"Michael Johnson" <cds@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:Uc6dnQydi8sHQzDanZ2dnUVZ_rCtnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> dwight wrote:
>> "markB" <mb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:PMSdne4hyZiO6TDanZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> From dwight, on 2/8/2008 5:33 PM:
>>>> "markB" <mb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>> news:MoKdnV_nu4S0OzHanZ2dnUVZ_ommnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> From dwight, on 2/7/2008 6:25 PM:
>>>>>> To heck with all this nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've got the Canon Rebel XT, and now I'm reading about the new
>>>>>> Rebel XSi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/newsLetter/PMA2008.jsp
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do I want one?
>>>>>>
>>>>> If it truly has spot metering, hell yes! :)
>>>>>
>>>>> -mb
>>>> Yeah, but it has to be compelling.
>>>>
>>>> Years ago, I bought the S1. Then the S2 came out (3MP to 5MP), but it
>>>> wasn't compelling. Then the S3 came out (6MP instead of my 3MP AND
>>>> 12X optical zoom vs. my 10X), and it was somewhat compelling. By
>>>> then, I'd bought the Rebel XT and upgrading the S1 was out of the
>>>> question. The S5 came out, and I was seriously tempted, but...nah.
>>>>
>>>> Then the S1 zotzed out. Because it had a service bulletin out on it,
>>>> Canon ended up replacing my S1 with a refurbished S3, so the S5 no
>>>> longer looked quite so compelling.
>>>>
>>>> Well, my Rebel XT isn't all that old. I'd have to look long and hard
>>>> at the XSi before shelling out for a new camera.
>>>>
>>>> And spot metering...? Since I work almost exclusively on manual, I'm
>>>> sure I could continue to screw up my shots even with that.
>>>>
>>>> Given my track record, it's probably the NEXT Rebel that will grab
>>>> me.
>>> I'm impressed if you use full manual that much! I usually walk around
>>> on shutter priority.
>>
>> I bought the S1, because I was frustrated with my film work. I spent
the
>> first month on full AUTO, but I've been using manual settings ever
since.
>> Of course, the S1 had live view, so I could adjust on the fly and
pretty
>> much know what I was going to get. With the XT, I rely heavily on the
>> light meter, but I'm getting comfortable with shutter speeds, aperture,
>> etc. I like my images a tad darker than AUTO gives me. The trade-off is
>> those missed op****tunities, while I'm fumbling with the settings.
>
> Have you tried using the over/under exposure settings in the camera? You
> can also bracket the exposures to get one shot with differing exposures.
> This might help you get shots at those times when you don't have time to
> work under full manual mode. Shooting in the RAW format also gives much
> better control over exposure during post processing.
I'm familiar with all of that, and I suppose I could always do my
corrections in post-processing, too, but I drive stick. I think it's more
fun, but sometimes that extra second results in a missed shot. I admit
that,
sometimes when timing is critical, I'll switch over to Auto, but that's
rare.
>>> I've been needing a DSLR for a while but there just hasn't been one
that
>>> compelled me. I don't need 12MP, but at this level, this one finally
>>> looks like there are no glaring weakneses, and has the features I
>>> couldn't find in one camera. Like the Nikon D40x has no dust
reduction,
>>> the XTi has no spot metering. But the XT remains a nice camera, and
I
>>> know what you mean about needing enough advance to compel a move up.
>>>
>>> -mb
>>
>> You may not NEED 12MP, but that will be the standard soon enough
anyway.
>> And more is usually always better. It's just that the jump from 8 to
12,
>> for me, isn't enough to make me shell out another $1000, when I've
>> already got a camera that's more capable than its user.
>>
>> The biggest problem with a DSLR, as I'm sure we'll all attest to, is
the
>> Lust for Lenses. I've got four in my arsenal already, and I'm
auditioning
>> two more in the near future. I'll have the 400mmL glass over the next
>> couple of weeks, and will be working on another Real World Lens Test
(or,
>> Results That the Average Mook Can Expect) for the website. This is the
>> 400mm prime (not zoom), and if it is as sharp as I hope it is, I'll be
>> thinking long and hard about picking one up for my own.
>
> This is why I will consider DLSRs with in-body image stabilization
before
> my next purchase. It reduces future lens costs dramatically and the
> lenses are much lighter.
I understand that. That 400mm doesn't have IS, but as long as I'm shooting
faster than 1/80, I'm probably good. My 70-300 has it, and the 100-400L
that
I rented had it (and that sucker got heavier as the day wore on), and I'm
a
convert to IS. My S1 (now S3) has it built-in, and when I first started
using it, I swore it was magic. Shooting handheld at 1/20th of a second...
I wonder what would happen if you put an IS lens on a camera with IS.
dwight
|
