Purchasing a dSLR... need some suggestions.

[Turkish]

Hi there,

I have decided to purchase a dSLR and need some suggestions for accessories like bags, batteries, and filters.

Here's my list of things to buy, feel free to tell me about pros/cons. I'll am buying these to take photos in downtown Madrid mostly. Mainly historic buildings, museums, parks, etc.

Canon EOS Rebel XSi (a.k.a. 450D) Black Body
Canon Zoom Wide Angle Telephoto EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM Autofocus Lens
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Autofocus Lens

The total for all this is right about $900 with shipping at BHPhoto. I see that they have USA and Imported products, what's the difference other than USA branded ones being 2-3% more expensive?

I want to buy some filters but not sure what to get. I think I can manage on the bags myself.

Any suggestions? Thanks


Camera'd

ATOT Moderator ElFenix

 

[Ballatician]

The Digital and Video Cameras forum will be pretty helpful for this.

 

[BabaBooey]

My friend just got his xsi and loves it,very nice unit.

I have a 350D and the short time I have had it,I love it.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: Ballatician
The Digital and Video Cameras forum will be pretty helpful for this.

http://forums.anandtech.com/ca...tid=65&flcache=1931625

 

[kyzen]

Originally posted by: Ballatician
The Digital and Video Cameras forum will be pretty helpful for this.

This. They were invaluable when I started looking.

And for what it's worth, I ended up with a Rebel XSi, and love it.

 

[AkumaX]

nice lens

I have a Sony A200

 

[kyzen]

Also, the "Imported" items don't carry the same warranty (if any) as the USA ones. Considering the tiny difference in cost, you'd be stupid to not buy the USA versions.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...Photographic_equipment

EDIT: Also, the f/1.8 50mm 'plastic fantastic' is pretty great, easily my favorite lens among the few that I have so far.

 

[rh71]

I have the XSi and the 50mm 1.8 lens... they make for GREAT portrait photos - haven't done anything with buildings with this lens... really need a zoom lens of course. I think I was recommended 24-105mm or 24-200mm.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

I would strongly recommend the 40D over the 450D. Go to a camera shop and have a play. If you're hands are small the 450D should be okay, but for anyone with medium to large hands they feel puny and toy-like. The 40D has myriad other advantages other than just feel, like a far superior control system and a metal body.

 

[TallBill]

wrong forum

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: kyzen
Also, the f/1.8 50mm 'plastic fantastic' is pretty great, easily my favorite lens among the few that I have so far.

The build quality is pathetic and the auto focus is a joke but I absolutely adore this little lens

 

[kyzen]

Couple of pics I took with my XSi just this last weekend (none are great; I'm still learning the camera...)

Taken with the kit 18-55mm lens, at the 18mm end:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/c...rz/3000265877/sizes/o/

Taken with the f/1.8 50mm lens, from the window of a car going about 5 mph:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/c...rz/3001105276/sizes/o/

Also taken with the f/1.8 50mm:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/c...rz/3000265929/sizes/o/


Any of you photo pros care to tell me what's wrong with that first pic by the way? I really like it, but something about it doesn't feel right to me...

 

[Turkish]

Fantastic photos kyzen.

Any suggestions on filters?

GodlessAstronomer: 40d is out of my price range at the moment. Also I am amateur at best, so I think I'd like to learn SLRs well with this one before moving on to nicer, better toys

Thank you all for responding.

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: kyzen
Couple of pics I took with my XSi just this last weekend (none are great; I'm still learning the camera...)

Taken with the kit 18-55mm lens, at the 18mm end:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/c...rz/3000265877/sizes/o/

Taken with the f/1.8 50mm lens, from the window of a car going about 5 mph:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/c...rz/3001105276/sizes/o/

Also taken with the f/1.8 50mm:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/c...rz/3000265929/sizes/o/


Any of you photo pros care to tell me what's wrong with that first pic by the way? I really like it, but something about it doesn't feel right to me...

Well, I'm certainly not a "photo pro" by any means, but I think that the first picture looks a little strange due to the cropping. The subject (the house) is placed smack dab in the middle of the picture, which makes for an uninteresting composition. Also, it's a rotated a little bit off center and there is some barrel distortion.

HERE is my attempt to fix it up a little bit in Photoshop. I basically just cropped it, rotated it by .2 degrees counterclockwise, and corrected the barrel distortion from the 18-55mm being at 18mm with +5 in PS's lens correction tool.

Tell me if that's any better


To the OP:

Check out some of the Rebel XSI deals on eBay. With 25% Microsoft live cashback, you could potentially pay much less than $900

 

[kyzen]

Thanks, that looks a bit better yeah.

I was trying to get the whole building in, but with 18mm being the widest angle I could get, I had to choose between the vertical shot, chopping off the wings of the hotel, or a horizontal shot, losing the top of the hotel. I could't go any further back; as it was I was standing on the very edge of a wall, with a straight (not injury inducing, but taller than myself) drop behind me.

 

[Ballatician]

Nice pictures, I liked seeing the cement courtyard/driveway in the original even if it was the tiniest bit rotated off center.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: Turkish
Any suggestions on filters?

Any half-way decent lens should be protected with a UV filter. I strongly suggest a circular polarizing filter if you're going to be doing a lot of outdoor shooting. If you like landscapes a graduated neutral density filter could be ok, but I'd suggest learning without one first. Also, it's usually not worth buying a single GND filter, you're much better off with a full filter system when going the GND route (although it's far more expensive).

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: Turkish
Any suggestions on filters?

Any half-way decent lens should be protected with a UV filter. I strongly suggest a circular polarizing filter if you're going to be doing a lot of outdoor shooting. If you like landscapes a graduated neutral density filter could be ok, but I'd suggest learning without one first. Also, it's usually not worth buying a single GND filter, you're much better off with a full filter system when going the GND route (although it's far more expensive).

This actually degrades optical quality. Even if you are using a $100 B&W or Hoya Super HMC UV filter, putting an extra piece of glass in front of a lens only hurts optical quality. If you're using a cheap, non-multicoated filter, the effects can be so pronounced that an otherwise sharp lens suddenly looks soft with the filter on.

Besides, lens hoods are better for protection than any UV filter. If you drop a lens, the glass on a UV filter is likely going to shatter, which will scratch up the front element of that expensive lens anyway.

 

[soydios]

28mm wideangle is not wide enough. It behaves like 28x1.6=44.8mm on film.

Instead, get this kit: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/..._Rebel_XSi_a_k_a_.html
with the 50mm f/1.8: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/...mal_EF_50mm_f_1_8.html

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: 996GT2
This actually degrades optical quality. Even if you are using a $100 B&W or Hoya Super HMC UV filter, putting an extra piece of glass in front of a lens only hurts optical quality. If you're using a cheap, non-multicoated filter, the effects can be so pronounced that an otherwise sharp lens suddenly looks soft with the filter on.

I'm sorry but this is nonsense, and I'm tired of reading it on so many camera forums. A quality UV filter makes such an incredibly tiny difference to the optical quality of a lens that you'd have to absolutely be a pixel-peeper to tell the difference. In my experience, pixel-peepers tend to be less about photography and more about technology. If that's you, then fine. But when I pick up my camera I do it for the photographs, not so I can scan my images at 200% looking for noise/aberrations/flares.

Your point about dropping the camera onto a hood is well taken but I have never dropped my camera and don't intend to. I use a UV filter to protect against scratching the front element. But I would challenge you to find the difference between an image taken with a UV filter and one without, observing a print without a magnifying glass.

 

[GoingUp]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: kyzen
Also, the f/1.8 50mm 'plastic fantastic' is pretty great, easily my favorite lens among the few that I have so far.

The build quality is pathetic and the auto focus is a joke but I absolutely adore this little lens

It takes forever to focus. cant wait to ditch it for the f1.4

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: 996GT2
This actually degrades optical quality. Even if you are using a $100 B&W or Hoya Super HMC UV filter, putting an extra piece of glass in front of a lens only hurts optical quality. If you're using a cheap, non-multicoated filter, the effects can be so pronounced that an otherwise sharp lens suddenly looks soft with the filter on.

I'm sorry but this is nonsense, and I'm tired of reading it on so many camera forums. A quality UV filter makes such an incredibly tiny difference to the optical quality of a lens that you'd have to absolutely be a pixel-peeper to tell the difference. In my experience, pixel-peepers tend to be less about photography and more about technology. If that's you, then fine. But when I pick up my camera I do it for the photographs, not so I can scan my images at 200% looking for noise/aberrations/flares.

Your point about dropping the camera onto a hood is well taken but I have never dropped my camera and don't intend to. I use a UV filter to protect against scratching the front element. But I would challenge you to find the difference between an image taken with a UV filter and one without, observing a print without a magnifying glass.

Not nonsense. Yes, the difference is small when using an expensive filter, but it's still there. When using cheap UV filters, image quality is noticeably degraded versus no filter at all.

Here are a couple of shots from the Canon forums:

Taken with a cheap single-coated filter:
link

Taken with a Hoya HMC:
Link

The difference is quite clear, actually, and even a single-coated Hoya 77mm can run $20 or so. So I would suggest to the OP that he use lens hoods for protection unless he is willing to shell out big bucks for quality Hoya HMC or B&W multicoated filters. With fast lenses that use 77mm or larger filters, a single UV filter can cost $100+. A lens hood, on the other hand, is a much cheaper item and therefore makes more sense for protection since it's easily replaced.

 

[ivan2]

Originally posted by: 996GT2

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: 996GT2
This actually degrades optical quality. Even if you are using a $100 B&W or Hoya Super HMC UV filter, putting an extra piece of glass in front of a lens only hurts optical quality. If you're using a cheap, non-multicoated filter, the effects can be so pronounced that an otherwise sharp lens suddenly looks soft with the filter on.

I'm sorry but this is nonsense, and I'm tired of reading it on so many camera forums. A quality UV filter makes such an incredibly tiny difference to the optical quality of a lens that you'd have to absolutely be a pixel-peeper to tell the difference. In my experience, pixel-peepers tend to be less about photography and more about technology. If that's you, then fine. But when I pick up my camera I do it for the photographs, not so I can scan my images at 200% looking for noise/aberrations/flares.

Your point about dropping the camera onto a hood is well taken but I have never dropped my camera and don't intend to. I use a UV filter to protect against scratching the front element. But I would challenge you to find the difference between an image taken with a UV filter and one without, observing a print without a magnifying glass.

Not nonsense. Yes, the difference is small when using an expensive filter, but it's still there. When using cheap UV filters, image quality is noticeably degraded versus no filter at all.

Here are a couple of shots from the Canon forums:

Taken with a cheap single-coated filter:
link

Taken with a Hoya HMC:
Link

The difference is quite clear, actually, and even a single-coated Hoya 77mm can run $20 or so. So I would suggest to the OP that he use lens hoods for protection unless he is willing to shell out big bucks for quality Hoya HMC or B&W multicoated filters. With fast lenses that use 77mm or larger filters, a single UV filter can cost $100+. A lens hood, on the other hand, is a much cheaper item and therefore makes more sense for protection since it's easily replaced.

did they put the hood on before they do the test?

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: 996GT2

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: 996GT2
This actually degrades optical quality. Even if you are using a $100 B&W or Hoya Super HMC UV filter, putting an extra piece of glass in front of a lens only hurts optical quality. If you're using a cheap, non-multicoated filter, the effects can be so pronounced that an otherwise sharp lens suddenly looks soft with the filter on.

I'm sorry but this is nonsense, and I'm tired of reading it on so many camera forums. A quality UV filter makes such an incredibly tiny difference to the optical quality of a lens that you'd have to absolutely be a pixel-peeper to tell the difference. In my experience, pixel-peepers tend to be less about photography and more about technology. If that's you, then fine. But when I pick up my camera I do it for the photographs, not so I can scan my images at 200% looking for noise/aberrations/flares.

Your point about dropping the camera onto a hood is well taken but I have never dropped my camera and don't intend to. I use a UV filter to protect against scratching the front element. But I would challenge you to find the difference between an image taken with a UV filter and one without, observing a print without a magnifying glass.

Not nonsense. Yes, the difference is small when using an expensive filter, but it's still there. When using cheap UV filters, image quality is noticeably degraded versus no filter at all.

Here are a couple of shots from the Canon forums:

Taken with a cheap single-coated filter:
link

Taken with a Hoya HMC:
Link

The difference is quite clear, actually, and even a single-coated Hoya 77mm can run $20 or so. So I would suggest to the OP that he use lens hoods for protection unless he is willing to shell out big bucks for quality Hoya HMC or B&W multicoated filters. With fast lenses that use 77mm or larger filters, a single UV filter can cost $100+. A lens hood, on the other hand, is a much cheaper item and therefore makes more sense for protection since it's easily replaced.

There are a couple of things wrong with that test. First, I would never advocate using a cheap UV filter. The test does not show an image with no UV filter, where the real acid test would be how does the high quality multi-coated filter compare with no filter. Lastly, most if not all of that flare could be controlled with a lens hood.