Beginning amateur SLR - Canon Rebel

"Kapsee" wrote in message ...
Mostly landscapes/potraits. Probably not much of sports/action.


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.

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.

"Kapsee" wrote in message ...
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 ?

Thanks!

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.

"Kapsee" wrote in message ...
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 ?

Thanks!

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.

"Kapsee" wrote in message ...
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 ?

Thanks!

...you should avoid it even to the point of paying
extra not to have it.


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
this)?

Rudi

...you should avoid it even to the point of paying
extra not to have it.


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
this)?

Rudi

On 14 Sep 2004 03:59:11 -0700, (Rudi
Cheow) wrote:


...you should avoid it even to the point of paying
extra not to have it.


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
this)?

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.

W

Rudi Cheow wrote:

...you should avoid it even to the point of paying
extra not to have it.



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
this)?

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
focus.

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.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

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
NikonS.

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).


"Alan Browne" wrote in message
.. .
Rudi Cheow wrote:

...you should avoid it even to the point of paying
extra not to have it.



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
this)?

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
focus.

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.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

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
NikonS.

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).


"Alan Browne" wrote in message
.. .
Rudi Cheow wrote:

...you should avoid it even to the point of paying
extra not to have it.



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
this)?

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
focus.

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.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--