It will be sharper at 7.1 if you get enough shutter speed with that setting.

Very nice Cathy.

There are several things that will help you in low light.
- A fast lens (f2.8 ) but the faster the more expensive
- High ISO
- IS helps a stop or two.
- Of course a tripod but not practical for action

I wanted to mention that if you are going to do sports shots this weekend you want a fast shutter to capture the action. If it outdoors you probably wont have any problems. If it is indoors you may need to increase your ISO for desired results. Also an f stop of around 5.6 on that lens. It will be sharper at 7.1 if you get enough shutter speed with that setting.

Trouble is that after a few days you will forget that previously you wouldn't have had a hope of hand-holding for certain types of shot, and you'll be wondering why, when you push the envelope too far even for a stabilised lens/camera, that it's still got signs of wobble.

Give me a non-stabilised camera now, and I'd be lost!

I was able to get sharp shots at 1/15 with that lens.

The lens looks good. Although that was not a good test shot. But time will tell and don't rush. Go a little slower and allow yourself to think as clearly as you did with your Kodak. Compose the picture and think about where you want the focus to be.

You have to do the two when you are on auto. That's why I say manual focus is better and easier.

Here's some that I took yesterday. I am still using auto mode, trying to get a grasp on how the buttons work to change aperture, etc. Still struggling with focusing. :( This was handheld, leaning on the car:

<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?pic=1JQoBztFoEF7ING4C4tRcrSlgmtRxC>

This was handheld with auto settings. A flock of geese circled around a couple of times.

<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?pic=12y1S0gKe35ub2OZ6Kcs0ZEJKxwLaQ0>

I'd have been particularly proud of the sunset with geese, Cathleen - and very good given the newness of the camera!

Why thank you Peter! I think the sunrise looks kind of funny though...like it was painted. Am I being too critical? Perhaps a different exposure would have helped? The camera has an automatic bracketing feature. I am looking forward to fooling around with that, too. Usually the geese fly over once and continue on to another farmers field...this morning they must have known I had a new camera because they made two rounds.

And one more...still struggling with focus. I should have a crisp and clear woman, but it appears my focus was farther back on the ducks. As Linda would say, Oy.

<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?pic=1A9joDdln4MZhLwWj1XQUZl83fvRID>
©2005 Cathleen A Clapper

By the way (this is for Wade) I was using a tripod.

Autofocus? I believe water can upset it.

Cathleen,i think you are off to a great start with your new camera. the first photo is nicely composed using the tree, and the sunset is nice as well. i would not do anything different. as far as autofocus,are you using it on continuous focus or reg?. i find continuous to cause more trouble on scenics,but for sports,it is helpful. If you are on continuous,and focus on the lady,then switch composition,it will adjust. if your center bracket is were your focus is,then it would try to get the water. just focus on the main thing you want,and while holding the shutter ready,recompose and shoot.

If you are on tripod my dear why are you using auto focus! HUH?!

If you have to start manually adjusting the camera so you make some mistakes you are making them anyway. Auto opertionb of a camera were not inteneded for the purposes you are using the camera for and I thought you had legs and knew how to open the car door. Read the manual.

There should be a latch there somewhere? How'd you get into the damn car in the first place climb in through the window?

This is a typical situation where using auto-focus can be more challenging. The most accurate way to do it would be to select a single AF focus point in the camera's viewfinder. Make sure there is a good, high-contrast line running through the small AF rectangle (such as the subject's face edge againt the bright background). Depress the shutter halfway to achieve focus, then recompose quickly. Depress fully to take the shot. On the 300D, you must be in one of the "creative zone" modes (except A-DEP) and not "all auto". Check the XT manual to see if this requirement remains, and to learn how to select different AF points.

Of course, you could also put the lens on manual focus and do it that way (which would be my choice).

Step one would be to test that lens/camera combination for focal accuracy. There was a long photo thread back in October, 2004 with folks reporting soft focus or back focus (meaning the focus point not being where the camera/lens thinks it is) with Canon lens/camera combinations. I do believe the discussion started with a Canon Rebel DSLR, and the pic in post #87 exactly conforms to what Canon owners were describing in the October thread.

Manual focus is the "normal" way to focus when the camera is on a tripod. The reason is that on a tripod the camera is locked in prior to the pic, so the photog cannot easily autofocus/recompose. The rub is that the viewfinders on almost all of the under $2000 DSLRs very much suck, so achieving manual focus can be difficult or impossible in many situations.

Autofocus, however, on almost all of the under $2000 DSLRs is very excellent (the previously mentioned soft focus problem is a focus problem, not an autofocus issue). On a camera without the soft focus problem 99% of the time a photog can put the selected camera focus area on a contrasty object at the desired focal distance, depress the shutter release half way, and be in instant perfect focus; far faster and more accurately than focusing manually.

In tripod situations usually one of the camera's focus areas fall on the desired focus point after composing and locking the camera in place. If not sometimes I simply autofocus, switch the setting to manual focus, recompose, then lock the camera. The D2x is one of the few DSLRs with an excellent viewfinder, so I can focus well manually if necessary, but usually autofocus is faster and more reliable than my old eyes.

Although I believe in the use of modern autofocus and also in Aperture Preferred Auto Exposure, "auto everything" IMO never is appropriate. Manually and with forethought choosing the aperture (and hence depth of field) IMO is essential for every pic.

The use of a tripod allows the aperture setting to be intentionally optimized for [a] DOF and [b] the best aperture setting of the lens. In the beach pic if auto-everything was used the camera might set the lens to wide open, giving absolute minimum DOF. Wide open in that shot is not necessary: a bit more DOF would be desirable to allow the person and birds to all easily be in focus in the event the focus is not perfectly set; and, very few lenses are at their sharpest when set to full wide open, so setting the aperture smaller could potentially improve the shot for two reasons.

This camera can shoot 1600 ISO. When would you ever use that?

Sitting in an auditorium where your child is on stage and you don't want to use flas. Using a long tele zoom at night. I think that you'll be amazed that 1600 on your Canon is much better than any 1600 film that was ever on the market. Thge colors will be correct and the noise will be less.

PS Congratulations! Good shots.

This camera can shoot 1600 ISO. When would you ever use that?




All the body building images at the below links were shot at 1600 with my XT. All shot hand-held with 70-200f4 L at about 1/200 shutter.

The waist-up shots in the first link are cropped to less than half-frames. I probably over-sharpened a little but I still like the grittiness of the images. I was about 70+ feet from the stage.

<http://homepage.mac.com/johnvito/PhotoAlbum24.html>

<http://homepage.mac.com/johnvito/PhotoAlbum29.html>

Or when doing bodybuilding photos w/o a flash!!! Nice photos John.

as far as autofocus,are you using it on continuous focus or reg?




Donald it's on continuous focus. I'm going to set the focus point for the one in the center.

If you have to start manually adjusting the camera so you make some mistakes
you are making them anyway. Auto opertionb of a camera were not inteneded
for the purposes you are using the camera for and I thought you had legs
and knew how to open the car door.




Yes, sir. Sorry. :(

Read the manual.




You mean, RTFM!

There should be a latch there somewhere? How'd you get into the damn car
in the first place climb in through the window?




Were you watching me, Wade? :)

The most accurate way to do it would be to select a single AF focus point
in the camera's viewfinder.




That's what I'll do JNB.

There was a long photo thread back in October, 2004 with folks reporting
soft focus or back focus




I'll see if I can find that Allen. I'm pretty sure I'm the problem though.

Larry and John: cool. I'm sure I can use that. Cool pictures John.

Were you watching me, Wade?




I know your type! 8)

Allen,i would be interested to learn more on this back focus issue. i have several concerns about the d70 ,and focus not being were i was sure it was,and i had heard the focus could be optimized somehow within the body.

Cathleen, everything going ok so far?

Cathleen, everything going ok so far?




Perhaps you all can tell me.

My neighbor is in the county fair next week, so he's practicing driving with his Belgians. I ran out there to see if I could get a shot.

<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?pic=1bmWy4JQNDwSjIaADmU48LdEGbEQ4s0>
©2005 Cathleen A Clapper

For this shot, I set the camera to Program. I changed the autofocus to be on the center dot only. I changed the autofocus to AI Focus, which says it will switch from one shot to servo if the subject moves, which I took to mean it would keep all in focus. As you can see with the horse in the front, she moved her tail and its blurry. The horse in the back moved its head and it's blurry. How come it didnt maintain focus on those?

I took it at ISO 100, 1/80 s at 5.6, 28mm. I'm still learning about how to change exposures etc. but I think I grasp a little more today than yesterday.

If the blur is due to movement during the shot (while the shutter was open) then it's not to do with focus - you'd have to use a faster shutter speed to "freeze" the movement.

Aha. But how would I know if the shot was blurry, or should I take 3 or 4 shots, changing the shutter speed. Is that bracketing?

There's a few adjustments that the user could do with the D70:

<http://www.leongoodman.com/d70focus.html>

I'm not sure I'd chance the above. I have a friend that has back focusing issues with her Nikon D70 and I've seen here images...some are user error and some look like camera/lens issues. She sent it to Nikon and they said nothing was wrong with the camera or lenses.

Just to be fair I still haven't resolved my focusing issues with my Canon lenses. My 70-200 focuses dead on at the longer end and at the short end in front focuses. It back focused before I sent it to Canon....some progress I guess. My 17-40 is has softness on the left side at infinity.

Cathleen,experience will teach you what shutter speeds will freeze motion,or cause blur. you can bracket shutter speeds,and apertures,depending on your intent. if you do a scenic,and you want great depth,put the thing on aperture priority,choose your f stop,and then by activating bracketing,your shutter speeds will move around your chosen aperture. example f16 at a 60th,125th,and 30th. on my camera,i have it set to use the chosen exposure,then a stop under,then a stop over.

When taking photos,you will learn to make conscious decisions on what the situation warrants.is my subject moving? no,okay i will use a tripod,and small f stop. is there action? yes,i will choose shutter priority.

Dont forget,higher iso,will give you more shutter speed options as well,but stay within noise allowances.

Hopefully,you will start to grasp the relationships of shutter,and aperture,and can move to manual,to have full control,over your choices,but just take it a step at a time.

Try using your camera when just sitting there,shoot a three shot bracket,and review the data,and you will start to grasp the differences of what is happening when you do that.sorry,for the long blurb,but i remember how exciting photography was when i first started,and anything i can offer to help you get it,i will.

Cathleen,

Sorry, I forgot what lens you were using. Is that the infamous "kit" lens, or did you get a different one?

I'm sure you'd like to see more life in those horses. :)

Here's a grab shot, just a snapshot without any artistic aspirations, taken with a Pentax "kit" lens on a very cloudy day in Victoria, Canada recently (on my way back from an Alaska cruise), reduced to low res:

Percherons <http://home.surewest.net/zaldidun/IMGP0210_resized.jpg>.

And here's a crop of the head of one of the horses at 100% from the same shot:

Percheron head crop <http://home.surewest.net/zaldidun/IMGP0210_horseheadcrop.jpg>

No tripod, just a monopod resting inside a belt loop pouch.

That lens looks good and sharp. they look like they are wearing shoes. perhaps i am used to seeing horses with long hair over the hoof area. pretty horses though

Yes, that Pentax kit lens turned out to be better than I expected. Normally I stay away from zooms, but this 18-35mm Pentax SMCP-DA AL was on sale at Adorama for $109, brand new, so I couldn't pass it up, just because. Some Pentax primes go up in price up to $9,000 or so.

And, yes, the Percherons were shod, as you'd expect for working horses pounding the streets of the city. Arabians and Percherons are my favorite horse breeds. In the past, I've owned a bunch of Arabians and a few Percherons myself.

Anyway, I did not mean to hijack the thread. I just wanted to illustrate some of what I had said about Canon and Pentax entry-level lenses back in post #28.

Back to Canon now.

Ramón...no didnt get the kit lens, went with a ef 28-135 IS USM. Beautiful Percherons! Next week I hope to be getting more horse action shots. I hope I have the settings thing figured out by then.

Took some pictures again of the moon coming up last night. Played around with different ISOs and exposure compensation. Will post results in a few.

This is the best of them, and all disappointing.

<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?pic=1JDMrY7hUCtMO6yCZME5WOiCpy3Sy>

Even on a tripod they are blurry, but then I have a wimpy tripod. The best of them were shot at 1600 ISO. None of them came out with the "man" showing. :(

You'd have to considerably reduce the exposure to see "the man" - and of course you then lose everything else, unless perhaps you take bracketed exposures and combine them in Photoshop.

I'll try again tonight.

Exactly what Peter says - B&W film might just scrape that sort of latitude in, but it's way beyond digital at the moment. Photograph the moon at 1/250 sec @ f4 @ 200 ISO, then immediately (as quick as possible, the Earth's rotating quickly!) reset to shoot again at about 1 sec @ f4. Combine in PS.

Or just shoot the next full moon at the first setting, and superimpose it on this photo.

I'll give that a try, Fred.

Also shoot the moon as early as you see it, while some available light is around. please be vigilant with your light tripod. you have mentioned it several times,and depending how light,it could easily blow over,or tip from a bump. i have seen more than one camera bite the dust,due to these reasons,and i would hate to see you go through that.

That's exactly what mine looked like Cathy...:(

please be vigilant with your light tripod.




Yes father. :) I'm being a smarta--, but believe me, I have had more than one vision in the last couple of days of dropping the darn thing.

I'm also ordering a cable release...I can see how that will help with the tripod exposures too especially until I can get a better tripod. Plus I'm going to keep the camera lower to the place where the three legs intersect to get better stability.

Cathy, are you ordering a good tripod?

no, not yet.

Well....you should. :)

I have the Bogen 3001n tripod with a 3030 head. Look at them here. <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=search&Q=&a=522_4341&a=523_4359&Submit.x=14&Submit.y=4&Submit=Go&shs=&ci=5138&ac=>

Whatever you do, get a quick release head. I have been very happy with mine. It feels very secure.

Remember what the mad hatter sad…Don't loose your way!

Oh wait a second we're talking about the moon. The moon moves relatively fast and has to be shot with a high shutter speed when ever you see the a detailed moon in a photograph with good definition of buildings and trees etc. the moon has been superimposed. If you know where the moon is going to be what you can do is shoot the scene then later shoot the moon as a double exposure.

Mirror lock up is a good function to use on a tripod whenever possible. A subject that doesn't move is a good time.

edit- Even though it moves, the moon would be a little sharper with mirror lockup too.

Cathy,

I'm also ordering a cable release…




I would hope your Canon camera also has a true mirror-lockup function. I remember the Digital Rebel did not, at least at the time I checked it out. Mirror slap will introduce camera vibrations which will give you slight ghost images around the moon even with a sturdy tripod.

Also, in order to get detailed shots of the moon, you'll need to fill the whole sensor or negative frame with it, which in turns means a total effective focal length of about 2000mm in 35mm film photography or about 1250mm for a DSLR with a 1.6 crop factor. You'll get better quality if you use teleconverters (tele-extenders) than if you blow up the image accordingly when printing.

Another factor to remember if you want to superimpose different shots of the moon is to take them on the same day. The moon is at different distances from the earth as time progresses, so a full moon will not be the same size on your sensor or negative from one month to the next. Coincidentally, the moon happened to be at its closest distance ever from the earth last Thursday night.

A different story is if you want to photograph a moon-lit landscape with the moon in it. A detailed image of the moon will not be critical then.

Take Donald's admonition to heart. Especially when shooting in the dark, you need a rock-solid tripod that won't tip over if you accidentally bump it.

The Rebel XT does have mirror lockup- custom function #7, I think.

Stephen posted while I was typing (with only two fingers of my left hand due to a dumb injury I sustained yesterday which has temporarily disabled my entire left arm and three fingers of my left hand. I'm right handed.)

Yes, if your camera has mirror lock-up, use it.

It is a good idea to follow Donald, Cindy and Ramon's advice. You will want a good solid tripod eventually, so if you can afford it, spend the money now rather than buy something you will be disappointed with and not use or toss later when you buy a good one.

Ouch Ramon.

Father says do not shoot the moon,especially if you are without a camera. go ahead and blow the budget,and get a real tripod already.

Relating to full moons,i have gotten many migraines on full moon,and i only realized the relationship after my fourth one.my wife thought i was imagining it,but i have a book,that backs up my experience,with documented individuals experiencing the same thing. i get a strange feeling many times,but no headache,and i actually take aspirin to avoid them. sorry for the medical story,but i hate full moons.

Stephen,

Yes, I've been saying "ouch!" a lot today.

Are you sure the XT has true mirror lockup? If I remember correctly, Canon and Nikon sometimes refer to the mirror swinging out of the way so you can clean the sensor as "mirror lockup", but that function activates the shutter at once in order to expose the sensor, so it does you absolutely no good when shooting as far as delaying the exposure until the vibrations have died down.

Donald,

Father says do not shoot the moon,especially if you are without a camera.




Yaeh, that would make sense. It's futile to attempt to shoot the moon with a gun. Gravity and all that…

Anyone in law enforcement or phone customer support will confirm that the full moon has definite, strange effects on people.

As far as I can tell, yes. Here's the link to the function page on their website.
<http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelFeaturesAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=11154&pageno=4>
The chart resembles the one for my 10D,which has a separate menu item for cleaning, so I would think it's a true lock-up, but Cathleen can confirm that for us.

I Meant shoot the moon,in pulling ones pants down to expose the moon. sorry to stoop to that level.

That would surprise me if that camera has that feature. 90 percent of shooters dont even know what its for. have not used that since the nikon f3 days,but i hope the d200 has it.

The Canon F1n claimed that it wasn't necessary because the mirror was cushioned to absorb the slap. They started including it to answer the fact that Nikon did. I had to wait until the EOS3 came out to get that feature. I did get a lot of great shots with the F1n, but now that I've got it I wouldn't consider another camera without it.

Donald
I knew what you meant and that made it easier to post a similarly bad joke over at Where were you.

Yes the XT has mirror lockup. Function 7. You enable it, press the shutter completely, mirror swings up, press the shutter completely again, picture is taken and mirror swings back down. And there was a separate page for cleaning, can't find it right now.

Alright already, when I place the order for my macro lens, I will just go completely into hock and order that tripod.

PS no "shooting the moons" here. Only the one in the sky...just checked not up yet. Which brings me to another question. When you Ramón mentioned tripping over the tripod in the dark while shooting the moon, you reminded me that it is not completely dark out in my driveway when I made that shot. Behind me about 10 feet or so and above is a mercury vapor lamp. Is that playing into the way the moon came out?

You will be glad you did Cathy. :)

Speaking of mirror lock-up, I have been testing a lens at f1.8 and I thought it stunk. I just decided to try it at f/1.8 with mirror lock-up and OMG!!! Its super sharp.

When will I ever listen?? LOL

Shoot the Moon – British slang from 1800's: to leave and move one's goods by night to avoid foreclosure or seizure for overdue rent (or other clandestine reason). Also means (particularly in U.S.) to "go for broke" as in a deperate gambit. Used in the game of Hearts (trying to get Queen of Spades and all Hearts).

There you go...:)

Cathleen, I initially purchased a "pan and tilt" head for my tripod. I still use it on rare occasions, but find that a good ball head stays on the tripod most of the time. It's much faster to position, and a bit lighter for those 4-hour walks. Don't go cheap, though, or it won't be stable.

Cheap is relative...the one Cindy recommends is $169. That doesn't sound cheap, but I do know there are some WAY more expensive.

What ball head do you use John?

Oh, and the mirror lock-up....It is better but i was set at f/2.8 when I thought it was 1.8 so it still is a little soft at 1.8. But it sure is sharp at 2.8. Its the inexpensive Canon 50mm.

Cathleen,

Yes the XT has mirror lockup. Function 7. You enable it, press the shutter
completely, mirror swings up, press the shutter completely again, picture
is taken and mirror swings back down.




That would a serious design flaw. You should not have to press the shutter release again after the mirror swings out of the way. Are you sure the shutter does not automatically fire after 2 or 3 seconds without having to press the shutter release once again?

Nope, you have to press the shutter again.

I Was thinking the same thing. you would shake the whole thing just trying to deactivate the lock up.

IF thats the case,i would love to see someone shoot a printed book page up close,and not get blurry type,but prove me wrong. maybe on the heaviest tripod,you may pull that off.

Canon strikes again. :(

What difference does it make if the signal to release the mirror comes from within or from without? A signal is a signal. If you are using a remote switch its just a stinking signal.

Go sit in the corner.




LOL you crack me up cindy!

Yes if you are using a remote, shouldnt matter. If you were actually pressing the button, it would be a little stupid.

Not really if you think about it. The exposure ends itself at the exposure you set it at. If you have it set in manual at 1/250 f4, thats what it is going to do. You could walk away and come back 10min later, press the button the second time and you would still have a 1/240 exposure.

Thats the whole point. You are telling the mirror to close after the exposure is complete instead of while it is happening.

Sigh.....Now Im tired.

Yeah but if you push the button, the camera shakes while the exposure is happening, then the mirror closes. It's not the mirror causing the shake if you're pushing the button, it's the actual pushing of the button. No? I'm tired too and I want to post 2 more pics tonight. Too much brain work.

Aw come on Cathy. Lets seeeeeeee.

Maybe this mirror flapping thing is all a big flap!

I was trying to capture the moon at f4. I couldnt get it to go to f4. It would only go to 5.6 at 135mm. Would I have had to go back to less than 135mm?

Yes, it will go f4 at the short 28mm end. As you get lenses that are constant f4 they get more expensive. A constant 2.8 lens is really expensive especially if it is L glass.

Cindy, sorry if i caused confusion. i interpreted her push the shutter button comment as physically pressing it,and not using a remote release.in that situation,you would absolutely be correct. may i come out of the corner yet?

I suppose. :)

Im on another thing thinking the mirror lockup does nothing now though. I mean think about it. I would think the exposure is complete before the mirror closes. Wouldnt they engineer the darn thing with a slight delay? Even a ms would do the trick.

Thats an interesting thought. when you lock the d70 up to clean the sensor,i cant imagine anything else is in front of the sensor but the mirror. if it acts like film cameras,then you would have the curtain involved in the process,but i have no idea what is there on modern digitals with this feature.

Ok Donald. Go do the research while I play games. :) Maybe I will go ask in a dpreview forum.

The mirror lock up is so that the upswing of the mirror doesn't make the tripod vibrate - you lock up the mirror, give it a decent pause to let any vibrations settle, and then take the picture - using either the remote release or a self timer (on the 20D with mirror lock up and self time both enabled it swings up the mirror, gives it (I think 2 seconds) to stabilise and then takes the picture.) As Cindy says the downswing occurs after the image is taken and has no affect on the image.
Whether locking up the mirror has an effect will depend on the natural frequency of vibration of the tripod. I find it has a definite effect on exposures in the 1-second to 1/60 of a second or so range on my Manfrotto tripod.

I must get a ball head for mine - I prefer the pan and tilt head but it's so heavy!.

While you guys were pondering the mirror lockup crapola, I was getting some pictures ready to post. I am loving this camera already!

OK, I cheated and reverted back to auto running guy for these shots because I had to hold the camera, hold the whip and crack it to get the horse going, take the picture and still stay out of his way all at the same time. But the photos are pretty beautiful, I almost started crying.

I hope you enjoy them too Ramón...he's Arabian.
Here he is trotting out big.

<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?pic=1styBStZwkkkeiWSJ0ooJVgRNqx8LG1>
©2005 Cathleen A Clapper

Here he is running, with only one foot on the ground.

<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?pic=1NLhKoetcI6UyycPaq4LY3OOmrOxb1>
©2005 Cathleen A Clapper

A handsome fellow:

<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?pic=1aIs6pbPoPxPdImkXZO8LQ7Qx9f>
©2005 Cathleen A Clapper

And here he is feeling his oats, getting a buck in:

<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?pic=1QM6HaIbLXklggAlpESK5sEBNNRgmS0>
©2005 Cathleen A Clapper

Susan, thank you for the explanation. I understand it better.

Cathy, beautiful!! Nice and sharp too. You are just going to love this. I really like the last 2. The second one is a great action shot but I would have liked it better if the horse was not quite so dark but what a catch!

I just looked again. I really like them all!

Cindy, I have a medium-weight Bogen/Manfrotto 308RC ball head, which I use with Bogen 3001 legs. I believe this head has been replaced by the 486RC2. It takes the same quick release plates as the pan/tilt head that I have (141RC), which is why I bought it. The suggested weight limit is 13.2lbs, so it's not for really heavy camera/lens combos. However, if I were into the big stuff, I'd probably be looking at heavier legs (or carbon fiber) too.

The 3001/ball-head combo has been a good compromise for me. It's relatively stable, yet light enough that I can carry it on a 4-hour walk/hike.

Cindy,

You're way off the mark this time, sorry.

The purpose of mirror lock up is for the vibrations caused by the mirror slap when the mirror swings up! not when it closes. Having the camera determine a two or three seconds delay during which the vibrations caused by the mirror swinging up have a chance to die down is a lot more precise than leaving it to human error as to when to push the shutter release. Press it to soon, and the vibrations will not have died down yet; press it to late, and the moon will not be in the same place within the frame you expected. With experience, you know exactly how far the moon moves in two seconds and compensate for that when framing the shot.

Serious design flaw by Canon.

Now go apologize to Donald for having sent him to the corner (I paid no attention to you, naturally), then go stare at a corner yourself. :D

WOW Cathy, I love the last one, no technical reason (I wouldn't know anyway), just because I like it.

I see Susan had straightened you out a few posts down, Cindy. :)

Thank you Susan and Cindy. Yes the second one was dark, the sun was starting to set so I was getting those dramatic shadows. I ran the shadow/highlight filter on it, but then his body had a ton of noise so then I ran through NeatImage.

So are you changing your tripod recommendation, Cindy?

Thank you too mrsd.

For shooting celestial bodies and for precision shooting with long telephoto lenses in general, I much prefer a geared head.

My favorite one is the Manfrotto 410 / Bogen 3275 geared head, the weight of which (2.7 lbs) amounts to a small percentage of the weight of the tripod I use for this type of shots, the Manfrotto 161 Mk2 / Bogen 3258 tripod, which weighs 18 lbs without the head.



I also find it very useful to use an additional support that creates a very rigid structure and dampens camera vibrations, the Bogen / Manfrotto 3252 Long Lens Support:

Cathleen,

I loved your pictures and I loved that beautiful bay Arabian gelding! Thanks for sharing.

Wow those are some tripods.

You're welcome, Ramón.

I managed to get the man in the moon earlier, it was very low on the horizon.

<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?pic=1w69Cyxjd6gKjGedsEmcUmZmXoG0>

So I had to make 2 shots here...one at 5.6 1/250 to get the man in the moon and a second on P to get the wispy clouds. Then I sandwiched them. Not perfect, but I learned a lot today.

<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?pic=1rVAxPGaCVv43AJfb9E0gLEIx3eb80>

off to beddy bye for me now.

then go stare at a corner yourself




Never! :)

Actually, Im glad I understand now.

Way to go Cathy!! Ever since my first attempt at the moon we have had cloudy skies, maybe tonight.

Very nice photos, great job CIndy!

Eureka!

Nice, Cath. Great result from not knowing how 24 hours ago to this.

That's the fun of photography, there's always something new to learn. I'm still learning after 34 years doing it full time. :-)

Nice shot, Cathlenn, Keep up the good work.

In regards the Canon lockup- I have to respectfully disagree that the second shutter release is a problem. In some cases it may be but for my purposes and for other folks I would think not. I would rather control the situation than have the camera do it. Lets try to get a shot of a flower on a breezy day. Lock up the mirror and then wait for the breeze to die down and get your shot. The breeze may pick up just as the two second interval elapses and no shot. Better to pick the moment than have the camera do it. Losing sight through the finder during lockup is a problem occasionally, but that's true with all SLRs.

Great result from not knowing how 24 hours ago to this




I agree. I am amazed and somewhat proud, though I think the camera did it's fair share. I saw the beauty, it did a good job of capturing it.

Thanks all for the help and encouragement. I am very grateful.

If we all lived closer, we'd be having a big party.




Maybe we could meet half-way, I hear Tahiti is nice this time of the year...:)

"though I think the camera did it's fair share. I saw the beauty, it did a good job of capturing it."
Cameras don't take pictures, Cathleen. All the credit goes to you.

Beat me to it, Stephen.

The camera's just a tool, Cathleen, it'll sit on the bench forever without doing anything until you pick it up and use it. The result is therefore 100% your creation.

:)

I find it very interesting that with Cathleen's new camera we start by focusing on mirror lock up. :) OPPPSS I can't get my mirror unlocked I forgot the code. So now its point and hope.

Tahiti is nice but the food is terrible. :(

Larry,

OPPPSS I can't get my mirror unlocked I forgot the code.




There's no "code" to remember. Just press the shutter. :)

I think he was joking, Ramón

Cathleen,nice shots of the horses.you really know how to crack the whip.

Thanks Donald. Yes I do! But I did manage to hit myself in the head a couple of times. :(

Thanks Cathleen that was close :).

;)

I got my first up close and personal but don't have time right now to pull it off the camera. Will post later today.

I'm having a setback with the camera. I took 5 shots, then the rest came out WAY too dark. I can bring them out with PS, but they just don't look good. I know I was fooling around with buttons, and I shouldn't be. I just don't grasp what button does what fully yet, and I think I should go back to auto for now. Bummer...

Maybe you were on manual,and were not paying attention to your meter reading. your exif data tells the mode doesnt it,and you maybe able to learn something by what is recorded there.

Good idea Donald I'll check those. Yes, I probably did switch to manual. No doubt that's what I did. I don't know why.

I have some questions though.
The book says that in a creative mode, and I am using P for now, I can hold the shutter button half-way and press the depth of field preview button. When I do that, all I see in the viewfinder is everything getting darker. I guess I was expecting to see exactly what was sharp and exactly what will be blurry to be blurry. Am I doing something wrong...is there something wrong with the camera?

Also I understand the smaller aperture, the great depth of field. So if I am working in program mode with AF set on AI FOCUS, and I focus on say a flower, everything behind the flower is blurry. Now I want to change the aperature to get maximum depth of field. What buttons do I push and where do I look to do that. Do I change the f stop higher with the exposure compensation button and wheel?

Here's what the data says:

<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?pic=1SBjwkZe1PpyhjSFNLnbW0ixMexuO1>

It says I was shooting in auto mode...I'm pretty sure I was shooting in P or might have changed to M. And if it was shooting in auto, why did the pic come out so severely underexposed? Hmmm...

And then the group after these came out overexposed. Perhaps I should go out and shoot some things in auto and see if they come out right now. It's very possible I did something radically wrong.

The book says that in a creative mode, and I am using P for now, I can
hold the shutter button half-way and press the depth of field preview
button. When I do that, all I see in the viewfinder is everything getting
darker. I guess I was expecting to see exactly what was sharp and exactly
what will be blurry to be blurry. Am I doing something wrong...is there
something wrong with the camera?




Normally you see through the lens at the widest aperture; lots of light. "Preview" stops the lens down to the size that the camera will shoot at. When the shot will be with a smaller aperture it will appear darker, perrhaps sometimes too dark to verify DOF (which is why we preview). The pic will not necessarily be dark, that is just the preview. Some cameras have much better viewfinders and preview than others. Being at the less expensive end of the scale I would expect the XT not have a particularly good viewfinder.

Exposure compensation reduced? That would over-ride the auto setting (at least on my cameras).

I'll have to come back to this later. I have to go somewhere right now. :(

I have said it before and you chose to ignore the recommendation, but I suggest you set to Aperture Preferred Auto mode (perhaps with aperture set to f=5.6 to start) and leave it there. It is still auto exposure, but much easier for us to help you diagnose what is going on. And using to Aperture Preferred Auto you will in time start to make sense of how camera exposure works. When you set to P you learn nothing.

If pix are routinely dark check the Exposure Compensation setting. It should normally be set to zero. Minus settings will darken and plus setting will lighten pix.

Cathleen, as a way to learn how that d.o.f. preview works. put it on manual,so you can start at one end of your apertures,and dial through to the end. now focus on something real close,perhaps a yardstick outside were you have more light,and start at wide open-f4or so,and manually focus on the 1 inch mark. now depress the preview button,and while doing so,look at the other readings on the yardstick.as you progressively move towards f22,you will see more inches look sharper.put the yardstick,so it lays away from your camera,so the ruler tip is at your lens,and points outward. it gets darker,as allen says because its stopping down to your working aperture at the moment of exposure,and using d.o.f.preview mimics that action.

Its hard to tell what messed your exposure up,but shooting into really bright light,or exp compensation,could do it. examining your data should reveal clues.

Sorry,i type slow,hence some repitition.

I can't think of many normal subjects that would be correctly exposed at 1/500th sec @ f11 @ 100 ISO.

Normal sunlit objects would be properly exposed at 1/125th sec @ f8-11 or f11, which ties in with the exif reporting a two stops under-exposure override (I'm assuming that's what Canon mean by "exposure bias value -2), which in turn could have happened whilst you were "fiddling with the buttons" :-) .

You'll get familiar with the camera in time and little things like that won't happen.

Cathy, you have exposure compensation at -2. That will cause your problem. Look that up in the manual and you will see what controls it. I just remembered you have the Rebel XT so I dont know what sets it.

I agree with Allen that you should start learning to shoot in a/v mode. f5.6 would be a good place to start too.

Unless they've changed the buttons dramatically from the 300D, exposure compensation is done by using the "jog dial" near the shutter release while holding down the AV/+- button on the back. That button falls pretty naturally under the thumb when holding the camera, so it's easy to make a mistake.

I have said it before and you chose to ignore the recommendation




Sorry Allen but I haven't chosen to ignore anything. Just a little overwhelmed at the moment. Trying to digest what everyone has been saying and trying to learn. Cut me just a little slack here. :)

When you set to P you learn nothing.




And that may be true, but I would also like to start taking pictures. So I chose to start at the easy place, and when I have time to sit down and read and figure out the other stuff I will. I never intended to pay $1200+ for a camera and use it on auto all the time.

For instance, I'm leaving tomorrow to go camping again. I want to take my camera. I don't want to screw all the photos up by shooting Av or M or P right now when I don't know what I'm doing, so I may shoot auto. But then when I have a moment to sit down and read and figure stuff out, I will.

which in turn could have happened whilst you were "fiddling with the buttons"




And I certain that's what happened.

Look that up in the manual and you will see what controls it.




I know what controls it on the camera (one of the few things)...just not sure what the heck I was doing even changing it.

Cathleen,one thing you may want to get a handle on first is using the exposure compensation,no matter what mode your in,then if you shoot something,and review your lcd,you can quickly make an adjustment up or down to get the shot for sure. i hope i am not trying to send too much info your way too quickly,and i totally agree with just enjoying your camera for now, but getting the confidence to know your controls,will expand your horizons,and reduce your stress,when you gotta git r done.

is using the exposure compensation




yes, I do know how to use that. I think part of the problem is that I'm not being careful and methodical. For instance you say shoot something, review, and make an adjustment. I have not been doing that. I guess I'm spoiled by my old camera, because I shot what I shot and most of the time it came ok. There was no adjusting. I have to get used to thinking differently.

when you gotta git r done.




OK, I'm gonna forget you even said that :(

PS I'm taking my Short Course book on the Digital Rebel with me camping.

Cathleen - All is as it should be (meaning your camera did what you told it to do) with the bias set at-2. It happens to me sometimes also. One doesn't always notice that it's accidentially been changed. It will make a lot of sense soon.

Cathleen,hopefully with the new technology,you can take it up a notch,and instead of just okay,you will get stuff that kicks butt. have fun on your camping adventure.

I didn't read all of this but Cathleen don't sweat it they are only photographs. Now having said that, you do have to try and think about what is being said and what is happening when you shoot.

Remember what you did even the wrong things and use them to achieve an effect that takes advantage of that mistake and turn it into an asset.

And get in the habit of manually checking your readings.

Try after a while you will it.

I guess I'm spoiled by my old camera, because I shot what I shot and most
of the time it came ok. There was no adjusting. I have to get used to
thinking differently.




Cathy, I know what you mean, I felt the same way (and still do most of the time) when I bought my EOS. With my old camera all I had to do was point and shoot, with the new one I have to know 'how to shoot', I'm still having major problems, but with you on this huge learning curve I am also learning...:)

Thanks again for help and encouragement, all. Off to camping...be back tomorrow night.

I think a light bulb just went off. I think this is where I wasn't grasping something and where I was thinking wrong.

Here's what I thought was supposed to happen:
I want to shoot these mums close up at 135mm. As it appears in the viewfinder, the mums are in focus but the steps are not. I want a large depth of field. So I change my aperture (camera is on Av setting) and of course the exposure time changes also. But I think that by changing the aperture, I can get a large dof and still stay at 135mm. I have tried different exposures and I'm not seeing any change in dof.

The only way I could increase the dof was to change the focal length to 47mm. So in essence, I can NEVER have a large depth of field at 135mm with that shot. Is this correct?

<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?pic=1h9GweyRXcJHcAYH2bDeYLMiJLGGBZ>

And I think that you all were right...using the lens on auto focus delayed my grasping of that oh-so-simple concept. If I had been focusing manually, I think I would have understood it better and faster. Go ahead, say it...I TOLD YOU SO BUT YOU CHOSE TO IGNORE ME! :)

I still don't grasp how that dof preview button works. I'll keep plugging along. I think I'm going to run over to the mall and do some people watching...have to wait for the grass to dry out so I can mow.

You are a getting slightly confused. to say,you cannot have large dof with the 135 is true,and not true.being more telephoto,it will have shallower appearing dof,than your wide angle,but you are not framing it exactly the same,in both examples. you often choose telephoto to blur a background,and stopping down,will get you more stuff coming in sharper,but not always tack sharp.

Go back and do the mums,at f4,and f32,and look at the out of focus steps in both.one will be blurry,and one sharper,if you use the button to visualize.

Put your camera on the tripod, now focus on the mums at f4,and then look very hard at what the background looks like.now stop down to f32,and depress your dof button,and although dark,your detail will be sharper,and more clearly defined. the idea of using this button,is to help you preview what degree of blur or sharpness,your final photo will exhibit. if you set your lens at f4orf32,and never check that button,you have no clue what it will look like,because your looking through the lens,without the advantage of it being stopped down. here is the ruler test i told you to try,and i did it for you to help you visually see the changes in f stops,and what you see here,is exactly what i see using the preview button.

Tripod mounted,never refocused,just changed aperture and shutter speed accordingly,and focused on the letter i. hope this helps.

<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?pic=1fPTfASnq0rpfsA4F88XRIOKCUngW>

Nice examples Donald!

Yes, thank you Donald. A picture is indeed worth a thousand words. I will go set up and try that and post my results. I'll check the dof preview and see if I can see what you mean.

OK here's my ruler test:

<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?pic=1yry5INUsoeBXqhOd3FIFkynj2a1>

I totally understand now how changing the stop to a higher number gives you more dof. I set my tripod down, focused at 100mm and made the three shots without changing anything except the f stop. After I changed the fstop, I used the dof preview. At f11, it darkens the viewfinder and I could see how that's trying to emulate more dof. I think this is where Allen's discussion of how the viewfinder on this is basically worthless comes in...I concur. That function leaves a lot to be desired. And when I went to f36, the dof preview went almost totally dark. How is that showing me anything? So I guess darker=more dof, yes?

That's funny Cathleen. The reason it is darker is that it is stopping the lens opening down to the smaller aperture if you could see the viewfinder larger and look more closely you would be able to se the depth of field has increased as well as the image in the viewfinder would also be darker.

However you have a point since this is all digital there is no reason why the viewfinder could not just stop the lens down but to also display the image in the correct exposure. That is I am under the impression that the digital viewfinders are not really optical but digital as well.

But if you want to see it and you can in the viewfinder you should be able to see it on a laptop or on the LCD screen of the camera.

if you could see the viewfinder larger




Yeah, that would be nice. Well, you get what you pay for, though. But at least now I kind of get the gist of it, so I'll just have to learn to fly by the seat of my pants.

or on the LCD screen of the camera.




It sucks getting old. Perhaps I can get one of those magnifying lenses and attach it over the screen on the back to help out with that too! :)

I need a magnifier on the viewfinder. Wonder if they make one.

They probably make a lens for it.

Here's one option that will fit on any Canon Eos camera, digital or film
<http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=183200&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation>

Thanks Stephen. I think I would need one that did not have the extension on it.

Sorry, Cindy. It's the only one I'm aware of for SLR's. Maybe someone else will know of one. I've been using it for shots at low levels. But I'm getting to the point too that I need a little help with the viewfinder. Maybe reading glasses would do the trick.

Cindy, a magnifier that attached flush on the viewfinder would most likely have the effect of cropping the edges in - you'd miss quite a bit around the edge of frame.

You can get an additional diopter lens if the camera's diopter adjustment isn't great enough, however. That might help you, perhaps.

Cindy,

There has to be a viewfinder magnifier for your camera. I have several for my Nikon and Pentax bodies and they ALL work great. For instance: ___________ ___________

Pentax magnifier at B&H <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=41404&is=REG&addedTroughType=search>, Nikon magnifier at B&H [CLICK HERE <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=37321&is=GREY&addedTroughType=search>

Cindy,

......and they flip up to allow a view of the full screen as they crop the finder. They're not the sort of thing you can compose the full frame with, they're only of use to check the focus, and somewhat awkwardly if your camera is not on a tripod at that. Bear that in mind before buying...

Fred is right; but then they're not a major investment by any means. :) Try one.

They're great for critical focussing.

Is Cindy thinking more along the lines of the whole viewfinder needing to be effectively bigger, like you've described the Pentax DSLR's having?

The viewfinder in the Pentax *istD is a lot brighter in comparison with the dim tunnels of the Canons and Nikons I considered. That doesn't necessarily mean it's substantially "larger". Of course, the brighter the viewfinder, the easier it is to focus. But for truly critical focussing, the magnifier is still a huge aid.

Don't forget the Zigview viewfinder we discussed (and some vilified without grasping its intended use) earlier. I think it's overpriced at this point, but the price has begun to come down a bit.

Ramón G Castañeda,"Attachment and monitor for viewfinder (of any SLR)" - 02:41pm Jun 7, 2005 Pacific </cgi-bin/webx?14@@.3bbaccc0/0>

Ozpeter, "Attachment and monitor for viewfinder (of any SLR)" #4, 7 Jun 2005 4:54 pm </cgi-bin/webx?14@@.3bbaccc0/3>

I remember that discussion. Some people are nuts. It's beginning to look pretty good to me at this point.

Thanks for all your links. Some interesting gadgets. I dont see anything that would fit the 20D.

I have to wear glasses when shooting and focusing seems difficult when it is critical. I am taking more time but that isnt always posible on a candid shot.

Cindy - be sure to set the optical correction to match your glasses. You will need it set one way for glasses on and another for glasses off. It's called a diopter correction I believe???

There is no way with my glasses off. Cant see without them. But I do set for diopter correction everytime I change the lens.

I took my glasses off about twelve years ago and the more I work without them the better my eyes get. I had the restriction for corrected lenses remove d the last time I got my license renewed.

I owe this all to the large format camera as working with it strengthen my eyes. When I first took the off I could not see the fingernails on my own hand even at 12 inches away.

There are new ideas about this and using glasses and cameras present difficult issues you might wish to seek out an alternative to eye glasses. They have treatment and exercise programs now as the thinking about eye glasses have changed a lot as they themselves can cause destructive wear on the eye muscles.

Of course I probably never really needed glasses just unfortunate to run in to some screwed up eye doctors when I was young.

I usually work about 18 inches away fro the computer these days and I am going to push it to two feet. Which is what I am viewing it now from I can see it fine most of the time. But it will get better. If iit is possible and you get the right doctor they may have working without glasses in no time.

There is no way my eyes are going to miraculously correct themselves although it sure would be nice.

Miraculously no but perhaps with some hard work yes, but that is only a perhaps might be worth a little time to investigate.

Though your focusing skills look real good to me

I have heard of that no glasses/eyes correcting thing before. I have a cousin who did that.

Cindy
What Wade suggests may help, but it would take time for sure. I have the same problem. I wear graduated bifocals and figuring out what part of the lens to look through (eyeglass lens) always gives me trouble. John's suggestion about diopters is good also, but with the grads I just can't get to the same point on the lens each time. That's why I'm thinking of reading glases and suggested them. I wish I could use one of the magnifiers Ramon suggested, but I'm not sure they would work on my 10D, same as your 20D. I'm going to ask B&H if they are compatible but would be surprised.

I wear graduated bifocals too. I dont think my eyes are going to straighten out since I believe it comes with age. Im not saying Im ancient but I am past the point of being able to do eye exercises for correction although I appreciate the suggestions.

Yeah. I don't expect mine to get better. They seem to get a little worse each year at exam time. I've thought about laser, but that idea is right up there with skyjumping.
I'm due for an exam in november and will get a prescription for cheaters as well. If they help I'll mention it although two months is a while from now.

I would get laser if I didnt have both near AND far sightedness not to mention the need for a prism. I have one eye where the muscle is weak and likes to kind of wander around if I dont have the prism. Fine with it.

Cindy
What do you mean by wander around? Does it actually move around so you get movement in your vision on the one side? That must be quite disconcerting. I've been near sighted since birth most likely and wearing glasses since 4. So I can't remember not wearing glasses. It would seem quite strange without them.

Cindy I am sixty!

But again I probably originally never needed glasses and was forced to use them by my guardian and school officials as a child even though it seemed to me that I saw better without them until it was too late. But thee is a new approach to this and most people wearing glasses were probably only suffering from eyestrain in the first place.

All they needed were some relaxation exercises.

I am sixty!




Kids!

What do you mean by wander around? Does it actually move around so you
get movement in your vision on the one side?




It is not something anyone else can see when looking at me. But my left eye tends to want to create double vision which is corrected by a prism lens in that eye.

I did not start wearing glasses till mid-life and was really happy when I found this eye Dr. who prescribed the prism because it solved some of my problems. I would start seeing double even when driving. Not too cool. The near and far sightedness just gets a little worse each year. I used to have eagle eyes and was really reluctant to give up that title.

I've done the no glasses thing also and it works. It's not a miracle it simply requires that the muscles work. Glasses for movies and driving only! OK I often forget and wear them around.

I wear glasses for reading and the computer. Are you saying that the eyes will strengthen if you try to work without them?

Cathleen-

The use of auto focus is not what is to be avoided. Autofocus on a camera with a less than pro viewfinder is usually appropriate.

The use of auto-everything - any of the "P" settings - is to be avoided. Just leave the camera set to "aperture preferred auto" with the aperture normally set to f/5.6. Then when convenient also shoot shots at f/4 and f/22 so you can check the DOF differences later on the computer, or right away by zooming in the image on the LCD. It's digital so it's free!

---------------------------------------

since this is all digital there is no reason why the viewfinder could
not just stop the lens down but to also display the image in the correct
exposure. That is I am under the impression that the digital viewfinders
are not really optical but digital as well.




Incorrect impression. DSLRs are SLRs with digital capture. The through-the-lens viewfinding is the same as on a film SLR. However, the LCD can certainly be used that way. The fast way to learn how DOF behaves.