Canon Rebel center-point focus...HELP!!

PantherFan

Hello to all,

I need some help. I am a Nikon sport shooter about to switch over to Canon. I borrowed a friend's Rebel XT (older model) body to try out a 70-200/2.8 lens I'm going to buy. For the life of me, I cannot figure out how to get this camera to fix on the center-point focus. I went through all the settings and just can't figure it out. I do not have access to a manual.

Please help!! I have several football games to shoot!

Thanks in advance.

Donnie

:dunno

Terrence

Look on the back of the camera, upper right corner. You'll see a button that looks like a cross-hair. Press that button, then use the dial just behind the shutter button and look in the viewfinder. You'll see the focus points light up as you move the dial. When you are on center, press the shutter half-way and you're locked in.

jdryan3

The Rebel XT manual is here. Go to Product/Software Manuals link and click it to download the PDF file.

PantherFan

You sir...are a fine American!
Thanks a bunch. Worked like a champ. That just saved me a lot of frustration! Now, all of the shots that misfocused on me today...gotta fix for that one

:ivar

Terrence wrote:

Look on the back of the camera, upper right corner. You'll see a button that looks like a cross-hair. Press that button, then use the dial just behind the shutter button and look in the viewfinder. You'll see the focus points light up as you move the dial. When you are on center, press the shutter half-way and you're locked in.

ziggy53

PantherFan wrote:

Thanks a bunch. Worked like a champ. That just saved me a lot of frustration! Now, all of the shots that misfocused on me today...gotta fix for that one

:ivar

If you post a link to a gallery, we could make a determination.

I will tell you that using the Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L on both an XT/350D and a 1D MKII, the keeper rate more than doubled on the MKII for nightime football. People misunderstand when I say "responsive", but the responsiveness of the MKII really does make a tremendous difference.

Galleries (I think the MKII stuff starts in Oct '06):

http://ziggy53.smugmug.com/School/232835

ccpickre

I have the XTi (400D) and I have to say, shooting sports with those lens on the XTi has been EXTREMELY difficult. The autofocus is severly crippled. With a 300 Prime it's even worse. You have to SERIOUSLY plan ahead, and anticipate where and when you will need to focus

PantherFan

10-4 on the MKII..
I do not plan on purchasing or using the XT past this weekend. I only used it to try out the 70-200/2.8. It actually worked pretty well. I shot around 1000 shots at a big all-day cheer competition and was surprised how well it worked. I got about 60-70% keepers. Which I thought was pretty good considering the lighting sucked bigtime. I know the XT has quite a few limitations, it was just all I had access to for the weekend.

I will soon be purchasing a 30 or 40D. Can't quite afford a MKII right now.

Thanks again for all of your input.

DC

ziggy53 wrote:

If you post a link to a gallery, we could make a determination.

I will tell you that using the Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L on both an XT/350D and a 1D MKII, the keeper rate more than doubled on the MKII for nightime football. People misunderstand when I say "responsive", but the responsiveness of the MKII really does make a tremendous difference.

Galleries (I think the MKII stuff starts in Oct '06):

http://ziggy53.smugmug.com/School/232835

sirsloop

ccpickre wrote:

I have the XTi (400D) and I have to say, shooting sports with those lens on the XTi has been EXTREMELY difficult. The autofocus is severly crippled. With a 300 Prime it's even worse. You have to SERIOUSLY plan ahead, and anticipate where and when you will need to focus

I actually feel completely opposite about the XTi's AF. I found it quite resonsive and accurate with a 70-200/2.8L attached. Now I think my 40D has it beat hands down, but it was quite good with the XTi.

ccpickre

sirsloop wrote:

I actually feel completely opposite about the XTi's AF. I found it quite resonsive and accurate with a 70-200/2.8L attached. Now I think my 40D has it beat hands down, but it was quite good with the XTi.

Well yeah, don't get me wrong, the XTi is a great camera, but when I was using a 300 prime shooting field hockey, it was very slow, and the continuous shooting was worthless because by the second photo my subject was already out of focus. Granted I probably should have stopped it down to f.9, but I don't think it would have made a huge difference. Now, when I shot with my new 40D, it was a whole different experience. I don't think I will use my XTi for sports ever again (although that would make sense). That's not to say the XTi can't get great shots, but the focus and continuous shooting speeds of the 40D over the XTi are beyond words (makes me excited about maybe being able to purchase a 1DS MIII someday )

And yes, when I used the 70-200 it was a little better, but still not as quick as with my 40D. One thing you have to consider, is whether the players are running towards or away from you, or just to the side.

sirsloop

the 1dIII is ridiculous....

ccpickre

sirsloop wrote:

the 1dIII is ridiculous....

I bet the 1DS III is more ridiculous, that's why I want it

sirsloop

ccpickre wrote:

I bet the 1DS III is more ridiculous, that's why I want it

In terms of FPS its not... its like 4-5fps out of the 1Ds, but thats a 21MP camera!!! Thats still AMAZING considering the file sizes you'd be dealing with. In terms of being able to crop out 3/4 of the image and still have a 5Mp photo... thats the ridiculous part..

salazar

sirsloop wrote:

the 1dIII is ridiculous....

Just how many frames are in this gif?

sirsloop

HAHAH... 87... and it was actually shot RAW.

ziggy53

salazar wrote:

Just how many frames are in this gif?

I show 87 frames. Less than 9 seconds I believe.

(SS beat me to it.)

sirsloop

I have another one I did where I shot like IDK... 200 frames on L walking around someone with a 24-70/2.8L zoomed in just on their head. It was on my bosses memory card tho. Woulda been sweet!

salazar

ziggy53 wrote:

I show 87 frames. Less than 9 seconds I believe.

(SS beat me to it.)

OK Ziggy, I need a computer lesson now (or point me to a tutorial somewhere if you don't mind). I know how sirsloop counted the frames, he made the gif (I've never mad a gif before, is there a tutorial for that somewhere?) (I'm so green...), but how did you count them?

ziggy53

salazar wrote:

OK Ziggy, I need a computer lesson now (or point me to a tutorial somewhere if you don't mind). I know how sirsloop counted the frames, he made the gif (I've never mad a gif before, is there a tutorial for that somewhere?) (I'm so green...), but how did you count them?

I just brought the file into Adobe ImageReady and checked the number of frames there (under the "Animation" tab).

There are other software titles that can do similar, but ImageReady was handy. Just don't ask me how to create an animated GIF because I have to learn the process over again each time I do it.

sirsloop

You can download a free trial of ulead gif animator 5... a nice little tool for making these. It literally took longer to convert to JPG...

ziggy53

sirsloop wrote:

You can download a free trial of ulead gif animator 5... a nice little tool for making these. It literally took longer to convert to JPG...

I used that at work and it was pretty nice. The last time I had a short animation to make, I used UnFREEz:

http://www.whitsoftdev.com/unfreez/

Under 20k Freeware. Drag-n-drop easy.

I've also used ImageReady but it was such a pain ...

salazar

ziggy53 wrote:

I just brought the file into Adobe ImageReady and checked the number of frames there (under the "Animation" tab).

I just tried that, it worked. Thank you. I've never used Image Ready for anything before, it's just one of those things on my computer.