SLR or Digital

[Tony Laubach]

With Sigma Lenses (4yr Warrenty)
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...me=STRK:MEWA:IT

With Tamron Lenses (6yr Warrenty)
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...3874018750&rd=1

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...3875252399&rd=1



Check that out... I'm thinking about splitting the difference between a digital PnS and a new SLR (as opposed to spending a fortune on a DSLR)... saw this on eBay... really want to stick with the Canon Rebel series... I know the camera's decent, but what about the Sigma lenses?

Also, between the Rebel Ti and the Rebel GII, which would you choose?

-Tony

 

[John Diel]

Tony.

Those particular lens are in the poor to mediocre range. They will do you no good in low light situations. Those are considered to be "Low End" third party lens. They will most likely be "OK" for a starter set, but yuo will soon see the need for higher quality lens.

Remember this, when dealing with film (I shot film for close to 25 years) the camera becomes a means for storing the film. I had a Pentax K-1000 for years and it's a straight up totally manual camera. Some of the best photos I ever took were it it. Why? It had some pretty darn good glass. I had a 300mm f2.8 sigma lens that was out of this world in terms of sharpness.

All camera bodies do basically the same thing. They control the lens. The control the shutter and they transport the film. What bells and whistles come with a camera body are going to be to your preference. I did use a Rebel G for a while. It was OK. I didn't like the AF Assist lamp shining that white light everywhere. It's AF was a little slow as well. If you can find one, the Canon A2 body is a good one. If you like the idea of eye control functions, the A2E is another one. This was a standard for years with Sports and Newspaper Photographers. If they weren't using Nikon F-5's they were probably using a Canon A2.