Canon Digital Rebel

I realize that this should probably be posted in marketplace, but I went ahead and posted here anyways, so if need be and is hurting things, mods go ahead and move this. Ok, I am in the market for another camera. I currently have a Canon Powershot A75, and while it takes pretty decent pictures, I am looking to step things up to another level. I am thinking pretty hard at getting the Digital Rebel, but I'm not made of money. I do realize that Ebay would probably be my best bet, but I thought I would post here in case anyone knew of any other good deals out there or if someone is wanting to upgrade their current camera and could cut me a deal. Wishful thinking, but it's worth a try. :p So if anyone knows where I can find a good deal on the Digital Rebel Kit, please don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks.
 
I normally check pricegrabber.com for this kind of stuff, but I'd make sure that what you were buying comes with a U.S. warranty (assuming you are a U.S. buyer).

The original Canon EOS 6.2MP Digital Rebel is a pretty great deal right now at under $700. (Example: Abe's of Maine has the kit for $675) There is now also a XT (or XP?) version out now that is 8+ MP for what the first version was originally selling for (kit for under a grand). Frankly, I think the 6MP is all you need to do enlargements as big as you would normally want.

I'm coveting a good digital as well. I really don't care for how light/cheap the Digital Rebel FEELS, but I can't argue with the results that I have seen. I've heard that users aren't overwhelmed by the lens that comes with the kit, but I'll let those who have one talk about that.

Darren Addy
Kearney, NE
 
About the kit lens. I am still seeing the banding after buying the 17-40L. It is only noticeable in low contrast clouds if processed much at all(which all RAWs need a fair amount of adjusting). So that part of the kit lens I hated so much is still just as evident with this new nicer lens. There is still a huge difference in sharpness however and colors seem to be better for some reason. There is also less ghosting(purple fringing on high contrast edges such as a horizon or tree branches against a sky) with the nicer lens.
 
(which all RAWs need a fair amount of adjusting).

Depends on how much you do before the shot. For me, I might use unsharp mask on maybe .60% of my shots, but if I take the picture with most of the right settings, post-processing doesn't consist of much more than that.
 
Depends on how much you do before the shot. For me, I might use unsharp mask on maybe .60% of my shots, but if I take the picture with most of the right settings, post-processing doesn't consist of much more than that.

Have any of these online? RAW was created with the intention of post-processing them. They are supposed to be processed. Anyone can take a picture and have it be "fine". If you want it life-like most cases with raw you'll want to do some processing to bring all the stuff out of the image that your brain does "instantly".

[Broken External Image]:http://www.extremeinstability.com/stormpics/041211-6raw.jpg

In shooting this shot, what setting are you going to change that will get it to looke like the following? This first image was exposed properly. I can point my cam at that dog all day and get nothing better than that. Any longer exposure and those white cirrus clouds will be blownout. Any shorter and I won't be able to save/open the shadows in his mouth. When shooting raw I use Adobe RGB(no parameter adjustments....no reason to apply in cam settings if shooting RAW)

Here is the above processed to look like reality.

[Broken External Image]:http://www.extremeinstability.com/stormpics/041211-6.jpg

I would always expect to at the minimum adjust saturation. There are a TON of digital photos online that are just left as is and they often are flat and less life-like. People think processing is so taboo sometimes. Digital files NEED to be processed. Sorry, I just often get the vibe from people that adjusting digital files is wrong and that they can do better without the need to process. Might be the case with a rare jpg, but not an adobe RGB RAW.
 
Depends on how much you do before the shot. For me, I might use unsharp mask on maybe .60% of my shots, but if I take the picture with most of the right settings, post-processing doesn't consist of much more than that.

Have any of these online? RAW was created with the intention of post-processing them. They are supposed to be processed. Anyone can take a picture and have it be "fine". If you want it life-like most cases with raw you'll want to do some processing to bring all the stuff out of the image that your brain does "instantly".

Mike H is right on. In the digital era, the post processing step is now very important if you wish to shoot in RAW. RAW is the pixel by pixel data captured by the camera. There is much more involved in post work of photographs using RAW than just simply utilizing unsharp mask. However, there are settings that SLR cameras have to do much of the post-work for you like saturation adjustment, sharpening, etc... but this is digital manipulation of the RAW data *out of your control!*.. very important... for snapshot JPEGs, this is fine, which is more than likely most of the storm chasers in the group.

Please see http://www.underthemeso.com/misc/digitalpo...ostprocess.html
for a little write up on my experience with RAW and post processing with the Nikon D70 and Paint Shop Pro version 9.

Mike U
 
I realize that this should probably be posted in marketplace, but I went ahead and posted here anyways, so if need be and is hurting things, mods go ahead and move this. Ok, I am in the market for another camera. I currently have a Canon Powershot A75, and while it takes pretty decent pictures, I am looking to step things up to another level. I am thinking pretty hard at getting the Digital Rebel, but I'm not made of money. I do realize that Ebay would probably be my best bet, but I thought I would post here in case anyone knew of any other good deals out there or if someone is wanting to upgrade their current camera and could cut me a deal. Wishful thinking, but it's worth a try. :p So if anyone knows where I can find a good deal on the Digital Rebel Kit, please don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks.

You could always get the EOS 1Ds Mark II, shown here: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...7505330189&rd=1

16.7 MP's <drool>.... But, at nearly $8,000, I don't think it will fit many people's budget. If I was made of money, or if I harvested money in my backyard (aka don't look at the price), you bet that I would be getting that.
 
No doubt about it, if I had the money I'd get that one too, but I probably won't be able to afford anything like that until its about 7-10 years old and way outdated, so I'll stick with the Digital Rebel.
 
Depends on how much you do before the shot. For me, I might use unsharp mask on maybe .60% of my shots, but if I take the picture with most of the right settings, post-processing doesn't consist of much more than that.

Have any of these online? RAW was created with the intention of post-processing them. They are supposed to be processed. Anyone can take a picture and have it be "fine". If you want it life-like most cases with raw you'll want to do some processing to bring all the stuff out of the image that your brain does "instantly".

Mike H is right on. In the digital era, the post processing step is now very important if you wish to shoot in RAW. RAW is the pixel by pixel data captured by the camera. There is much more involved in post work of photographs using RAW than just simply utilizing unsharp mask. However, there are settings that SLR cameras have to do much of the post-work for you like saturation adjustment, sharpening, etc... but this is digital manipulation of the RAW data *out of your control!*.. very important... for snapshot JPEGs, this is fine, which is more than likely most of the storm chasers in the group.

Please see http://www.underthemeso.com/misc/digitalpo...ostprocess.html
for a little write up on my experience with RAW and post processing with the Nikon D70 and Paint Shop Pro version 9.

Mike U

Sheesh guys, is it always "my way or the highway around here?", lol. Yes Mike, I do have pics up. In fact, I posted some in a picture thread on here somewhere.

I understand how raw works and the flexability it gives you to post-process. But again, I'll stand by what I say... if I compose/expose my shots correctly, then at a minimum I may need to address the "soft" look raw gives an image, but rarely do I feel I need to saturate the colors.

Just my .02 worth, but it doesn't mine my processing is wrong guys.
 
[Broken External Image]:http://www.extremeinstability.com/stormpics/041211-6.jpg

I would always expect to at the minimum adjust saturation. There are a TON of digital photos online that are just left as is and they often are flat and less life-like. People think processing is so taboo sometimes. Digital files NEED to be processed. Sorry, I just often get the vibe from people that adjusting digital files is wrong and that they can do better without the need to process. Might be the case with a rare jpg, but not an adobe RGB RAW.

Mike, you do have some wonderful photos online, no doubt. But some, such as the one above, almost borderline over-saturation. You mentioned something about looking real, but when you add too much, you can also remove the 'realness' you are looking to achieve. Again, I'm not bashing, but simply reminding that not everyone's eye is the same for what a pic should look like. Therefore not everyone's post-processing will address all the areas YOU feel they should.

Scott
 
So for those who photograph storms... Do you always shoot in RAW with the realization that you will spend time on post production? If so, what post production tools do you suggest.... Photoshop... other???
 
Mike, you do have some wonderful photos online, no doubt. But some, such as the one above, almost borderline over-saturation. You mentioned something about looking real, but when you add too much, you can also remove the 'realness' you are looking to achieve. Again, I'm not bashing, but simply reminding that not everyone's eye is the same for what a pic should look like. Therefore not everyone's post-processing will address all the areas YOU feel they should.

Well Scott I just absolutely did not agree with your assesment of shooting in RAW and not needing to do anything to them. From what I've seen so far THAT made no sense to me. I don't really care what anyone else does to their images. Who said anything about my way or the highway, I just disagreed. Yep, one can certainly cross the line adjusting too much. Problem is if I didn't touch my raw files I would be much farther from the truth than if I even overdid things. And with that dog photo, no, that is not overdone. What is overdone on it(or pushing overdone, whatever that is)? It is leaps and bounds closer to the truth than the properly exposed untouched RAW file. Often some will think things are overdone because they aren't used to seeing what is possible in digital files. I spent enough time with my jaw on the floor on photosig.com at the great photogs on there to learn what I'd been happy with in the past would no longer do. I don't know why I ever bother commenting on any of this to anyone anyway. I don't need to say anything. I'm happy with what I know and understand now. All it seems to stir are all the 'purists' out there that think digital should not be processed and all us trying to make them better(whatever that may be to someone) are evil or cheaters. Many think this and later come to realize how wrong they are...or they are happy with the files as is...fine with me. Not implying you thought this, but it is rather common.

For those still reading that don't mind a little post-processing work to get a flat non-life-like image closer to reality here is a good read.

http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/masking.shtml

You can certainly go wrong by overdoing something, but when it is wrong to begin with I'd rather try what is available out there than leave it.

It is only my opinion, but anyone serious enough to buy a DSLR should be willing to learn and use post-processing tools. Some situations you can just shoot with parameters set or in jpg and get good enough results. In the processing areana, if you want, you can make photos much more alive. I now can't imagine being happy with any untouched raw...even with in-cam parameters set for colors, sharpness, and saturation. But again, if in RAW there is zero need to have those being applied.
 
lol, I never said that NO post processing needs to be done. Please re-read my initial post carefully and show me where I stated that. I don't know why I say anything either....

As long as each is happy with their own, I suppose that's all that matters. I hit the dpreview forums a lot and there are a lot to both sides. I'm not here to say one side is more right than the other. Some like to spend a lot of effort in post processing, some spend very little. I happen to be of the latter... I spend more time to carefully expose my shots to reduce my post processing efforts. Neither way is better than the other... as long as you like what you end up with.

I'll offer no more, since I'm not with the 'bigger' crowd on this one, I guess.
 
Interesting discussion. I will preface my comments with the statement that I have only had a digital SLR for only 3 months. After I got my SLR, I began shooting right away to learn everything about the camera. I had extensive conversations with Mike H during the winter about post processing techniques and whatnot, because in my opinion, his photography work is down right inspiring, and I love it.

There is a fine line, I believe, between processing an image to bring the photograph "alive" to what your eyes naturually saw in the scene...versus over processing to the point that the photograph looks unreal or obviously processed heavily. The post processing phase allows the photographer to become the artist, in a sense. Mike H has one hell of an eye, and also is an incredible "artist" in my book. Just look at his online gallery. Are his photographs "over-processed"? Some may very well be, but if his artistic skills were not as such, then the photograph could not grab interest and/or inspiration of those who view his work.

Scott is not wrong, Mike H is not wrong, and I am not wrong in how we process photographs. It takes a level of understanding, however, of dodging/burning, using levels/curves, etc. techniques, though, in whatever moderation the photographer/artist sees fit, to bring the photograph to something that most resembled what the eye saw. I do believe Mike H is more correct in saying that what his eye saw most resemble what the post-processed image looks like versus the flat RAW data from the camera untouched.

Mike U
 
I tend to lie more on Mike's side on this one. As an FYI -- in the journalistic print industry, digital color postprocessing is standard. Every magazine that you pick up and every medium to large newspaper that you pick up has a team of people who do nothing but take that photog's digital shots and preprocess them to bring out color and detail that would otherwise be lost in the translation to press. Even print photogs used to do this chemically through dodging and burning and development times; it's just that now the tools are much finer.

I can see someone making the argument that Mike's photo's are "oversaturated", as he definately does go for high color saturation. But to me, the point is that his toning style works, and I've yet to show his stuff to anyone -- including professional photojournalists -- who weren't impressed with his skyscapes.
 
For those wishing to learn more about the topic of our threadjack.
:twisted:
RAW vs JPG vs TIFF

Excerpt: "The JPG processing in the camera can be better than what you may be able to do later in software from RAW."

This highlights that shooting RAW will require you to have (or acquire) some additional skills. There is no dishonor in shooting JPEGs. However, what a lot of people don't realize is that you are throwing away a lot of data as soon as your camera saves a JPEG from the RAW. I would think that this might be a BIG concern to stormchasers and scientists. "Some cameras have a handy RAW + JPG mode which saves both the raw data and the JPG picture."

While I haven't shot any prosumer (or better) digital, I come from a Portrait/Wedding background and have talked to a lot of pros who have gone digital. I've been told that if you have a RAW image you can actually recover from under or over exposure. It has been explained to me that the digital information in the raw contains the equivalent of bracketed shots. That could be very handy in bringing out some storm detail - after the fact.

PS... I think Mike's shots are awesome on many levels. If that is hyper-reality then lay it on me! (NOW, Mike, can I have permission to use that one shot of yours - with copyright notice attached?) :lol:

Darren Addy
Kearney, NE
 
Well I've been looking around and $656 before shipping is the lowest I've found with the Lens Kit.

Source: http://www2.butterflyphoto.com/shop/produc...aspx?sku=REBELD

Anyone else notice anything cheaper? If not, I think I'll go ahead and order from here on Monday, and might get a few extras, but will wait on a lens. I think the 18-55 will be a good starter lens for me and should suit me just fine for awhile.

I'm not saying that the people you link to (above) are bad (no experience with them) but it is very easy to advertise the lowest price on something that one doesn't have in stock. It is a great way to hook people until you can get some in. Also, lowest price deals often strip out stuff that should come with the kit - and then they charge extra to put them back in again. Also, as I said before, make sure it is U.S. Warranty stuff. "Grey Market" stuff is always cheaper, but you don't want to have to send it back to Japan or somewhere if you need warranty work.

At the very least, you will probably have to deal with them trying to sell you lots of extras (forcing you to say no multiple times). I recommend buying with a credit card so you at least have the recourse of doing a chargeback if there are problems.

Don't mean to sound pessimistic and hope you have a good transaction, but there is often a reason for a price that sounds just a bit too good to be true. Personally, I'd prefer going with a dealer of known quality - even if it meant paying an extra $50-$75. Don't forget to figure shipping in on the total deal.

Darren Addy
Kearney, NE
 
I'll admit I've found some of Mike's landscape images to be excessively dodged and/or burned, but that's just a matter of preference. They're his photos, so he can process them as he wishes.

I think it's worth noting that much of what's done in processing digital raws is nothing new. Photographers have been slapping filters on their lenses, shooting with specific film (warm film, cool film), and experimenting in the darkroom for a long time. It's part of the trade.

I've managed to make some incredible images shooting straight JPG - just tweak the curves a little bit in Photoshop, and it's good to go. But I've also lost some incredible images shooting straight JPG, either due to poor exposure, poor saturation, bad white balance, etc. Pros and amateurs - it happens to all photographers. By shooting RAW, however, I can save most of these images, and it usually requires very little tweaking. As for the shots in which I did everything right? Even those shots are going to look dull and uninspired straight out of the camera. That's just how digital SLRs work (unless you do processing inside the camera). The shots are MEANT to be processed. The question is, do you want to be stuck trying to process a lossy JPG image using limited tools, or would you rather work with a lossless RAW image in which, for all intensive purposes, the sky's the limit?

Does a processed image reflect reality? Depends on how much you process it. But it's not like an unprocessed image is a carbon copy of the scene, either. Obviously, every photographer has his/her own priorities, but for me, photography is about making images, not simply recording history. If all I cared about was recording history, I wouldn't be walking around with a $1000 camera, a bunch of expensive lenses, and a bag full of filters. I'd go to Wal-Mart and buy a $5 disposable Kodak.

Anyway, an example of what a minor amount of tweaking can do...

"Uncooked" goose - Straight out of the camera (except for the resizing, obviously...I didn't do any sharpening, so it'll look a little softer as a result). Is it properly exposed? It's in the neighborhood. I was shooting with a polarizer to kill the reflections on the water, and was working with late afternoon sun. Because of the polarizer, I lost a couple of stops, but rather than compensate at the point of the camera, I chose to underexpose the shot. Why? Because I was shooting RAW and knew I could correct it later on with ease. Even if I wasn't shooting RAW, I'd still underexpose it, as it's easier to correct underexposure in processing than it is overexposure.

"Cooked" goose - So, what did I do? I tinkered with the white balance, obviously. After that, I balanced the shadows and highlights. Upped the contrast and lowered the brightness some (this is a personal preference). Sent it on to the Photoshop, resized, and sharpened. That's it. Nothing special, really...didn't play with the saturation, didn't dodge or burn anything.

It took very little processing, but the difference in the two images is pretty stark. I think it's clear which one looks better, but everyone has their own preference. I'm pretty sure the original wouldn't catch anyone's eye, though.
 
BTW -- when it comes to the question of where to buy a digital camera (outside of a local shop), the answer is almost invariably one of two places on the internet: adorama.com or bhphotovideo.com. Both of these camera stores are highly reputable and offer the lowest honest prices around. They also offer a wider selection of camera equipment, accesories, and consumables than you're likely to find anywhere else.

The stock lense on the Digital Rebel isn't great, but unless you can afford the L series replacement (~$1,400) or a similar quality lense from another company (still around $600), the kit lense is probably the best you're going to find for storm-shooting; it has a good range from superwide to wide. You probably won't need a telephoto lense for storm shooting; or, I should say, the few times that you do probably won't justify the enormous pricetag that most good telephoto lenses carry.
 
I am a bit of a shutter whore when I have a camera in my hands so I tend to burn up a lot of memory cards. I have been shooting in large/fine JPG mode parameter 2 (less processing). I do have many shots that I wish were shot in RAW, there is just not enough info on the JPG image to manipulate it exactly how I want it. I have one shot of a lifetime that would be much more marketable if it were shot in RAW. I have since learned how to quickly switch to RAW mode for those special shots. (easy to do with the Wasia hack).

What software are you guys using to manage your RAW images?

I have been thinking about upgrading to a Canon 20D for the increased pixel area and lower noise at higher ISO settings. I wish somebody would talk me out of upgrading right now (or at least make me an offer on my Rebel..)

Chris Gullikson
http://www.f5hunter.com
 
Arent all Canon EF lenses compatible with the 300d? I have the 50mm 1.8 lens and was told it would work? Also, just wondering what this lens would equate to on the 300D as the focal length is shorter I believe?
 
The Rebel (as well as the 20D and Rebel XT) allow use of the EF and the newer EF-S lenses.

Your 50mm lens would equal an 80mm lens with the Rebels 1.6 crop factor.
(Great lens BTW)
 
The Rebel (as well as the 20D and Rebel XT) allow use of the EF and the newer EF-S lenses.

Your 50mm lens would equal an 80mm lens with the Rebels 1.6 crop factor.
(Great lens BTW)

Thats actual more than I thought. Oh well, for 100 bucks might as well grab the kit lens too. Probably wont be able to purchase till later in the year though.

Yeah, the 50mm 1.8 is pretty darn good. Not crazy about the plastic mount construction, but its hard to beat the optical preformance of this lens for the price.

Thanks for the reply!
 
The 1.6 crop factor does make it a bit of a pain to get a wide angle image. You can't beat the value of the 18-55 kit lens, 18mm will get you a nice 28.8mm equivalent wide angle image.

My favorite lens for structure shots is the 15mm 2.8 Sigma fisheye. It does not have the obvious "fishy" look to it when used with the 1.6 crop factor cameras and it has a 90 degree FOV. Very sharp lens and the image is easily corrected using panotools for a rectilinear image. You would need to get a 12mm lens to get the same wide angle results that the 15mm fisheye gives. The fish is a much cheaper solution for really wide images.
 
Back
Top