Undecided on Upgrading. :/

bradytanner

I know this has been a battle across the newbie photography world.

But I wanted some opinion from a forum like this. :]

Canon Rebel XT vs Canon Rebel XTi

as of right now I am using a Kodak easyshare ZD8612 IS



And I can get some Decent shots with it.

flickr.com/photos/bradytanner

I didn't feel liek linking another image.

BUT ANYWAYS.
I'm still not exactly sure what kind of photograpy I like.
And I basiclly know nothing about cameras.

[AND IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO TEACH ME MESSEGE ME ]

but anyways.
I've decided I really like Photography and want to get a real camera.
I've read a bit about both.
and I don't undertsand some things.
Like why the lens size matter, ISO, all that.
I have no clue.

I DO UNDERSTAND MEGAPIXELS. haha.

and I dont know how to clean a camera.
so I thought the XTi might be better?

I dont know.
Sorry.
I sound so stupid.
I jsut don' know.
help?

Candid Arts

Haha, love this post. Ok. Let's start.

I'd look into the XSi.

The lens size matters for what type of photography your are going to do. The lower the number (10mm, 14mm, 35mm) are all considered wide angle (i.e. you see more of the landscape (or subject matter) when you look through the eyepiece). The mid range numbers (50mm, 85mm, 105mm) are considered mid range standard focal length lenses. The higher the number (200mm, 300mm, 600mm, 800mm) will zoom in to the subject that is far away.

The aperture is also a big part of the quality and usability of the lens. Aperture is the f/# (f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, etc...) The lower the number the wider (larger) the aperture opens, which gives you more light, and a shallower depth of field (DOF). In tern, the larger the number (f/11, f/16, f/32) the smaller the aperture opens, which gives you less light, and a wider DOF. Lower aperture lenses (f/2.8 or smaller, they can get down to f/1.2) are considered "fast" lenses and are more expensive, but give you more options for shooting and usually better quality images. A lens however (if it's widest aperture is f/2.8) is sharpest at usually +1-2 stops past it's widest aperture. EX: if a lenses widest aperture is f/2.8, +2 stops would give you a f/5.6 (where as f/4 is +1 stop, and f/2 is -1 stop).

ISO is a term used in FILM but has transfered over to digital photography. ISO (International Standarization Organization) is a term that describes the "speed" of the film, in reference to it's sensitivity to light. The higher the ISO (800, 1600, 3200) the more sensitive the film (or sensor in the case of digital). By using a higher ISO though, the film has larger, less fine, grain. You can see this digital artifact in digital photography by the term "noise". When you bump up your ISO in digital photography, it makes the sensor more light sensitive (which means you can use faster shutter speeds in lower light condition when your lens won't allow you to open the aperture any wider), but at the result of adding noise to the photo (which can be fixed in noise reduction programs to a certain extent).

The best way to choose a camera is to play with it, play with it's menu system, zoom and focus the lenses and see what generally works best for you.

If you are looking at getting a new DSLR, don't buy the "kit" with the kit lens, it's usually a cheaper lens, especially in the case of the Rebel series and the 18-55 lens it comes with. I would suggest buying JUST the body of your choise, followed with a lens seperately. The Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a GREAT choice, but at a rather pricey price tag. The Canon EF-S 17-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS is also a great choice, but has a variable aperture (f/4.5-5.6 which changes as you zoom the lens) which means it's not as fast and won't work as good in low light situations, but it is a bit cheaper and gives you 30mm of extra zoom. But the thing to remember is, next to YOU (the photographer), the lens is going to make the picture. Cheap lenses give you crappy photos no matter how good the body or photographer. Lenses are a BIG part of photography and will hold their value extremely well if well taken care of.

I hope that answers some of your questions, and fell free to ask more. That's what we are here for.

DsrtVW

Above was very instructive. Welcome to DGrin and good luck with your future photography adventure.
But being a Nikon user I have to say you should look at all brands pick them up and see how they feel. Some fit better than others, buttons easier to reach, menus for controls etc...
You can even look for good used equipment to get started on.
See if there is a local camera group to get together and shoot and learn.

Eddy

Candid i bow down to you and the way you handled this question...For me it just thought me the logic of apertures and speed which i really appreciate on how you explained it..thank you thank you... Wooow you schooled me very logically on how it ties into everything when taking a picture
THank you friend ... you dont mind if i copy it ans save it for my use if not i wont
cheers Eddy


P.S. Can you explain what are the calculations you do to get to the answer on this part

A lens however (if it's widest aperture is f/2.8) is sharpest at usually +1-2 stops past it's widest aperture. EX: if a lenses widest aperture is f/2.8, +2 stops would give you a f/5.6 (where as f/4 is +1 stop, and f/2 is -1 stop).

Do you subtract /add

rcliffor

Bradytanner, I have been in a similar boat. Although I used to have a nice film camera, since the digital age I used nothing but point-and -shoot. I still have a G9 I carry on my motorcycle which is a good camera. I mentioned to my brother I was looking a getting a DSLR and he gave me his old XTi with the stock lens.

The XTi has been a great camera to re-learn with...I have only had it since mid-December. The one feature I do not like is the lack of live view on the LCD. I have had several occassions where it was difficult to use the viewfinder so I just had to point the camera and take multiple shots.

I agree with the comment to look into the XSi.

ziggy53

Eddy wrote:

...


P.S. Can you explain what are the calculations you do to get to the answer on this part

A lens however (if it's widest aperture is f/2.8) is sharpest at usually +1-2 stops past it's widest aperture. EX: if a lenses widest aperture is f/2.8, +2 stops would give you a f/5.6 (where as f/4 is +1 stop, and f/2 is -1 stop).

Do you subtract /add

Eddy,

Most lenses achieve their best sharpness by reducing the aperture a bit. There is no "formula" as such, just general practice from observations.

To see how specific lenses "might" respond to specific aperture settings it's best to refer to a lens testing site like:

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview

Remember that a lens you purchase may not perform identically because of sample variations.

TaDa

Brady,

Welcome to DGrin. . Whenever someone is looking to get into a dSLR, questions that come to mind for me first are: What is your budget? What is your shooting style? (Do you mainly plan on shooting sports and other action, or are you looking for a camera for family shots, portraiture, landscape, etc.)

The reason that I ask about budget, is because I tend to advise people towards a prosumer body over the rebel line. Main reason, they have a quick-control dial on the back over the push buttons on the rebel series. The wheel really helps when you want to "learn" again since it makes the camera so much easier to use in manual mode. Above and beyond that, a camera like the 40D is selling dirt cheap nowadays second hand. You can find lightly used ones for $600-$650. I believe that the extra $100-$150 over a new XSi would be money well spent. You'd be getting a better built camera (magnesium alloy body versus the plastic of the rebel series), a camera with a longer rated lasting shutter, etc. (oh, and did I mention the quick-control dial?)

Camera bodies depreciate in value so quickly, that I personally will never buy a new camera body again. I was able to pick up my 5D for $1100, where they were selling new for over $2k a little over 6 months ago.

bradytanner

WOW, thank you so much all of you!

Especially Candid Arts!
I thought my question was going to be ignored.
but holy crap.
you guys are awesome!

I will continue looking into the rebel series and proceed trying to figure out which one is best for me.

to TaDa; My Budget? As long as it's under $500ish. I'm just going to start saving up. and yo usaid something about my shooting style? I dont know why I like shooting yet. Thats another problem.

to DsrtVW; I will also do this. Although, I've played with Canon's and Nikon's In Bestbuy/Target etc; And so Far I favor Canon.

once again thank you SO much!
if anyone would like to school me on photography.
Let me know.

Eddy

Ziggy...Thank you Thank you...I do feel blessed with so much ppl here to help us... I ahve some reading and some practicing alot more.
Question does this fall for mAcros to ...i am guseeing it does...Ziggy
Thanks for all teh help and tips
Cheers
Eddy

Candid Arts

Eddy wrote:

Candid i bow down to you and the way you handled this question...For me it just thought me the logic of apertures and speed which i really appreciate on how you explained it..thank you thank you... Wooow you schooled me very logically on how it ties into everything when taking a picture
THank you friend ... you dont mind if i copy it ans save it for my use if not i wont
cheers Eddy

First of all you're welcome. I don't mind if you use that at all. The knowledge is here for you and future users to learn from.

Eddy wrote:

P.S. Can you explain what are the calculations you do to get to the answer on this part

A lens however (if it's widest aperture is f/2.8) is sharpest at usually +1-2 stops past it's widest aperture. EX: if a lenses widest aperture is f/2.8, +2 stops would give you a f/5.6 (where as f/4 is +1 stop, and f/2 is -1 stop).

Do you subtract /add

Secondly, as Ziggy said, there is no calculation. The reference term "stop" is just that, a reference term. In the given line of apertures (f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22, f/32) starting at any select one, going down or up to the next one is considered one stop. If you go two up or two down, that is considered two stops. (EX: If you start at f/11 and switch to f/8, you are opening up the aperture and doubling the amount of light, therefore gaining +1 stop). Each stop is referencing the doubling or halving the amount of light.

Now at the same point, a stop can be in reference to Shutter Speed and ISO as well. Where as in Shutter Speed (1/1000, 1/500, 1/250, 1/125, 1/60, 1/30, 1/15, 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 1, Bulb) as the denominator (bottom number) get's lower, more light is let in (and vice versa for getting higher, which is doubling or halving the amount of light). So going from a 1/60th to a 1/30th you are doubling the amount of light coming in and therefore adding +1 stop. I say it's a reference point because if you start at 1/500 and go to 1/250, it is still +1 stop (does that make sense). It doesn't matter where you start, +1 stop is doubling the amount of light and -1 stop is halving the amount of light, from any reference point.

ISO (50, 100, 200, 400, 800, etc...) can be termed in stops as well. Where as going from 100 to 200 is doubling the film (or sensor) sesitivity to light, thus you gain +1 stop. The same goes for ISO though, that it's just a reference, so going from 400 to 800 is also considered +1 stop, and vice versa.

TaDa wrote:

The reason that I ask about budget, is because I tend to advise people towards a prosumer body over the rebel line. Main reason, they have a quick-control dial on the back over the push buttons on the rebel series. The wheel really helps when you want to "learn" again since it makes the camera so much easier to use in manual mode. Above and beyond that, a camera like the 40D is selling dirt cheap nowadays second hand. You can find lightly used ones for $600-$650. I believe that the extra $100-$150 over a new XSi would be money well spent. You'd be getting a better built camera (magnesium alloy body versus the plastic of the rebel series), a camera with a longer rated lasting shutter, etc. (oh, and did I mention the quick-control dial?)

I would have to agree with this. I've played around with the rebel series, and myself went from a P&S straight to the 40D and now have the 50D. The quick dial is a fantastic tool to have at your finger tip (litterally). There is a lot more you can do with the 40D (or even 20 and 30D as well) than you can with the Rebel series. The live view mode is also a very nice feature for those weird angles where you just can't contort your body to look through the viewfinder. And as stated, it's built better, so will last you longer and have a higher resale should you decide or need to sell it later on. You can get a used 40D BODY ONLY for about $600-650 as stated, but you're still going to have to buy some glass. I'd save up for when you can purchase the 40D and at least the 17-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS lens. It's a great lens for starting out and is one that is not bad to have in your aresnal of glass even once you build up your collection.

bradytanner

Candid Arts wrote:

The aperture is also a big part of the quality and usability of the lens. Aperture is the f/# (f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, etc...) The lower the number the wider (larger) the aperture opens, which gives you more light, and a shallower depth of field (DOF). In tern, the larger the number (f/11, f/16, f/32) the smaller the aperture opens, which gives you less light, and a wider DOF. Lower aperture lenses (f/2.8 or smaller, they can get down to f/1.2) are considered "fast" lenses and are more expensive, but give you more options for shooting and usually better quality images. A lens however (if it's widest aperture is f/2.8) is sharpest at usually +1-2 stops past it's widest aperture. EX: if a lenses widest aperture is f/2.8, +2 stops would give you a f/5.6 (where as f/4 is +1 stop, and f/2 is -1 stop).

ISO is a term used in FILM but has transfered over to digital photography. ISO (International Standarization Organization) is a term that describes the "speed" of the film, in reference to it's sensitivity to light. The higher the ISO (800, 1600, 3200) the more sensitive the film (or sensor in the case of digital). By using a higher ISO though, the film has larger, less fine, grain. You can see this digital artifact in digital photography by the term "noise". When you bump up your ISO in digital photography, it makes the sensor more light sensitive (which means you can use faster shutter speeds in lower light condition when your lens won't allow you to open the aperture any wider), but at the result of adding noise to the photo (which can be fixed in noise reduction programs to a certain extent).

I feel so stupid saying this;
but these two confused me.

Eddy

Ok now its sinking in ....the lower the number the more light..going to to do some test shots for highest to lowest F / stops under exposure to over exposrue...
Thanks Candid and Ziggy
Edyd

Candid Arts

bradytanner wrote:

I feel so stupid saying this;
but these two confused me.

No worries.

Candid Arts wrote:

The aperture is also a big part of the quality and usability of the lens. Aperture is the f/# (f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, etc...) The lower the number the wider (larger) the aperture opens, which gives you more light, and a shallower depth of field (DOF). In tern, the larger the number (f/11, f/16, f/32) the smaller the aperture opens, which gives you less light, and a wider DOF. Lower aperture lenses (f/2.8 or smaller, they can get down to f/1.2) are considered "fast" lenses and are more expensive, but give you more options for shooting and usually better quality images. A lens however (if it's widest aperture is f/2.8) is sharpest at usually +1-2 stops past it's widest aperture. EX: if a lenses widest aperture is f/2.8, +2 stops would give you a f/5.6 (where as f/4 is +1 stop, and f/2 is -1 stop).

This one is describing what aperture can do. The larger the number, the narrower it opens. The smaller the number, the wider it opens. When the aperture opens wider, the DOF is less (less in focus). When the aperture is narrower, the DOF is wider (more in focus). Alternatively, when the aperture opens wider (lower number, less DOF) MORE light is let in; and when the aperture is more narrow (higher number, more DOF) LESS light is let in. If you were to select an aperture of f/8 and wanted to gain +1 stop of light, you would switch the aperture to f/5.6 (smaller number, more light, less DOF). If you wanted to gain -1 stop of light, you would switch the aperture from f/8 to f/11 (higher number, less light, more DOF). Each time you +1 or -1 stop, you are either doubling or halving the amount of light.

Lenses come, along with the focal length rating (35mm, 60mm, 600mm, etc...) they have a minimum and maximum aperture. Lenses with apertures of f/2.8 or wider (f/2, f/1.8, f/1.4, f/1.2) are considered "fast" lenses, in that the aperture can open wider (allowing more light) and there for give you a "faster" shutter speed. These lenses are usually more expensive because of the extra glass it takes to make that larger opening (in reference to the opening size of the aperture as stated earlier).

Hope that cleared it up.

Candid Arts wrote:

ISO is a term used in FILM but has transfered over to digital photography. ISO (International Standarization Organization) is a term that describes the "speed" of the film, in reference to it's sensitivity to light. The higher the ISO (800, 1600, 3200) the more sensitive the film (or sensor in the case of digital). By using a higher ISO though, the film has larger, less fine, grain. You can see this digital artifact in digital photography by the term "noise". When you bump up your ISO in digital photography, it makes the sensor more light sensitive (which means you can use faster shutter speeds in lower light condition when your lens won't allow you to open the aperture any wider), but at the result of adding noise to the photo (which can be fixed in noise reduction programs to a certain extent).

I don't really know a way to easier explain this... The higher the ISO the more sensitive the film (or sensor in the case of digital) is to light (i.e. it needs to be exposed less or more to light to obtain the same exposure). So by using a high ISO you can obtain faster shutter speeds. This would come in hand if your lenses widest aperture is 4 and with a shutter speed of 1/125 the exposure meter is -2 stops at ISO 100. To create a "proper exposure" you can increase the ISO 400 giving you +2 stops. (I get this because going from ISO 100 to 200 is doubling the light once, giving you +1 stop, and going from 200 to 400 is again doubling the light, giving you another +1 stop, for a total of +2 stops). BUT, when you increase ISO the grain on the film is larger and less fine which gives you a grainier photo (in the case of digital there is obviously not film, so the digital artifact is termed as "noise" instead of "grain"). SO, bumping the ISO to a higher number (800, 1600, 3200) while it gives you more light when the lens isn't capable of getting it for you, gives you "noisey" photos which can be very annoying and hard to look at.

Hope that cleared that up.

Robinivich

Eddy wrote:

Ziggy...Thank you Thank you...I do feel blessed with so much ppl here to help us... I ahve some reading and some practicing alot more.
Question does this fall for mAcros to ...i am guseeing it does...Ziggy
Thanks for all teh help and tips
Cheers
Eddy

Hey Eddy, I'm guessing by macros you mean dedicated macro lenses? IE 100 f2.8 macro? In which case the answer is yes, stopping down will help your images, sort of. It's just that Macro lenses are usually so good that the improvement you see isn't very big. This is not a bad thing. It just means that macros are usually extremely sharp at any aperture between f2.8 and f16.

bradytanner wrote:

I feel so stupid saying this;
but these two confused me.

Well, hopefully I won't make this any more confusing.

If it helps you understand, F-stops (f/2.8 etc) are a ratio, the "f" stands for the lens focal length, say 50mm. The number "2.8" is the size of the aperture compared to the focal length. 50mm/2.8= about 18mm, the physical size of your lens' aperture at the f2.8 setting. This number isn't important to remember, but it should help you understand why a bigger number means a smaller opening for light to pass through. f/16 for the same lens would be 50/16= 3mm. You're going to get a lot more light through an 18mm opening than through a 3mm opening. Make sense?

As for ISO, Candid Arts is doing a very good job explaining, but I'll try a crack at it. You know how your eyes adjust to darkness over time? Say you were outside in sunlight and walked into a poorly lit room. Over the next few minutes your eyes adjust their sensitivity to light automatically, so that soon you can see everything much better. Your eyes do this by dilating the pupils, and by chemically making your retina more sensitive to light. In camera terms, your eyes opened the aperture, say f5.6 to f2.8, and increased sensitivity by setting a higher ISO, like going from ISO 100, to ISO 400.

Eddy

Thanks Robin:
Muchly appreciated so much to learn in so little time..but tis all good here
Cheers
Eddy

M.MoranPhotography

bradytanner wrote:

BUT ANYWAYS.
I'm still not exactly sure what kind of photograpy I like.
And I basiclly know nothing about cameras.

Buy a film slr, or buy a d40/xt. Your photography won't notice the difference.