Beginning amateur SLR - Canon Rebel

Kapsee wrote:
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!

Your choice is a good all around choice.

What are your plans for photography? If you have some special type of
photography in mind, there may be better choices.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

Kapsee wrote:
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!

Your choice is a good all around choice.

What are your plans for photography? If you have some special type of
photography in mind, there may be better choices.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

Mostly landscapes/potraits. Probably not much of sports/action.

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
Kapsee wrote:
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!

Your choice is a good all around choice.

What are your plans for photography? If you have some special type of
photography in mind, there may be better choices.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

Mostly landscapes/potraits. Probably not much of sports/action.

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
Kapsee wrote:
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!

Your choice is a good all around choice.

What are your plans for photography? If you have some special type of
photography in mind, there may be better choices.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

"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