Canon Rebel XT - Can't get good pictures.

JC Dill wrote:

A camera (any camera) has no way to know if what you are aiming it at
is white, or black, or a mixed scene. The way a light meter works is
to assume that the scene is mixed, and to pick shutter/aperture
settings to properly render a mixed scene. If the scene is lighter or
darker than "average" then it will be under or over exposed unless you
use Exposure Compensation to inform the camera how to adjust the
automatic exposure to properly render the scene.

That's why a good camera has exposure compensation settings. EC is
part of what makes the Rebel a better camera than a point-n-shoot
camera. But it takes knowing what you are doing (e.g. being a
photographer) to bring out the best in the camera. If you just want
to be a shutterbug (point, click) instead of a photographer then you
will waste most of the features of this camera and your photos will be
no better than if you bought a point-n-shoot camera.

Hm, can you (or somebody else) write more about this ? For example, I
bought a P&S camera, Panasonic LX1. This camera has a capability for
exposure compensation. It has different modes of light metering (spot,
weighted etc). It allows exposure bracketing shooting. It seems to me
that these are the same features which you say the DSLR has and which
allow me to 'squeeze' a better picture. Are there any features which
DSLR provides for better quality pictures and LX1 does not (apart from
the fact that LX1 has a smaller sensor and thus worse quality at high
sensitivities) ? Thanks.

minnesøtti wrote:
JC Dill wrote:

snip

That's why a good camera has exposure compensation settings. EC
is
part of what makes the Rebel a better camera than a point-n-shoot
camera. But it takes knowing what you are doing (e.g. being a
photographer) to bring out the best in the camera. If you just
want
to be a shutterbug (point, click) instead of a photographer then
you
will waste most of the features of this camera and your photos will
be no better than if you bought a point-n-shoot camera.

Hm, can you (or somebody else) write more about this ? For example,
I
bought a P&S camera, Panasonic LX1. This camera has a capability for
exposure compensation. It has different modes of light metering
(spot,
weighted etc). It allows exposure bracketing shooting. It seems to
me
that these are the same features which you say the DSLR has and
which
allow me to 'squeeze' a better picture. Are there any features which
DSLR provides for better quality pictures and LX1 does not (apart
from
the fact that LX1 has a smaller sensor and thus worse quality at
high
sensitivities) ? Thanks.

Just the one: if you need or want a focal length beyond the LX1's
range, you're stuck; dSLRs use subsitutable lenses, so you have a
wider or longer choice.

'Welcome.

--
Frank ess

JC Dill wrote:
On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 15:56:54 GMT, philippe
wrote:


Thing of it is, he got *better* results with the point and shoot.

I'm not so sure about that. He got *different* results. It could be
that he gets better results (compared to his old camera) with the
default settings on this camera in other situations. Every camera is
different in how it interprets the light.

expectations were there for DSLRs. How was the OP supposed to know that
there's a learning curve to getting comparable results when starting
with the Rebel(or any DSLR)?

There's a learning curve for anything that has multiple controls.
When you get into a different car, you have to learn how all the
controls react differently from your prior car. The brakes will react
differently, the steering will be sharper or softer, the turn signals
and shifter will be in slightly different locations, the heating
controls will work differently, your view from the driver's seat will
be different, etc. Ditto for a different camera.

Not really the same thing, since "standard" reverses itself going to a
DSLR. With a p/s, auto is the default setting and you have to go out of
your way (so to speak) to get manual control.. DSLR assumes manual
control of most aspects of the shot. No?

Calling him juvenile over it is fairly
condescending, imho, and doesn't really add to the topic.

True, but now he's working on living up to the label rather than
proving it wrong.

:P

P.
jc

Dave Martindale wrote:
philippe writes:

Thing of it is, he got *better* results with the point and shoot.
expectations were there for DSLRs. How was the OP supposed to know that
there's a learning curve to getting comparable results when starting
with the Rebel(or any DSLR)?

Isn't that true of just about any piece of technology? If you buy
something simple, it has limitations, but it can perform very well over
the narrower domain that it is asked to handle. If you select something
more capable and sophisticated, it operates over a much larger domain
and even if it has an "auto" mode that can make fewer assumptions. So
there are many more opportunities to have something go wrong. You have
more capability, but you also need to understand the tool better and
provide more input yourself.

For another photographic example, if you take your film or flash card to
the local drugstore, you get whatever their automatic machine provides.
Most of the time it may be very good, but you don't have control. If
you go to a pro lab, you get more input into what is done, but they will
also let you screw up more freely. If you do all your printing at home,
you get even more control, but then you need to be a lot more
knowledgeable about how to use that control.

Another (perhaps silly) example: If you're building a mechanical device
and you use only the parts you can find in a hardware store, they'll all
fit together but you won't have much range of choice. If you order
parts from an industrial supply place, you'll have a much better chance
to get exactly what you want, but you have to know how to determine
exactly what you want. If you buy a lathe and a milling machine, you
can make *exactly* what you want, but be prepared to spend a few months
making junk until you learn how to use it.

So I expect more sophisticated cameras to require more knowledge to use
well, not less. Don't you?

Yes, but I've been surprised before, assuming that my 'current level of
knowledge' at this or that technology would easily transfer to the next
level. All I'm saying is that the OP's assumption is a natural one to
make and we've all, at one point or another, done the same thing.. Just
maybe not with photography, gauging on some of the answers I'm getting
here..



P.
Dave

On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 15:16:16 GMT, philippe
wrote:

JC Dill wrote:
On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 15:56:54 GMT, philippe
wrote:

There's a learning curve for anything that has multiple controls.
When you get into a different car, you have to learn how all the
controls react differently from your prior car. The brakes will react
differently, the steering will be sharper or softer, the turn signals
and shifter will be in slightly different locations, the heating
controls will work differently, your view from the driver's seat will
be different, etc. Ditto for a different camera.

Not really the same thing, since "standard" reverses itself going to a
DSLR. With a p/s, auto is the default setting and you have to go out of
your way (so to speak) to get manual control.. DSLR assumes manual
control of most aspects of the shot. No?

DSLR cameras have many semi-automatic settings and most have at least
one "mostly automatic" setting. But it can't read minds. It can't
know when the scene is mostly white or mostly black, or when a fast
shutter or deep depth-of-field are called for.

Learning to use a DSLR could be compared to learning to drive a manual
shift sportscar when you only know how to drive an automatic sedan.
In order to get the full benefit of the extra features of the sports
car you need to learn more about how to drive.

jc

--

"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
of different horses without having to own that many."
~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA

JC Dill wrote:
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 15:16:16 GMT, philippe
wrote:

JC Dill wrote:
On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 15:56:54 GMT, philippe
wrote:

There's a learning curve for anything that has multiple controls.
When you get into a different car, you have to learn how all the
controls react differently from your prior car. The brakes will
react differently, the steering will be sharper or softer, the
turn
signals and shifter will be in slightly different locations, the
heating controls will work differently, your view from the
driver's
seat will be different, etc. Ditto for a different camera.

Not really the same thing, since "standard" reverses itself going
to
a DSLR. With a p/s, auto is the default setting and you have to go
out of your way (so to speak) to get manual control.. DSLR assumes
manual control of most aspects of the shot. No?

DSLR cameras have many semi-automatic settings and most have at
least
one "mostly automatic" setting. But it can't read minds. It can't
know when the scene is mostly white or mostly black, or when a fast
shutter or deep depth-of-field are called for.

Learning to use a DSLR could be compared to learning to drive a
manual
shift sportscar when you only know how to drive an automatic sedan.
In order to get the full benefit of the extra features of the sports
car you need to learn more about how to drive.


My daughter learned to drive in a '66 Lotus Elan, and she's an
outstanding road and track driver. But not an outstanding
photographer.

What's my point? No point. I'm just saying.

--
Frank ess

Frank ess wrote:
JC Dill wrote:
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 15:16:16 GMT, philippe
wrote:

JC Dill wrote:
On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 15:56:54 GMT, philippe
wrote:

There's a learning curve for anything that has multiple controls.
When you get into a different car, you have to learn how all the
controls react differently from your prior car. The brakes will
react differently, the steering will be sharper or softer, the turn
signals and shifter will be in slightly different locations, the
heating controls will work differently, your view from the driver's
seat will be different, etc. Ditto for a different camera.

Not really the same thing, since "standard" reverses itself going to
a DSLR. With a p/s, auto is the default setting and you have to go
out of your way (so to speak) to get manual control.. DSLR assumes
manual control of most aspects of the shot. No?

DSLR cameras have many semi-automatic settings and most have at least
one "mostly automatic" setting. But it can't read minds. It can't
know when the scene is mostly white or mostly black, or when a fast
shutter or deep depth-of-field are called for.

Learning to use a DSLR could be compared to learning to drive a manual
shift sportscar when you only know how to drive an automatic sedan.
In order to get the full benefit of the extra features of the sports
car you need to learn more about how to drive.


My daughter learned to drive in a '66 Lotus Elan, and she's an
outstanding road and track driver. But not an outstanding photographer.

What's my point? No point. I'm just saying.

*very* cool... My daughter likes the lotus, but prefers Jaguar.. On
X-box, that is..



P.

"Philippe" wrote in message
news:cR14h.59682$H7.39744@edtnps82...
Frank ess wrote:
JC Dill wrote:
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 15:16:16 GMT, philippe
wrote:

JC Dill wrote:
On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 15:56:54 GMT, philippe
wrote:

There's a learning curve for anything that has multiple controls.
When you get into a different car, you have to learn how all the
controls react differently from your prior car. The brakes will
react differently, the steering will be sharper or softer, the turn
signals and shifter will be in slightly different locations, the
heating controls will work differently, your view from the driver's
seat will be different, etc. Ditto for a different camera.

Not really the same thing, since "standard" reverses itself going to
a DSLR. With a p/s, auto is the default setting and you have to go
out of your way (so to speak) to get manual control.. DSLR assumes
manual control of most aspects of the shot. No?

DSLR cameras have many semi-automatic settings and most have at least
one "mostly automatic" setting. But it can't read minds. It can't
know when the scene is mostly white or mostly black, or when a fast
shutter or deep depth-of-field are called for.

Learning to use a DSLR could be compared to learning to drive a manual
shift sportscar when you only know how to drive an automatic sedan.
In order to get the full benefit of the extra features of the sports
car you need to learn more about how to drive.


My daughter learned to drive in a '66 Lotus Elan, and she's an
outstanding road and track driver. But not an outstanding photographer.

What's my point? No point. I'm just saying.

*very* cool... My daughter likes the lotus, but prefers Jaguar.. On
X-box, that is..



P.

Not that anyone cares, but...

I bought my daughter an '88 Mustang convertible with stick (4-cylinder
slug), to teach her how to drive "properly." After two fender-benders, we
decided to put her in a point-and-shoot car (with automatic). The
convertible became my spare, my first ragtop, and later gave way to a '93 GT
convertible with auto.

My purely fun car is another '93 Mustang 5.0 with stick, which I much prefer
over the automatic. Bought that car new in 1993, and it's still with me -
hopefully for a long, long time yet. Still, for the daily commute and
rush-hour traffic, it's nice to have an automatic at hand.

I use my Rebel XT almost exclusively on manual settings. It's automatic
exposure seems a bit overblown to me, and I like a darker, more colorful
shot. Of course, I've missed a few "opportunities", while fumbling with the
settings, but, on the whole, I prefer to shoot on the fly.

Daughter has a little Canon SD200, and I doubt she ever ventures beyond
AUTO. Even so, she's picked up some nice images that I missed, either
because I had the "wrong lens" or messed up the aperture, shutter speed,
focus, etc etc etc

dwight

dwight wrote:
"Philippe" wrote in message
news:cR14h.59682$H7.39744@edtnps82...
Frank ess wrote:
JC Dill wrote:
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 15:16:16 GMT, philippe
wrote:

JC Dill wrote:
On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 15:56:54 GMT, philippe
wrote:
There's a learning curve for anything that has multiple controls.
When you get into a different car, you have to learn how all the
controls react differently from your prior car. The brakes will
react differently, the steering will be sharper or softer, the turn
signals and shifter will be in slightly different locations, the
heating controls will work differently, your view from the driver's
seat will be different, etc. Ditto for a different camera.
Not really the same thing, since "standard" reverses itself going to
a DSLR. With a p/s, auto is the default setting and you have to go
out of your way (so to speak) to get manual control.. DSLR assumes
manual control of most aspects of the shot. No?
DSLR cameras have many semi-automatic settings and most have at least
one "mostly automatic" setting. But it can't read minds. It can't
know when the scene is mostly white or mostly black, or when a fast
shutter or deep depth-of-field are called for.

Learning to use a DSLR could be compared to learning to drive a manual
shift sportscar when you only know how to drive an automatic sedan.
In order to get the full benefit of the extra features of the sports
car you need to learn more about how to drive.

My daughter learned to drive in a '66 Lotus Elan, and she's an
outstanding road and track driver. But not an outstanding photographer.

What's my point? No point. I'm just saying.

*very* cool... My daughter likes the lotus, but prefers Jaguar.. On
X-box, that is..



P.

Not that anyone cares, but...

I bought my daughter an '88 Mustang convertible with stick (4-cylinder
slug), to teach her how to drive "properly." After two fender-benders, we
decided to put her in a point-and-shoot car (with automatic). The
convertible became my spare, my first ragtop, and later gave way to a '93 GT
convertible with auto.

My purely fun car is another '93 Mustang 5.0 with stick, which I much prefer
over the automatic. Bought that car new in 1993, and it's still with me -
hopefully for a long, long time yet. Still, for the daily commute and
rush-hour traffic, it's nice to have an automatic at hand.

I use my Rebel XT almost exclusively on manual settings. It's automatic
exposure seems a bit overblown to me, and I like a darker, more colorful
shot. Of course, I've missed a few "opportunities", while fumbling with the
settings, but, on the whole, I prefer to shoot on the fly.

Daughter has a little Canon SD200, and I doubt she ever ventures beyond
AUTO. Even so, she's picked up some nice images that I missed, either
because I had the "wrong lens" or messed up the aperture, shutter speed,
focus, etc etc etc

dwight


Daughter(s) not old enough to drive yet.. :P Eldest *does* use my old
G2 though, and tries to stay away from automatic as much as possible..
She's just starting to play with the manual settings on it and I think
It's love.. She goes for shots I don't usually try for (more artsy,
modern) and seems happy with the speed (or, currently, lack thereof) of
manually setting up the camera to achieve what she wants.

Younger still using my old Sony with auto-everything.. but I'll corrupt
her yet.



P.