Photographers - need help buying Rebel XT stuff

[torpid]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

When you press the shutter release multiple times, you are not shooting bursts. In addition, there IS a lag when pressing the shutter multiple times. Of course, you will now probably deny it, then affirm it, then deny it and call me a scoundrel. It doesn't change reality.

You have a lot of... issues. I'm not acting like a jerk, just pointing out your inconsistency and false claims. You lied about having the wired remote, and anyone with a decent amount of experience knows that the wired remote is not only faster and more reliable, it has extra features and is useful MORE often, not less. Just one example: some people use it when handholding the camera in situations when a tripod/monopod can't be used, to minimize camera shake. When shooting landscapes and portraits, you are behind the camera except when you need to be away from it, which occurs very infrequently except for family self-portraits, etc.

You sound like a lying snapshooter to me, and you're snotty to boot.

Sorry if there is some technical difference between setting the camera to take 3 shots at once or just pressing it a lot, I was not aware of it. To me they are both burst. When you take a lot of photos, that's burst in my book. No doubt you will now ask for the ISBN of my book.

I never claimed to have the wired remote. What are you talking about? I have used a wired remote in the past on other cameras, though I never stated it above, and found it less useful on the whole than a wireless one. Keep in mind that not all of us sit around all day thinking about cameras. I use my camera recreationally, and have rarely felt that I needed anything but the wireless.

I said I THINK I was getting 3-4 fps. Holy crap, I qualified it with I think and you still want to jump on me for that? Jesus, what is your problem? The point I was making is that the lag is not a tremendous amount of lag. My original post about the remote was in response to someone on a previous page who said it was not worth it. Then you chime in with your "expert" opinion and say that it is slow. I just wanted to clarify that it's not so slow as to be useless. It's fast enough that you can "say cheese" and take the photo quickly, and can repeatedly press it from then on and get shots in rapid fire.

Yeah it's not really noticeable in the grand scheme of things when you are shooting a bunch of photos. It may be there, but it's never been an issue for me. I'm sorry if I don't see the difference between "definitely not any noticeable lag" and "not much lag at all". I guess those are greatly differing statements to you. Not to me. I don't sit around finding pointless things to harp on about. My original post about the speed was to state that the wireless remote is not as slow as one would infer from your assessment. Then you go on and on and puff out your chest "I own both, I would know" and all that nonsense.

Most of those things you mention, except possibly the hand held thing, can be done with the wireless remote. Maybe you can't half depress it for autofocus... I don't know why you would do that anyway since you have no way of knowing what is happening without looking through the viewfinder. In fact, generally you will be focusing manually and then switching the lens to manual focus.

It may be less convenient, but you can always move to an angle where the remote works and you are not in the shot. On the other hand, it is impossible to use the wired remote to take photos that include yourself in most instances.

So the wired remote is slightly more convenient in some cases but cannot be used in one (IMO) important way.

I have tried to be helpful in this thread, whereas you seem to want to pick fights and debate lenses the OP has no interest in endlessly. Then you go and retro edit your post to take out the statements we are discussing. And I am the one who has issues? OOOKAY.

Let's just leave it at "get both of them" and that the wireless is just fine if you have to choose one, and is not useless or terribly slow.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: torpid
Let's just leave it at "get both of them" and that the wireless is just fine if you have to choose one, and is not useless or terribly slow.

I never said it was useless. It does have lag, slow enough to make a difference sometimes. Also, the WIRED remote is the better choice for someone picking just one. Why? Because the main reason for wanting to use a remote is for use with a tripod, and most tripod shots are made from behind the camera. That, plus the extra features, make it MORE useful.

BTW, you should go back and read your post where you did claim to have the wired remote. You've obviously got some weird bug up your ass, but it's not my fault for pointing out the obvious.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

When you press the shutter release multiple times, you are not shooting bursts. In addition, there IS a lag when pressing the shutter multiple times. Of course, you will now probably deny it, then affirm it, then deny it and call me a scoundrel. It doesn't change reality.

You have a lot of... issues. I'm not acting like a jerk, just pointing out your inconsistency and false claims. You lied about having the wired remote, and anyone with a decent amount of experience knows that the wired remote is not only faster and more reliable, it has extra features and is useful MORE often, not less. Just one example: some people use it when handholding the camera in situations when a tripod/monopod can't be used, to minimize camera shake. When shooting landscapes and portraits, you are behind the camera except when you need to be away from it, which occurs very infrequently except for family self-portraits, etc.

You sound like a lying snapshooter to me, and you're snotty to boot.

Sorry if there is some technical difference between setting the camera to take 3 shots at once or just pressing it a lot, I was not aware of it. To me they are both burst. When you take a lot of photos, that's burst in my book. No doubt you will now ask for the ISBN of my book.

I never claimed to have the wired remote. What are you talking about? I have used a wired remote in the past on other cameras, though I never stated it above, and found it less useful on the whole than a wireless one. Keep in mind that not all of us sit around all day thinking about cameras. I use my camera recreationally, and have rarely felt that I needed anything but the wireless.

I said I THINK I was getting 3-4 fps. Holy crap, I qualified it with I think and you still want to jump on me for that? Jesus, what is your problem? The point I was making is that the lag is not a tremendous amount of lag. My original post about the remote was in response to someone on a previous page who said it was not worth it. Then you chime in with your "expert" opinion and say that it is slow. I just wanted to clarify that it's not so slow as to be useless. It's fast enough that you can "say cheese" and take the photo quickly, and can repeatedly press it from then on and get shots in rapid fire.

Yeah it's not really noticeable in the grand scheme of things when you are shooting a bunch of photos. It may be there, but it's never been an issue for me. I'm sorry if I don't see the difference between "definitely not any noticeable lag" and "not much lag at all". I guess those are greatly differing statements to you. Not to me. I don't sit around finding pointless things to harp on about. My original post about the speed was to state that the wireless remote is not as slow as one would infer from your assessment. Then you go on and on and puff out your chest "I own both, I would know" and all that nonsense.

Most of those things you mention, except possibly the hand held thing, can be done with the wireless remote. Maybe you can't half depress it for autofocus... I don't know why you would do that anyway since you have no way of knowing what is happening without looking through the viewfinder. In fact, generally you will be focusing manually and then switching the lens to manual focus.

It may be less convenient, but you can always move to an angle where the remote works and you are not in the shot. On the other hand, it is impossible to use the wired remote to take photos that include yourself in most instances.

So the wired remote is slightly more convenient in some cases but cannot be used in one (IMO) important way.

I have tried to be helpful in this thread, whereas you seem to want to pick fights and debate lenses the OP has no interest in endlessly. Then you go and retro edit your post to take out the statements we are discussing. And I am the one who has issues? OOOKAY.

Let's just leave it at "get both of them" and that the wireless is just fine if you have to choose one, and is not useless or terribly slow.

So you've used a wired remote? Then why did you say eariler you didn't even know they made one?

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: tfinch2
So you've used a wired remote? Then why did you say eariler you didn't even know they made one?

Because I didn't know they had one for the rebel XT.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: torpid
Let's just leave it at "get both of them" and that the wireless is just fine if you have to choose one, and is not useless or terribly slow.

I never said it was useless. It does have lag, slow enough to make a difference sometimes. Also, the WIRED remote is the better choice for someone picking just one. Why? Because the main reason for wanting to use a remote is for use with a tripod, and most tripod shots are made from behind the camera. That, plus the extra features, make it MORE useful.

BTW, you should go back and read your post where you did claim to have the wired remote. You've obviously got some weird bug up your ass, but it's not my fault for pointing out the obvious.

I see it now. It was a typo. Sorry for the confusion. I will amend my post. I thought it was obvious from the post, but guess not.

I don't have a bug up my ass unless I say something useful which you apparently agree with on some level and then get ridiculed and harped on as if I have committed some great sin. You on the other hand apparently are quick to call people stupid (second or third post of yours in this thread) and go on endlessly about all the lenses you have owned and how important you are.

What are the times where it makes a difference, since you are so keen on them? The times I have used it, it makes no difference. The only ones I can think of are "action" shots.

A tripod is not the main reason why I use a remote. I use it to take photos of myself or of things that require some involvement by me (e.g. holding something steady that I want to photograph). It's a better alternative to the timer. If you are going to be taking a lot of tripod shots with long exposures, I guess you would want the wired one.

But you will be literally unable to use anything but the timer with just the wired one if you want to photograph yourself. You can do the "hold it at arm's length" shot that photo bloggers seem to love, but those always look terrible to me.

 

[Jejunum]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: torpid
Let's just leave it at "get both of them" and that the wireless is just fine if you have to choose one, and is not useless or terribly slow.

I never said it was useless. It does have lag, slow enough to make a difference sometimes. Also, the WIRED remote is the better choice for someone picking just one. Why? Because the main reason for wanting to use a remote is for use with a tripod, and most tripod shots are made from behind the camera. That, plus the extra features, make it MORE useful.

BTW, you should go back and read your post where you did claim to have the wired remote. You've obviously got some weird bug up your ass, but it's not my fault for pointing out the obvious.

I have the wireless remote, i wish i bought the wired.

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: Jejunum

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: torpid
Let's just leave it at "get both of them" and that the wireless is just fine if you have to choose one, and is not useless or terribly slow.

I never said it was useless. It does have lag, slow enough to make a difference sometimes. Also, the WIRED remote is the better choice for someone picking just one. Why? Because the main reason for wanting to use a remote is for use with a tripod, and most tripod shots are made from behind the camera. That, plus the extra features, make it MORE useful.

BTW, you should go back and read your post where you did claim to have the wired remote. You've obviously got some weird bug up your ass, but it's not my fault for pointing out the obvious.

I have the wireless remote, i wish i bought the wired.

Why? (serious question)

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Jejunum

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: torpid
Let's just leave it at "get both of them" and that the wireless is just fine if you have to choose one, and is not useless or terribly slow.

I never said it was useless. It does have lag, slow enough to make a difference sometimes. Also, the WIRED remote is the better choice for someone picking just one. Why? Because the main reason for wanting to use a remote is for use with a tripod, and most tripod shots are made from behind the camera. That, plus the extra features, make it MORE useful.

BTW, you should go back and read your post where you did claim to have the wired remote. You've obviously got some weird bug up your ass, but it's not my fault for pointing out the obvious.

I have the wireless remote, i wish i bought the wired.

If you can spare ten bucks or so, you can check out something like this. I actually have this particular one-- I was curious. It compares pretty well with the Canon remote. Some people even make their own; apparently it's not that hard to do.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Remote-Switch-for-C...85QQcategoryZ64345QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

[Jejunum]

my main use for the remote is for when my camera is on the tripod. Its sometimes a hassle to reach around the front and press the button, and doesnt always respond. Taking fireworks with the wireless remote is not as fun i imagine as with a wired remote. As for building one, good idea - but no time!

did you consider buying the kit lens (in addition)? Its cheap, light and significantly wider than the lenses you have listed.

edit: you also cant focus, refocus with the wireless remote. Once you press it the camera focusses and then takes the shot (not a big deal since i am usually manually focussed, but still...)

(for comparison on the wired remotes
"press the shutter halfway down to achieve focus, you will hear the focus beep and see the focus indicator in your camera's viewfinder; press the shutter complete down to activate shutter release."

 

[Staples]

I have that Tamron lens. It was the first lens I bought. I know know that nothing is more of a pain in the ass than switching out lenses.

My advice: Get a lens with a better range.

And just ket the kit lens for wide angles. I got the rebel XT a year ago and not being able to shoot wide really got to me. I did all the research and came to this conclusion. I won't be using it much and when I do, I will be indoors and the pictures will look like crap anyways. Why not just go cheap. So I did and for $70 I recently got the kit lens. IIt is your best option unless you get the 17-85 lens as some have suggested.

 

[JinLien]

Originally posted by: Staples
I have that Tamron lens. It was the first lens I bought. I know know that nothing is more of a pain in the ass than switching out lenses.

My advice: Get a lens with a better range.

Switching lenses can a pain that why I have multiple bodies to go with my lenses.

 

[montanafan]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
The Sigma 24-70 EX is pretty poor. Sometimes you get what you pay for. In addition to extreme softness and lack of contrast at f/2.8 and a pretty bad warm color cast, it has bad focus issues on Canon bodies (like most Sigma lenses).

You're obviously just restating things you've read and heard. You tell this guy that his lens sucks while you have nothing to show for it.

Nope, and you're stupid for making that accusation. I owned an 18-50 EX that had focusing issues. Then I owned a 24-70 EX that had focusing issues. I have many Canon lenses, including L lenses, that work great on both of my camera bodies. Shut up if you have nothing valuable to add.

What's even stupider is that you point to a particular image, when I'm talking about a focus consistency problem. I never said that the lens wouldn't take a single decent picture due to this. You also point to an f/11 landscape picture, when I'm talking about image quality issues at f/2.8 (and the f/11 would also mask focus issues). You point to a thumbnail-sized image, which makes it impossible to decently assess image quality. YOUR ARGUMENT COULDN'T BE STUPIDER. Shut up and sit down.

my f1.8 50mm canon doesn't focus very well in the dark...

That's partly because in the dark, you will be using a very wide aperture, and the depth of field will be very small. The 50mm 1.8 (which I also have) uses what's called a "stepper" motor, which advances the focus in increments, not smoothly. This results in a well-known issue when the correct focus would lie in between two of the steps. Many people buy the 50 1.4 just for better build and AF, because its optical quality at 1.4 is not great and it's not significantly optically better than the 1.8.

In addition, the Rebel XT (I have one in addition to a 1D Mk II) is not the greatest camera at focusing in low light compared to other bodies; it's one of its few flaws. You really need at least a 20D or other body to start taking full advantage of low-light AF ability. The 20D and 30D have three times more accurate autofocus vs. the XT when using an f/2.8 lens or faster, even before considering things like flashes with AF assist beams. Pro bodies have even more advanced focus capability.

I can confirm the bolded part. I have the Digital Rebel and didn't find out about the focusing problems until after I'd experienced them a few times and did a little research after the fact.

It's very annoying because I shoot a lot of sports indoors and outdoors in low light. Anything f/2.8 or faster is where you have problems, even when it's a Canon lens, but with a Sigma it's even worse. The AF with the Canon 50mm f/1.8 is almost useless, I only use manual focusing with that lens when shooting basketball now. I have lots of basketball photos where the focus point was dead on, but couldn't be obtained by the Rebel's AF. Same thing in outdoor sports at f/2.8 or faster even in good light if you have a busy background.

Anyone who wants to shoot a lot of sports properly should skip the Rebel and Rebel XT and try to swing the 20D.

 

[yhelothar]

If you want the absolute best quality, AND save money at the same time, look no further than the SMC Takumar 50mm F/1.4
It's an all-metal manual focus lens that rivals zeiss lenses.
Check out these comparisons.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/238813/0

Many Canon users gets these with an M42 adapter to use on their cameras. It's reported to be sharper than Canon's 50mm F/1.4.
You can get it off ebay for a mere $50. Definitely a steal!

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
If you want the absolute best quality, AND save money at the same time, look no further than the SMC Takumar 50mm F/1.4
It's an all-metal manual focus lens that rivals zeiss lenses.
Check out these comparisons.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/238813/0

Many Canon users gets these with an M42 adapter to use on their cameras. It's reported to be sharper than Canon's 50mm F/1.4.
You can get it off ebay for a mere $50. Definitely a steal!

So the "zoom" is the "mm" and the focus is with the ring on the end of the lens? I'm slowly getting there...my A75 doesn't have all these fancy features

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Kaido
So the "zoom" is the "mm" and the focus is with the ring on the end of the lens? I'm slowly getting there...my A75 doesn't have all these fancy features

Yes. However, I must say that autofocus is nice even if it doesn't always work. I take a lot of indoor shots with the 50mm 1.8 and usually AF works. It's just in really low light or, more commonly, when too close to a subject, that I have to manually focus. Or when I want to take quick photos, because even on its best days the AF is a bit slow.

I believe the important characteristic for quick and not loud AF is the USM ring. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on that.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Kaido
So the "zoom" is the "mm" and the focus is with the ring on the end of the lens? I'm slowly getting there...my A75 doesn't have all these fancy features

Yes. However, I must say that autofocus is nice even if it doesn't always work. I take a lot of indoor shots with the 50mm 1.8 and usually AF works. It's just in really low light or, more commonly, when too close to a subject, that I have to manually focus. Or when I want to take quick photos, because even on its best days the AF is a bit slow.

I believe the important characteristic for quick and not loud AF is the USM ring. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on that.

USM stands for UltraSonic Motor, a type of focus-adjust system which works by repositioning lens elements using sonic waves. It occurs in two types: ring USM and micro USM. Both are nearly silent and very fast. Ring USM is slightly faster, but also more expensive. Micro USM is slightly more durable, although both should last for at LEAST a decade of heavy use. Sigma has a comparable technology known as HSM.

 

[JinLien]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
If you want the absolute best quality, AND save money at the same time, look no further than the SMC Takumar 50mm F/1.4
It's an all-metal manual focus lens that rivals zeiss lenses.
Check out these comparisons.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/238813/0

Many Canon users gets these with an M42 adapter to use on their cameras. It's reported to be sharper than Canon's 50mm F/1.4.
You can get it off ebay for a mere $50. Definitely a steal!

FD 50mm f:1.4 is no slough and is way better in all respect when compare to the EF cousins (the FD 50mm can be had for around $50). FD 50mm f:1.2 L is also a great lens, and same as the legendary FD 85mm f:1.2 L.

The FD 85mm f:1.2 L is on par as the new EF 85mm f:1.2 L.
Older FD 50mm are better than EF mounts.

Takumar SMC lenses are very good, however most of Olympus Zuiko manual lenses are sharper & are better at colour rendering many Zeiss lenses. The built quality of Zuiko are top notch and smaller/lighter than most (all) manufactures.

You can get adaptor for every mount that ever made, and the price is right for most of the older manual lenses if you are willing to look for them and don't mind focusing by hand.

 

[Kaido]

Any recommended reading materials to get up on dSLR?

 

[Jejunum]

peterson's understanding exposure is highly recomennded.

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: Jejunum
peterson's understanding exposure is highly recomennded.

Wow that looks really excellent, thanks! :thumbsup:

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: JinLien

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
If you want the absolute best quality, AND save money at the same time, look no further than the SMC Takumar 50mm F/1.4
It's an all-metal manual focus lens that rivals zeiss lenses.
Check out these comparisons.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/238813/0

Many Canon users gets these with an M42 adapter to use on their cameras. It's reported to be sharper than Canon's 50mm F/1.4.
You can get it off ebay for a mere $50. Definitely a steal!

FD 50mm f:1.4 is no slough and is way better in all respect when compare to the EF cousins (the FD 50mm can be had for around $50). FD 50mm f:1.2 L is also a great lens, and same as the legendary FD 85mm f:1.2 L.

The FD 85mm f:1.2 L is on par as the new EF 85mm f:1.2 L.
Older FD 50mm are better than EF mounts.

Takumar SMC lenses are very good, however most of Olympus Zuiko manual lenses are sharper & are better at colour rendering many Zeiss lenses. The built quality of Zuiko are top notch and smaller/lighter than most (all) manufactures.

You can get adaptor for every mount that ever made, and the price is right for most of the older manual lenses if you are willing to look for them and don't mind focusing by hand.

:thumbsup:

I have three OM Zuiko lenses, the 50mm f/1.8, 28mm f/2.8, and the 50mm f/3.5 macro that I use on my E-300. They are all very sharp as long as my focus is right.

 

[lowfatbaconboy]

Originally posted by: Staples
I have that Tamron lens. It was the first lens I bought. I know know that nothing is more of a pain in the ass than switching out lenses.

My advice: Get a lens with a better range.

wow you are a wussy bish....changing lenses is easy plus you get better quality and speed out of prime lenses

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: lowfatbaconboy

Originally posted by: Staples
I have that Tamron lens. It was the first lens I bought. I know know that nothing is more of a pain in the ass than switching out lenses.

My advice: Get a lens with a better range.

wow you are a wussy bish....changing lenses is easy plus you get better quality and speed out of prime lenses

You are truly a moron. Obviously you've never missed a shot while trying to change lenses, dropped a lens in a hurry, shot in sandy/dusty/rainy conditions, or done anything else to merit taking you seriously. Just shut up.

 

[Dravic]

Originally posted by: Kaido
Okay, here's the first pass: ($1159 total)

Canon Digital Rebel XT (aka 350d): $580 AR ($100 MIR)
Tamron Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto AF 28-75mm f/2.8 Autofocus lens: $380
Tamrac N-27 Boomerang Camera Strap with Quick Release (black): $20
2gb Sandisk Ultra II CompactFlash memory card: $86
Tamrac Holster Bag: $35
Canon RC-1 Wireless Remote Control: $25
Spare hi-capacity battery: $33

That should take care of the basics; upgrades can come later on (flash, more lenses, etc.). After doing all this research, I think *I'm* going to pick this up lol. This seems like a nice deal! Thanks for all the help everyone, I really appreciate it!

drop the strap.. not worth it.. my strap has never been an issue.. 9000+ pics on 300D and counting..

drop the wireles remote if you not getting a tripod right now..

get the f1.8 50mm .. 'the thrifty fifty" , and to offset any focus issues with it, get a real flash and use the external flashes infra red to focus in low light.. work wonders..

i use the sunpak 5000af with my 300d.



my current set up..

300D
75-300 crappy canon lens (had to get something with range)
Thrifty fifty 1.8
kit lens
3x512MB CF
sunpak 5000af flash with omnibounce

get good glass over an accesories... i'll buy more glass before i upgrade my body...

That Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 is prob next on my list...

 

[GTaudiophile]

First thing I bought for my EOS-20D was a leather strap. Nothing like a strap that says "Canon EOS Digital" to tell the thieves who to steal from! The Canon strap never came out of the box.