what person would still work with a canon digital rebel?

mritchy wrote in post #8194869
There is a difference in giving someone the benefit of the doubt by thinking they can get great picks from their non pro gear vs. someone being an absolute idiot for not preparing should something happen to the non pro gear.

The person giving the benefit of the doubt and the unprepared idiot are two different people so of course there's a difference.

I've always felt it's better to assume the best than to assume the worst. Call me an optimist.

egordon99 wrote in post #8194927
This post should be titled "what person would still work with a canon digital rebel with ONLY the kit lens and no other lighting when hired to shoot a once-in-a-lifetime event in a dark hall?"

I like this. I think it drives the real point home.

HyperYagami wrote in post #8182977
what's wrong with that? if you can take good pics with that old gear, what's the problem?

even a rebel is better than what was in the film days, and that didn't stop people from taking good pics.

hmmm obviously someone never had a good SLR....i have three SLR's that each were top of the line in their days and still produce better quality images when compared to a rebel...granted less convenient but still produces great images...

obviously someone only knows the modern age of photography...
try getting ur self a film camera...digitals are great fun but film has a nostalgic look that can not easily be imitated. film also gives you a great feeling when you capture something that is one of a kind...

JeffreyG wrote in post #8191732
There have been a number of posts about how a Rebel can be good enough for a wedding, and of course it can.

But the wedding photog observed by the OP is inadequately gunned and on thin ice. Ya'll can pretend this woman is the next Cartier-Bresson if you like but I notice:
1. No backup gear.
2. No flash plus using f/5.6 lenses as primary equipment
3. Use of cheap screw on WA filters which I will come right out and state baldly do not deliver acceptable quality.

I understand that these threads about wedding photogs using cheap ass gear always attract defenders, but there must be a line somewhere right? There is a difference between a professional that uses a couple Rebels to control costs but knows what they are doing and a person that has a Rebel, an f/5.6 lens and no flashes?

agreed, any professional would invest in better quality equipment, not to mention at least have other gear, battery grip, several lenses, especially some lighting equipment...it sounds this couple got ripped...

maybe shes good but anyone who takes photography seriously would have more, & nicer gear...

lyonsdennn wrote in post #8195092
maybe shes good but anyone who takes photography seriously would have more, & nicer gear...

Spoken like a true gear head.

lyonsdennn wrote in post #8195063
hmmm obviously someone never had a good SLR....i have three SLR's that each were top of the line in their days and still produce better quality images when compared to a rebel...granted less convenient but still produces great images...

obviously someone only knows the modern age of photography...
try getting ur self a film camera...digitals are great fun but film has a nostalgic look that can not easily be imitated. film also gives you a great feeling when you capture something that is one of a kind...

Woah, whao, whao. I am honestly not one that likes to sit here and brag. Believe me. But I guarantee you I can take shots with my XS that would at the bare minimum match film. At the very least.

mritchy wrote in post #8195147
Woah, whao, whao. I am honestly not one that likes to sit here and brag. Believe me. But I guarantee you I can take shots with my XS that would at the bare minimum match film. At the very least.

hmm i just love my SLR's and film alot...sry...im grouchy today two weeks working : / but yeah honestly film can do amazing things
but digital is more practical since developing and purchasing a roll of film is around 12-14 bucks now-a-days : /
i still use all my 35mm's..

Digital Rebel cameras suck! I can't get a single decent picture out of mine. Here are a few of the garbage shots I have decided not to delete for some reason. I can't see why a single photographer would waste their time with such a toy!

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Just send them to me and I will take care of proper disposal.

@jethro790
I don't think the point is that digital rebels can't deliver decent images. I shot with one for a year and it did. However, I think it is fair to say that weddings pose, as every other photography niche does, their own set of challenges and that digital rebels might not always be able to keep up. For example, flash was not allowed for one of the weddings I shot; and I ended up shooting at 1600 and sometimes pushing this in post. I remember what a pushed iso 1600 photo looked like with the rebel and it wasn't pretty. With the 5d it is.

^Definitely true about the pushing in post.

I recently shot (my first) wedding with a 40D and two XT's. Because that's what was available to me. Granted, I put an arsenal of glass in my bag, and used the 40D 95% of the time, but the XT's did not disappoint. I would have to think hard when looking at the album now as to which photo was taken with which body. While I understand that the XT is outdated, I do not consider it to be a body that one can not work with. I love to put the 50mm f/1.8 on the XT for parties, when I want a lightweight enjoyable evening. It rarely disappoints. Your tools are what you make of them.

Jethro790 wrote in post #8195424
Digital Rebel cameras suck! . . . . .

. . . I may just throw it in the dumpster today.

I feel for you, bro. I have one of those worthless things, too.

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #8195478
. . . . . I ended up shooting at 1600 and sometimes pushing this in post. I remember what a pushed iso 1600 photo looked like with the rebel and it wasn't pretty. . .

Properly exposed, ISO 1600 can yield really decent results as shown in the link here. But, I agree, it all falls apart if you have to push it any further.

HyperYagami wrote in post #8182977
even a rebel is better than what was in the film days, and that didn't stop people from taking good pics.

I have looked this up before because I am still a die hard film user, but 35mm film when scanned properly is equivalent to a 16mp camera. I do not understand why some people think that film is a horrible and outdated media.

Photo13 wrote in post #8195796
I do not understand why some people think that film is a horrible and outdated media.

Because high ISO looks like ass and scanning is a pain in the same. Since I can get a great looking 20x30 out of my 8MP cameras with care at any ISO and would be shooting medium format (whether film or digital) if I wanted to shoot for an art gallery or certain commercial clients, 35mm film is pointless.