Is owning a Canon Rebel a joke?

RandyMN wrote in post #16528074
Sorry,that was sarcasm
The point is that you can get yourself in trouble... A driver may crash the car while the photographer may take on more than they are capable of handling by being overconfident with their equipment.

Ditto..

mattertea wrote in post #16527750
seriously, though, a joke would be someone who doesnt even know what full frame means getting a 5d mk3...

Someone who shot film with a SLR 20 years ago would most probably not know what "full frame" means. So they instantly have to learn the meaning just to make sure they don't get one?

I think you guys are misunderstanding. The rebel is an entry level dslr camera. For Someone who is new to photography it is a great starting point. .. re: OP - Not a joke.

In contrast: someone who is new to photography would be wise to pick up one of these over a 5 or 6d.

If you want an analogy - giving a 6 year old a bike like the ones they use in Le tour De France instead of a bike with training wheels.

mattertea wrote in post #16528731
I think you guys are misunderstanding. The rebel is an entry level dslr camera. For Someone who is new to photography it is a great starting point. .. re: OP - Not a joke.

In contrast: someone who is new to photography would be wise to pick up one of these over a 5 or 6d.

If you want an analogy - giving a 6 year old a bike like the ones they use in Le tour De France instead of a bike with training wheels.

That comparison doesn't work well.

The bike with training wheels isn't the Rebel but the toy cameras you can find -the cheapest of the cheap P&S.

The Rebel is more like the bikes run by junior racers or not too wealthy amateurs.

We don't have the 'Rebel' label in the UK, and I have not heard anyone laughing that my 600D has too many numbers in it, or my 5DIII has the right amount.

To the OP, get a UK model and you will have a solution to your woes.

BTW Both cameras are supposedly very capable,just are less so in my hands.

1Tanker wrote in post #16527998
What if they're rich, and money's no object? Should they buy the cheap camera.. just because? I bought my first DSLR, and didn't know squat about photography... i learned.
It's not good to make blanket statements.

Sure they should. They will probably learn faster by not getting bogged down and lost in a maze of options that have no meaning to them. It's more than likely that they will start fooling around with settings that they don't understand and end up actually taking poorer photos because of it. When just learning the craft, simpler is better for most people.

You don't put a student pilot behind the controls of a 747 - it would overwhelm him. The same idea applies to any technology. Work and learn your way from simple to complex, or start simple and stay there if that ends up working for you. The only reason for a tyro to buy a 1DX when just starting out is to boast about how much money he has. The size and weight is going to be a burden, and the complexity is just going to be confusing.

Want to start out with FF, fine. Buy a 6D, learn what it's all about, then move up if that's what you want. But a beginner with plenty of money would be just as well served to start with a Rebel. He still has the money to move up when he wants to, and he won't be missing out on anything while he learns.

There's no shame in a Rebel. I started out with the old silver body(still works great). If you work to bring your A-game to the Rebel you'll be ready for the minors and from there the major league. I'm still waiting to be called up.

BasAndrews wrote in post #16528833
We don't have the 'Rebel' label in the UK, and I have not heard anyone laughing that my 600D has too many numbers in it, or my 5DIII has the right amount.

To the OP, get a UK model and you will have a solution to your woes.

BTW Both cameras are supposedly very capable,just are less so in my hands.

Best answer in this thread, lol!

Preeb wrote in post #16528848
Sure they should. They will probably learn faster by not getting bogged down and lost in a maze of options that have no meaning to them. It's more than likely that they will start fooling around with settings that they don't understand and end up actually taking poorer photos because of it. When just learning the craft, simpler is better for most people.

You don't put a student pilot behind the controls of a 747 - it would overwhelm him. The same idea applies to any technology. Work and learn your way from simple to complex, or start simple and stay there if that ends up working for you. The only reason for a tyro to buy a 1DX when just starting out is to boast about how much money he has. The size and weight is going to be a burden, and the complexity is just going to be confusing.

Want to start out with FF, fine. Buy a 6D, learn what it's all about, then move up if that's what you want. But a beginner with plenty of money would be just as well served to start with a Rebel. He still has the money to move up when he wants to, and he won't be missing out on anything while he learns.

I think learning to use the camera is the easiest aspect of photography. I don't believe any difference in camera options will slow anyone down because all the basics remain the same.

When I first started in photography back in 1979, I attended a school that had me using a manual 35mm, a twin lens medium format, 4 by 5 and even an 8 by 10. Learning the equipment was easy and at that time I thought I was now some great photographer walking around with all this gear.

Within five years I had graduated to owning my own studio strobes, lighting stands and background,s and I began realizing how little I actually knew back when I simply understood camera buttons and options. I recall learning to manually follow focus moving brides walking up the isle, focusing on eyes of the subject, DOF and best focusing points for groups. None of this really mattered whether I had a basic model or big fancy camera because these techniques were the same.

I think the key to learning photography is understanding light. Light has the same properties no matter which camera body we are using, It took many years of learning light, and setting up multiple studio strobes really helped me with this learning.

The modern camera functions offered today only make it easier for less skilled photographers to use the camera as a crutch in having them get better results than their skills actually are capable of. Today's digital photographers no longer need to understand film properties, they don't have to carry multiple cameras with different ISO for changing light, and they hardly even need to understand metering because the algorithms used in today's computer controlled cameras look at focusing points and balance subject with background... assuming the focus is on the subject.

Learning camera functionality is basic learning and photographers need to know their equipment like the back of their hand. This doesn't make them better photographers, just better at controlling the tool used to photograph. Light hasn't changed, subjects haven't changed, only the tools. Learning the tool can be done in a relatively short time compared to learning to actually be a skilled photographer.

RandyMN wrote in post #16529046
I think learning to use the camera is the easiest aspect of photography. I don't believe any difference in camera options will slow anyone down because all the basics remain the same.

When I first started in photography back in 1979, I attended a school that had me using a manual 35mm, a twin lens medium format, 4 by 5 and even an 8 by 10. Learning the equipment was easy and at that time I thought I was now some great photographer walking around with all this gear.

None of those cameras had 10 pages of nested settings by which a person could make the camera almost non functioning if he picks the wrong one, or the wrong combination, then not have a clue what he did or where to go to find that setting again. I still sometimes have to get out the manual on my 60D to find a setting that I've lost in the clutter. I can't imagine how confusing it could be on a 1DX.

The easiest way to learn photography is a simple manual body. Learn what exposure is, understand focus and depth of field, learn something about composition, and do that when you aren't worrying about flash exposure compensation, drive speed, AF settings, etc. Look through the viewfinder, match the needles, take the shot and see what you get. Change exposure, look at the results. Lather, rinse, repeat.... learn from it.

I didn't go to school. In about 1976 I bought a Minolta SRT-201, and a book (Aaron Sussman's "The Amateur Photographer's Handbook"), and I went out and took pictures. I learned what happened when the needles matched, and how to correctly mismatch them for certain lighting situations, and how to bracket when I was still uncertain. I learned to look at the entire viewfinder, since transparencies don't offer much forgiveness or PP options. The simplicity of a manual match needle SLR gave me the freedom to let my brain focus on the image, not the technology.

While all of this is certainly possible with a modern DSLR, it's very easy for the beginner to get caught up in the gizmos and features and forget that the whole point of photography is the image itself. The more complex the hardware, the easier it is for the novice to lose himself.

Preeb wrote in post #16529105
None of those cameras had 10 pages of nested settings by which a person could make the camera almost non functioning if he picks the wrong one, or the wrong combination, then not have a clue what he did or where to go to find that setting again. I still sometimes have to get out the manual on my 60D to find a setting that I've lost in the clutter. I can't imagine how confusing it could be on a 1DX.

It's true that one can become overwhelmed with camera menus, and I don't even use most of those available settings. But even with 10 pages of nested settings the camera is still the easiest part of learning photography.

I'd say most people can be an expert at their particular camera after one month of studying and practicing. It takes years to learn photography and even myself after 30 years I still use same functions as I did to begin with, focus, meter, set shutter and aperture. Adding a flash adds a few extra steps, but I stand by my statement that the camera is the easiest part of learning photography. Comparing a Rebel to a 5D is not much different as I'm sure both have many pages of menus.

I have never looked at a 1DX so not sure about additional settings, but you can do the same wrong settings on today's televisions and stop it from working. That's just technology and fear of hitting an incorrect setting doesn't stop anyone from buying a higher quality television.

I have the XSI (sorry, I said XTI in a post but I meant XSI) as my 2nd. camera when shooting weddings. The only thing I don't like is the ISO 1600 limitation.

mattertea wrote in post #16528731
I think you guys are misunderstanding. The rebel is an entry level dslr camera. For Someone who is new to photography it is a great starting point. .. re: OP - Not a joke.

In contrast: someone who is new to photography would be wise to pick up one of these over a 5 or 6d.

Personally I find the Rebels a more complex body to use...more complex than the xxD series...I would/do recommend the xxD body over the Rebel for beginners....
I am more comfortable with the button-function system rather than the button-menu system...it is why I seem to be more comfortable with Canons rather than Nikons...even though I have a dozen Nikkors I'd love to put on a Nikon body...

Preeb wrote in post #16528848
Sure they should. They will probably learn faster by not getting bogged down and lost in a maze of options that have no meaning to them. It's more than likely that they will start fooling around with settings that they don't understand and end up actually taking poorer photos because of it. When just learning the craft, simpler is better for most people.

You don't put a student pilot behind the controls of a 747 - it would overwhelm him. The same idea applies to any technology. Work and learn your way from simple to complex, or start simple and stay there if that ends up working for you. The only reason for a tyro to buy a 1DX when just starting out is to boast about how much money he has. The size and weight is going to be a burden, and the complexity is just going to be confusing.

Want to start out with FF, fine. Buy a 6D, learn what it's all about, then move up if that's what you want. But a beginner with plenty of money would be just as well served to start with a Rebel. He still has the money to move up when he wants to, and he won't be missing out on anything while he learns.

Even the 5DIII has auto settings, so there's really no reason for them to become any more overwhelmed, than with a Rebel.

I'm completely lost on Nikon DSLR's, does that mean i shouldn't or won't get one? Nope, if i could switch over my lenses, without taking such a huge loss, i most likely would.

I also leaned to drive on a standard, and i think it's made me the good driver i am today.

no
owning a canon rebel is not a joke
this is smaller than the rebel and it's not a joke too

Fujifilm x20