Beginning amateur SLR - Canon Rebel

Discussion in 'Canon' started by Kapsee, Sep 9, 2004.

  1. Kapsee

    Kapsee Guest

    I am thinking of buying my first SLR camera. I was thinking of starting out
    with Canon Rebel Ti with a 28-105mm lens. Any suggestions/comments ?

    Any opinions about the new Rebel T2 (this seems to be $50 more expensive
    than Ti) ? Is it worth it ?

    Kapsee, Sep 9, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Kapsee

    Robert Barr Guest

    Good choice. I love mine, and these are pretty much universally viewed
    as a great value.
    I would consider finding a nice used Elan 7 for about the same money.
    Maybe less. Otherwise, no opinion on the body.
    Robert Barr, Sep 9, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Kapsee

    Robert Barr Guest

    (The lens, I meant here).
    Robert Barr, Sep 9, 2004
  4. Kapsee

    Tony Guest

    Pretty good combination.
    Tony, Sep 9, 2004
  5. Kapsee

    Skip M Guest

    Avoid the 28-105 f4.5-5.6 in favor of the 28-105 f3.5-4.5, a much better
    Skip M, Sep 9, 2004
  6. Kapsee

    John Doe Guest

    Also look at the Minolta Maxxum 5 and 70. The Maxxum 5 is the older
    model and is available very cheap. And unlike the Canon all features
    work in all modes. I already bought a Rebel Ti and gifted it to my
    father. Now I am looking to buy a Minolta Maxxum 5 or maybe the 70.


    John Doe, Sep 9, 2004
  7. Your choice is a good all around choice.

    What are your plans for photography? If you have some special type of
    photography in mind, there may be better choices.
    Joseph Meehan, Sep 9, 2004
  8. Kapsee

    Kapsee Guest

    Mostly landscapes/potraits. Probably not much of sports/action.
    Kapsee, Sep 9, 2004
  9. Kapsee

    Ted Azito Guest

    Perhaps medium or even large format might be a better choice for that
    sort of work. A manual non-autofocus 35mm very certainly would. If you
    don't need autofocus, you should avoid it even to the point of paying
    extra not to have it.
    Ted Azito, Sep 13, 2004
  10. Kapsee

    DM Guest

    Depends on what you're going to do with the camera. Personally,
    I'd get a Nikon FM2 or FE2 with a single prime lens. If you don't
    like it after 15 years you can still sell it for very little loss.
    DM, Sep 13, 2004
  11. Kapsee

    Rudi Cheow Guest

    Forgive my beginner naïvety, but why is this?

    Will explicitly avoiding AF at a greater cost mean greater pictures?
    All else being equal, will a MF lens that costs more than its AF
    counterpart (if such a thing exists) produce better results?

    Is this just some form of photography elitism (apologies for the
    cynicism but as a newbie to these groups I've come across a lot of

    Rudi Cheow, Sep 14, 2004
  12. Kapsee

    The Wogster Guest

    AF itself is not a problem, but like auto-exposure, you need to learn
    where it works, and where it doesn't. Everyone has seen the picture,
    where you shot through a window, and the only thing in focus is the
    dirt on the glass. That is the kind of situation where you need not
    be afraid to hit the AF/MF button, and focus it yourself. Just like
    auto-exposure, you need to know when to select manual, and adjust the
    settings yourself. Very few beginners know the relationship between
    shutter-speed, aperature and depth of field. One of the best things
    you can learn is the zone system. Your meter is zone 5, if you know
    your subject is zone 3, you know you can adjust the camera manually,
    or use the exposure compensation dial, to get the correct exposure.

    The Wogster, Sep 14, 2004
  13. Kapsee

    Alan Browne Guest

    An advantage to manual focus cameras is that it is easier to
    focus accurately than an AF is to focus manually. Having said
    that, most people do fine with AF cameras in both AF and manual

    AF is not as accurate as a carefully manually focused shot (MF or
    AF in manual)

    So depending on your objectives and needs, take the prev. posters
    comment with a grain of salt.

    Alan Browne, Sep 14, 2004
  14. Kapsee

    Rufio Guest

    I own a Nikon 6006 - one reason I chose it was because it has the option of
    manual/single/continuous AF. Seems like a simple option & I don't understand
    why some cameras DON'T have this choice. Personally, I probably wonld NOT
    choose any camera that doesn't offer this.

    I bought the 6006 about 10 years ago. I wanted AF because I'd had numerous
    pictures out of focus using a manual focus camera (Nikon F301) , prior to
    that time - my eyesight isn't so good. As the years have gone by, I've found
    that I use AF less - but I still wouldn't give it up. I use manual for
    landscapes, where I would be on infinity anyway. I also use manual for
    motorsport, where AF isn't fast enough (and has a tendency to focus on the
    background, behind the subject). But I still use AF alot of the rest of the
    time, as it's one less thing to think about & I can concentrate on other
    aspects of the picture - probably a good thing for a beginner to think about

    (not a brand-name bigotry flame - I genuinely believe they're the best
    choice), my advice to anyone newbie, that asks is "get a Nikon". If I do
    get a D70, I may well be using the same lenses on my D70 digital & my 30
    year old Nikon FE (obviously, the AF doesn't work on the FE). I love my

    So - just my opinion but - don't buy a camera that has permanent autofocus -
    you gotta be able to turn it off. For me, the autofocus options are more
    important, when buying a new camera, than it's metering options, for example
    (you can always buy a separate light meter if you need one. But if you buy a
    camera with AF always on or with no AF, you have no choice about focus).
    Rufio, Sep 14, 2004
  15. Kapsee

    Gordon Moat Guest

    Some people are more anti autofocus than others, though it is not
    without reason.
    I think what Ted was referring to were the few cameras that are still
    made as manual focus cameras in 35 mm are of generally fairly high
    quality. Those would be Contax, Leica, and a couple of Nikon cameras
    still available as new (FM3A, F3 (very few new), and FM2 (harder to
    still find new)). Of course, there are others, or lots more for used
    choices. A broad generalization about all these is that they have focus
    screens (in the SLRs) that make manual focus very easy to accomplish.
    The only ones I can think of like that are a few of the Nikon lenses. If
    you only look at the 50 mm choices, the optical formula is nearly the
    same. The lens barrel construction is different, and manual focus feel
    is fairly even, while manually focusing an autofocus lens seems very
    loose. Under similar conditions, the results of manually focusing either
    type would be nearly indistinguishable.
    Sometimes an elitist attitude, though not always without some truth, or
    reasoning. In general again, a fixed focal length lens could provide
    better image quality than a zoom, but it is such a subjective measure,
    few people really notice the differences. If something is so subtle,
    does it really make much difference?

    Anyway, the basic idea behind autofocus is that the sensor compares
    contrast differences to choose a focus plane. In some situations, a
    change of contrast, or lighting, can slightly alter that autofocus
    choice of plane of focus. While the DoF might cover that slight
    variation, sometimes it can result in a somewhat softer image. Imagine
    that the autofocus can change distance slightly, even when the subject
    has not changed distance. Most of the time, you are likely to never
    notice it, while looking through the viewfinder.

    Of course, you can manually focus an autofocus lens. The issues with
    that are some SLRs do not have a viewfinder screen that makes manual
    focus easy. Some of the newer lenses barely have any area to place your
    fingers to manually focus the lens (Nikon G series kit zooms are really
    bad like this), which makes manually focusing a pain. Also, many zoom
    lenses are not very bright in the viewfinder, which can be made worse by
    a mirror set-up instead of a true prism in the SLR, making focusing
    manually under lower light conditions even tougher.

    While I am generally against autofocus, there is at least one instance
    in which it replaces an action almost impossible with manual focus. If
    an object is moving directly towards you, trying to follow that changing
    focus point can be very tough, especially if that object is moving fast.
    With autofocus, many SLRs allow for quickly following focus


    Gordon Moat
    A G Studio
    <> Updated!
    Gordon Moat, Sep 14, 2004
  16. Kapsee

    Alan Browne Guest

    Eyesight challenges are indeed a very valid reason to get AF.
    However, as another poster pointed out, understanding how the AF
    functions (and doesn't) is important to achieve desired focus plane.
    Later bodies (such as mine) do a fine job with motorsports and AF.
    While it is true that more is gained by approaching an image for
    compositional value first, the technical expertise is often what
    makes that composition shine. For virtually all static subjects,
    AF is a hinderance, not an asset.
    And Nikon love you for falling into their carefully and
    brillantly established marekting ploy. (Whenever you hear
    someone with an F65 referring to Nikon as "what the pros use"
    then you know it's a success).
    AFAIK there are no AF SLR's where AF cannot be turned off.

    Alan Browne, Sep 14, 2004
  17. Something think about when purchasing a AF camera is the type of weather it
    is going to be used in. Some AF cameras will not work in cold weather. And
    they are alot harder to clean if they get wet.
    Cranfield Family, Sep 14, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.