i still cant decide pro1 or the digital rebel

[boxer82003]

i still cant decide the rebel seems to have a more natural color where the pro 1 seems to enhance them a bit some times too much i find the rebel pics to be clear where the af points are but the backgrounds is a bit blurry where the pro 1 is clear i cant decide

[defordphoto]

Point and shooters shoot flat. Meaning they try and keep everything in focus with no depth of field (DOF). The Drebel is doing its job. Flat shots are boring and your subject gets lost many times to the fact that everything is in focus and no one viewing your shot knows what you were actually trying to shoot.

The shots from the Pro will be sharper because of the massive in-camera processing it does.

What are your plans for photography? Shooting pictures of Grandma and an occasional sunset? Or do you plan to get into photography as an art?

[Persian-Rice]

I think your original post you made answered all the question regarding your issue. The pro 1 is a good Camera. The 300d is a great Camera. The MAJOR issue is whether you are ready to spend at least another $1500-$3000 before you get some great results from the 300d.

BTW, Who are you buying your stuff from? I wish I knew a place that will let me buy, try then return a camera.................

Cheers.

[boxer82003]

well a bit of both i guess we have been thinking of getting more serious about photography we are newbies we had a canon digital elph 300 before. we want to upgrade to one of these 2 cameras, also if i choose the rebel i was thinking of one of these to lenses Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5 II USM Lens or Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 II USM Lens

they are the same price

[Persian-Rice]

If you are serious about photography, at an amateur level or otherwise, ditch the Pro1.

As mentioned in the past, the Rebel is far more versatile. Espeically if you can start shooting in full manual mode. In all honesty, there is absolutely no comparison between a Rebel and a Pro1. Its like trying to compare a BMW to a Honda..............

Slap an L or a good non L on the 300d and you will quickly realize the pro1 is very far behind.

Photography is an expensive yet rewarding hobby.

[boxer82003]

i got both cameras from future shop he guranteed me 14 days for a full refund on one of them smaller camera shops wont do it

i will let you know if i get it :0)


im so confused :shock:

[Persian-Rice]

Damn, I have never had much luck with Futureshops return or even exchange policy...................

[boxer82003]

i will let you know probably tomorrow how it goes

rice what do you think of one of those 2 lenses above along with the kit lense is that a good start?

[RichardtheSane]

If I recall correctly the 55-200 USM has better optical quality than the 75-300

[defordphoto]

If you have even an inkling of getting into this seriously, get the Drebel. It offers such a wider range of possibilities for lens and other accessories. You'll have access to 99.99999% of Canon's renowned EOS line.

[boxer82003]

would these lenses compliment the kit lense nicely any other recomendations in that price range? i think they were both 399cad $

also what about the pixels 8mp vs the 6.3mp 8x10 would probaly be the largest pic i would want

[defordphoto]

I don't know anything about either of those lenses so I cannot offer an opinion.

6.3mp is awesome for 8x10 (8x12 is actual full size print). You'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between most prints whether it was 6.3 or 8.2mp.

The real magic into producing a prize-winner print is in the post-processing, which is an art upon itself.

[blacktape]

The problem with Digital Rebel is that the lens that come with it sucks. Although you do can buy a 50mm 1.8 that costs ~$100 and have good quality.

However, I do recommend the Sony F828 compared to Canon's Pro1. The sony comes with an awesome carl zeiss, 28-200 f2-2.8. That'll be the only lens you'll ever need. It even macro down to 2cm if I remember correctly.

[dschwartz69]

I played with the Pro1 before going for the 10D and found the zoom mechanism very annoying. It was electronic, but it had hesitation and seemed a bit slow - to me.

[boxer82003]

so whats a good lense to add to the rebel to give me nice crisp clear photos with more zoom

i think im gonna end up with the rebel

[Aylwin]

I think the 28-135 IS is a good starter lens. That's what I started with and was very happy with it. However, you won't have anything on the wide end if you ditch the kit lens.

[boxer82003]

is the Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5 II USM Lens compairable to the pro 7x optical zoom

from what i understand 200/55 =3.6 optical zoom where the kit lense is 55/18=3.0 optical is this correct

[tommykjensen]

is the Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5 II USM Lens compairable to the pro 7x optical zoom

from what i understand 200/55 =3.6 optical zoom where the kit lense is 55/18=3.0 optical is this correct

Forget about that stupid term 3x zoom You really can't use it for anything. It is the actual focal lengths that matter.

For example 18-55 is 3x zoom, so is 100-300 but these focal lengths are completely different.

If would say get a 28-135 mm usm is, later You can add a 70-200 mm F4 L and a canon 1,4x extender. With the extender You have the focal lengths 98-280 mm with a better quality than the 55-200 mm You mention.

[Andy_T]

is the Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5 II USM Lens compairable to the pro 7x optical zoom

from what i understand 200/55 =3.6 optical zoom where the kit lense is 55/18=3.0 optical is this correct

Yes, the EOS lenses are only a 3.0 and a 3.6 zoom, while the Pro1 has a 7x zoom.
Actually, that is a good thing :D . Let me explain why.

Building good zoom lenses is not easy at all.
The lens has to give a sharp picture with little distortion and chromatic aberration over the whole zoom range. To achieve this, many precisely calculated anc ground optical elements have to be put together.

A 'prime lens' (no zoom at all) with very good optical quality will always be a lot easier to construct than a zoom lens of the same quality (and thus, also cheaper). Zooms are generally best around the middle, so that you could say a 24-70 L is sharpest at around 50 mm, and not so good at either 24 or 70 mm.

This will not be a big problem at the 24-70 L, which is a very expensive (USD 1200) and good lens, but it will be harder for, say the 28-135 IS. While the 28-135 will most likely be pretty sharp at around 80 mm, the full wide and full zoom setting might just not be as good. Also - the larger the zoom factor, the bigger the quality difference between the 'center' and the 'extremes' will be. Ths 28-135 is a 5x zoom and will have a harder time than a 3x zoom to be crisp along the complete zoom range.

But that's no problem. On a DSLR you can switch lenses. If you buy the rebel, you can get the kit lens (which I strongly advocate), which is a 3x 18-55 mm lens. If you also get the 55-200, you have 2 lenses covering the 18-200 mm range which is actually a 10x zoom range (but spread over 2 lenses!). (However, take a look at the 70-200/4 L. Although it's quite more expensive than the 55-200, it's a lot better optically and will hold its value well if you ever decide to sell it again)

There are some 10x zoom lenses (like the Tamron 28-300), but they are generally considered to be of very poor optical quality :cry: . There are two very expensive Canon lenses, the older 35-350 L and the newer 28-300 L. Although they are very expensive, their optical quality is at best decent and the people who normally buy them are press journalists that prefer having only one lens to cover all focal lengths. They know that it'll cost them dearly (between USD 1500 - 2500) to have a decent lens with such a coverage :lol: .

Of course, the same is true of the average 'tourist' (the target group for the 28-300) ... but the cheap lenses take pretty bad pictures.

On a digicam you don't have a choice. You can not change the lens, so it should be as long as possible. However, you can use converters (like the Canon DC-58 or WC-58 ) that shorten the focal range a bit or make it longer.

Obviously, Canon thinks that they did a pretty good job at the Pro1, as they awarded it the 'L' label which is normally only reserved for the top-quality EOS lenses.

So - in a nutshell :wink: - get a DRebel, if the size and weight of the camera is not your most important issue.

It is a lot more versatile than the Pro1 and will get you considerably better pictures in low light situation.
Don't get any lenses without doing more research on the forum here!!!
Another good source to look at are lens tests, e.g. at http://www.photozone.de/bindex2.html
Look for 'Lens test guide' for a great overview and 'Lens performance survey-Canon EOS' for detailed information.

Best regards,
Andy

[DocFrankenstein]

If you're in doubt, get the Rebel. You won't regret it.

[mdude85]

the way I see it, when you're stuck with a Pro1, you're stuck with a Pro1 and its fixed lens. When you're stuck with a 300D, the options are endless as to the looks you can create with various EF lenses and EF attachments.

[mdude85]

is the Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5 II USM Lens compairable to the pro 7x optical zoom

from what i understand 200/55 =3.6 optical zoom where the kit lense is 55/18=3.0 optical is this correct

um, yes, I suppose. The Pro1 has a comparable zoom to 28-200mm, which is a little wider at the lowest end than the 55-200.

[theoldmoose]

Please don't get hung up on zoom ratios, compared to point and shoot digicams. Those cameras all have rather small sensors, so they can do wide-ratio zooms without the picture falling all to pieces. On the other hand, the overly-small sensors on those cameras bring a host of other problems to the mat, including increased noise, and almost uncontrolled depth of field.

The Digital Rebel, and others in its class of 'digital SLR' are completely different animals. You just simply can't compare them to point and shoots in any really meaningful way. If you want and need an SLR, and the kinds of things you can do with one, then a point and shoot camera will prove a big disappointment. I should know. I bought a Nikon Coolpix 4500 with all the trimmings when it first came out a year or so ago, and found very quickly that what I really needed was something like the Digital Rebel -- I had shot previously for over twenty years with a film SLR, an Olympus OM system. While the Coolpix takes excellent pictures, and is a kick-butt macro camera, it handles so differently from an SLR as to be almost foreign material in the hands of someone that is used to SLR-like operation.

If you don't know what good an SLR is, or what you might use one for, then you probably don't need one (I know, that is a broad generalization, but for someone that knows next to nothing about photography, I would assert that it holds true more often than not). Instead, look at something like the Minolta A2, which was given 'top nod' by Michael of Luminous Landscape. He *uses* these cameras in the field (instead of just shooting targets in a lab, although he does that too, using the very expensive DxO Optics lab bench), and has tried and shot thousands of frames with each of the leading 8 MP digicams, and has some very good points about the quality and functionality of each of the current models:

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/choosing-8.shtml

There are also indepth individual reviews of each of the cameras covered. Just pull down the 'product reviews' menu on the main page. If you read and understand what Michael is trying to say about these and the other SLR cameras he's reviewed on his site, you will be able to make a much better informed decision about what might fit your shooting style.

If all you want is to take some nice snapshots, and want a supremely pocketable camera that you can have with you *anywhere*, try one of the Minolta Dimage/X, Xi, or Xt cameras. Completely unique in design, very small and light, they produce wonderful snap-shot sized photos, that can be printed up to 8x10, if need be. My wife and daughter have one each, and carry them with them everywhere they go.

As the brits say, "Horses for courses." Not *every* photographer needs an SLR, and all the baggage and expense that goes with it.

[taskerc]

Or you can waste money like I did - had a G2 (which I loved but couldn't get to proper grips with DOF and it was a bit boxy in design) and I had an EOS 30 film body, two very average lenses and the wonderful thrifty nifty fifty (50mm 1.8 MKii). Got fed up with scanning negatives and finally sold the EOS 30 and average lenses to fund a Nikon 5700 (5MP, 10X Zoom). Initally liked the Nikon enough to sell the G2 (mistake) and then really missed the feeling of a proper SLR body and proper control. So sold off the Nikon 5700 and now have DRebel with Sigma 18-50. Added a 85 1.8 (nice, sharp lens) and the EF 100-300 (handy and I like it). But, and this is a big but, I now have a system that I again enjoy - feels like film, great handling, almost all features I would like (with the hack of course) and wouldn't turn back. Of course, I threw away some good purchasing power through the moves, but found that I just did not like P&S digital cameras as a substitute. The 5700 and the G2 were great cameras, but just not right for me. My advice - if you have been an SLR user, stick with SLR familiarity. IF you are new to the game, a Point and shoot option could work. Just be prepared for the limitations and you will be ok - the DRebel will show your cash limitations, the P&S, your creative ones :-)

[KennyG]

How about an opinion from someone who has used both?

My wife had a 300D and couldn't live with the AI Servo problems and bought a Pro 1 to carry her over until she could get my 10D.

Well, the Pro one is a noise generator in all but the brightest of light. All the cameras using the Sony 8mp sensor are equally as bad in this area. It is a horror to focus on even slow moving targets, hesitating and stuttering as it tries. Too much squeezed into too small a sensor. Forget it (and the Sony 818) it is a dog. Don't be taken in by the 8mp label or the zoom factor, those numbers mean nothing, just marketing hype.

The 300D (Rebel) produces good images but has a couple of handicaps, one being the way in which AI Servo works. If you don't need it, then don't worry about it and buy the camera. If however you have any doubts, spend a little extra and get a 10D, or even, heaven forbid, a D70.

The point is, stay clear of P&S unless all you want out of life is noisy snapshots with a huge depth of field and little opportunity for creativity. Get an entry level DSLR and learn.

Take opinions from people who own/use the equipment you are considering. Also, browse around other forums for additional information and image examples before you spend your money. The lemons are easy to spot, but remember there is no such thing as the perfect camera and the internet is as full of lies as it is fact.

[DocFrankenstein]

What happened to me was:

I got S1 IS. Great camera. Nice quality. Huge DOF and there's just no way you can get shallow DOF. Therefore - no artistic expression.

Once I discovered it, I bit myself in the ass real hard for being that stupid. I got the rebel. Never regretted it.

When you put a fast lens, you can accentuate things with the shallow DOF. Get the rebel.

[boxer82003]

thanks for all the help guys i returned the pro 1 for the rebel

[DocFrankenstein]

thanks for all the help guys i returned the pro 1 for the rebel
:diabolical laughter: :twisted:

No one escapes the matrix :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :lol:

[tommykjensen]

thanks for all the help guys i returned the pro 1 for the rebel

I am sure You won't regret that. Now go out and shoot some photos :wink:

[theoldmoose]

so whats a good lense to add to the rebel to give me nice crisp clear photos with more zoom

i think im gonna end up with the rebel

Unfortunately, you can pick only two of:

1. cheap (399cad $),

2. crisp/clear, and

3. zoom.

You can get a 399 cad$ prime (non-zoom) that is crisp and clear,

OR

You can get a 399 cad$ zoom that is NOT crisp/clear.

Zoom, AND crisp/clear, will cost you much more money.

So, is it more important to have crisp/clear images (and less money) or more money and more reach?

If you want cheap zoom, the 75-300 will do you, but I'd go for the IS version for a bit more. It's one of the least expensive IS zooms, and you'll appreciate the extra stability for a relatively slow lens.

For a bit more, you can go with the 28-135 IS instead, which a lot of folks like for a medium-priced all-round walk-about zoom. Don't forget that with the 1.6 crop factor on the 300D, that the 28-135 IS will give you a field of view equivalent to a 45-216 zoom on a 35mm film body.

If you don't mind saving up a bit, a 70-200 f4L is high on a lot of folks' lists, but unfortunately, you can't get it with IS, only the much-higher priced 70-200 f2.8L comes with an IS option. In any event, any lens with an 'L' (luxury) designator has a premium price tag to match.

I recently got a 70-300 DO IS, which is a bit pricey (USD$1300), but has good IS, is compact, and sharp. I traded in an old 70-210 F4 (non-L, non-IS) on the deal, so I got an extra 100mm 'reach', IS, and cut the weight/size factor nearly in half.

In any event, you should get a 50mm f1.8 MKII as soon as possible, and take some shots with that. It will show you just how sharp a good lens can be. It is also one of the best bargains in a prime Canon lens, in that you can frequently find it for less than USD$100.

Have fun with your new Digital Rebel. Find a photography class or two at your nearby community college, and hook up with a local camera club. And most important, take a lot of pictures. :D