Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Cannon EOS Digital Rebel XT?  
User currently offlineATCme From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 304 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5707 times:

I was wondering if this camera would be a good one for taking airplane pics. The uses would be varied, but the lenses are interchangeable so that isn't a big problem. At first I'd mainly use it for the Paris Airshow next summer and then foe some European Landscape, and once I get back home I'd use it for shots at DEN.
What I'm wondering is:
Is this a good camera in general?
Would this be a good camera for these uses?
-If so, What lenses would you suggest for these uses?
Is there a better camera than this?
Please remember I don't want to get too expensive, nothing over $700 total.

Thanks for the input!
ATCme spin 
PS I searched and didn't find anything on this camera.


I'm from the FAA, and I'm here to help. Really. Yes I'm serious, I'm here to help you.
43 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5706 times:

Quoting ATCme (Thread starter):
nothing over $700 total.

How do you plan on getting everything for that amount? If that is your total budget, you should rethink your choice, as I think you are going to come up short.

As to the camera, sure, it's better then a point and shoot.


User currently offlineSkyexRamper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5589 times:

This is a great camera to use as it's the best entry level DSLR out there. I personally have owned mine since June and I am using a Tamron 70-300mm Di lens and a sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-3.5 DG lens, both with circualr polarized filters. I would personally suggest that you get the new version of the Rebel XT, the Canon 400D Rebel XTi. It has their new anti dust spot firmware upgrade and anti dust vibration to help rid the sensor of dust. If you're testing the water of Digital SLRs you'll need about $1000-1200 to get a nice camera and a good lens. I'd suggest something in the range of 70 or 100mm to 400mm.

User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5576 times:

The 350D and 400D are perfect budget cameras for aviation photography, but the lenses you attach are more important. I recommend Canon's 'L' series range of lenses, which deliver supreme quality via outstanding optics. Prices for such lenses will shock you though!

Of course, there are better cameras out there, but in my opinion not in that price bracket. US$700 will most likely buy you the camera and kit lens, however you'll need more spending power to really excel in the aviation dept.

Karl


User currently offlineNicolasRubio From Argentina, joined Sep 2005, 584 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5574 times:

For 700 americans, you will not get more than the 350D and a 1gb CF card... Not even the kit lens...


Gripped 7D + Sigma 10-20mm + 17-40L + 50mm f/1.8 II + 70-200mm f/4L IS + EF 400mm f/5.6L + 580EX II
User currently offlineLurch From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5553 times:

The 350d
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/


The 300d
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/

goolgeing the 350d mite bring up some interesting Prices in $


User currently offlineATCme From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 304 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 18 hours ago) and read 5482 times:

Okay, well that seems interesting.
Thanks for all the replies!

To modify my question:
What would be the best intro level camera for the cheapest price. As a high school student I can't afford much so please keep it low. (Ok, stop laughing, I know what I'm asking is impossible.)
Please have the camera meet these requirements:
-digital
-can shoot different situations
-has enough quality for A.net (not iffy, please be sure)
-is easy to use

Thanks!
ATCme spin 



I'm from the FAA, and I'm here to help. Really. Yes I'm serious, I'm here to help you.
User currently offlineFly747 From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1497 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 17 hours ago) and read 5477 times:

Quoting ATCme (Reply 6):
-has enough quality for A.net (not iffy, please be sure)

Your expectations are too high. No camera will guarantee you A.net uploads. It's more up to you than anything else really

Ivan

[Edited 2006-10-07 03:28:46]


Contrails Aviation Photography
User currently offlineATCme From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 304 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 16 hours ago) and read 5467 times:

Quoting Fly747 (Reply 7):
Your expectations are too high. No camera will guarantee you A.net uploads. It's more up to you than anything else really

Ya, good point. I just mean stuff like noise and overall quality, not focus or the actual shot. The reason I'm actually looking for a new camera is because I think my shots are amazing but they always get rejected for grain, and there is obvious noise in the photos. I just want a camera where my talents matter more than how well I can get rid of noise.

Thanks
ATCme spin 

P.S. If anyone knows a way to get rid of noise that is easy, that would be the preferable solution than buy a whole new camera.



I'm from the FAA, and I'm here to help. Really. Yes I'm serious, I'm here to help you.
User currently offlineScottieprecord From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1363 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 14 hours ago) and read 5456 times:

There's a program called NeatImage (Google it). It's free, and works quite well at reducing noise.

As for the Rebel XT, it's an excellent camera. I currently am using it with the 100-400 L IS. If you're looking for the best value, I'd go with Canon 350D + 70-200 f/4L. (~$600 + ~$590) This combo is well over your budget... but it might be worth saving up for. It will definitely give you the means by which to get shots accepted.

- Mike  Smile


User currently offlineBubbles From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1193 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 14 hours ago) and read 5453 times:

Quoting Scottieprecord (Reply 9):
There's a program called NeatImage (Google it). It's free, and works quite well at reducing noise.

Photoshop CS2 also has a similar function - 'noise reduce'. Of course, it's a good feature. However, I would suggest refraining from using them, if possible.

I am using 350D, too, and this camera well controls the image noise. In daytime, most of photos will probably be taken at ISO-100, or 200. So, I don't use any noise reduction feature whilst editing these photos, even sometimes the sky looks slightly grainy if the shot is taken at dusk.

I am just trying to say this noise reduction feature might bring some negative impacts to photo quality - use it very carefully only when you have to.  Wink

Just my two cents.

_Hongyin_


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 9 hours ago) and read 5429 times:

The 350D at ISO100 is definately one of the best cameras when it comes to very little noise in the pictures - better, in fact, than many high-end Canons and certainly better than the average Nikon (which tend to only go as low as ISO200).

Karl


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 4 hours ago) and read 5408 times:

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 11):
The 350D at ISO100 is definately one of the best cameras when it comes to very little noise in the pictures - better, in fact, than many high-end Canons and certainly better than the average Nikon

 rotfl  where did that little 'fact' come from? What 'high end Canons and Nikons' do you own to make such a comparison?


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 1 hour ago) and read 5384 times:

I was not suggesting Nikons are somehow inferior, but the fact is they only go down to ISO200, which, believe it or not, is noisier than ISO100.

It's also been proved in side-by-side tests that the 350D is less noisy than both the 30D and the new 400D.

So I'd say my comments and recommendations are quite factual, wouldn't you?

Oh, and by the way, I do own a higher-end Canon than the 350D, so I'm in a position to judge.

Your response to this? I'd think I'd duck now if I were you.....

Karl


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months ago) and read 5375 times:

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 13):
Your response to this?

Show us some legiimate links. Duck? Don't make me laugh.........


User currently offlineDomokun From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 202 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months ago) and read 5372 times:

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 13):
I was not suggesting Nikons are somehow inferior, but the fact is they only go down to ISO200, which, believe it or not, is noisier than ISO100.

Must be a bug that my D80 works just fine @ ISO 100  Smile


User currently offlineFly747 From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1497 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5357 times:

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 13):
It's also been proved in side-by-side tests that the 350D is less noisy than both the 30D and the new 400D.

Where have you seen this?? I was under the imprssion that the 30D is less noisy than the rest of Canons. I might be wrong though. What I know is that 350D can be noisy as **** when not shooting in perfect conditions.

Ivan



Contrails Aviation Photography
User currently offlineMrk25 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 225 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5352 times:

Quoting Fly747 (Reply 16):

Perfect conditions are the key words here. I have both a 350D & 400D, the 350 in low light shots is complete crap, the 400 is better but only slightly. I did my own tests side by side. And I don't mean a perfectly lit bowl of fruit in a studio. In good lighting the 350 & 400 are great noise wise. But shooting aircraft the only time you up the ISO is low light.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 13):

Whoever "proved" the 350 was better 30D & 400D needs to get on a do some real life tests. Its complete B*****it.


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5299 times:

Quoting Domokun (Reply 15):
Must be a bug that my D80 works just fine @ ISO 100

Correct, my apologies. Slowly but surely, the newer Nikons are beginning to come with ISO100.

A lot of the older ones, however, do not.

Quoting Mrk25 (Reply 17):
Whoever "proved" the 350 was better 30D & 400D needs to get on a do some real life tests. Its complete B*****it.

This also depends on the conditions. I read this in a reputable magazine, so it's unlikely to be bulls**t, but you never know. A lot of factors also depend on the lenses used. Obviously, in this particular test, it looks like the 350D came out on top (it is very good for aviation, I must admit), however I dare say that in alternate tests it may not fare so well. One thing I do know is that, on a noise chart at ISO800 (same review), the 400D was in fact noisier. The 30D was very comparable to the 350D, but began to suffer at high ISOs (if I remember rightly).


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5296 times:

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 18):
I read this in a reputable magazine, so it's unlikely to be bulls**t,

ONce again. Can you provide the links to back up this stuff? Seems you're having a bit of difficulty proving these assertions......


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9609 posts, RR: 69
Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5288 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm#measurebator

User currently offlineChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 16
Reply 21, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5278 times:

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 18):
Correct, my apologies. Slowly but surely, the newer Nikons are beginning to come with ISO100.

The ISO 200 of the nikon was equal to ISO100 on the canons at that time. It just used different sensor technology.

slowly but surely? yea if you've been sleeping under a rock for the last 1½ years.... D2x was the first in early 2005.



what seems to be the officer, problem?
User currently offlineBubbles From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1193 posts, RR: 51
Reply 22, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 5268 times:

Quoting ChrisH (Reply 21):
The ISO 200 of the nikon was equal to ISO100 on the canons at that time.

Really? I remember dpreview.com says Canon's ISO 100 is about ISO 125 of actual sensitivity, but still not equal to Nikon's ISO 200.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos30d/page20.asp

_Hongyin_


User currently offlineChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 16
Reply 23, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 5255 times:

Quoting Bubbles (Reply 22):
I remember dpreview.com says Canon's ISO 100 is about ISO 125 of actual sensitivity, but still not equal to Nikon's ISO 200.

kinda splittin hairs there, lets just say the noise was never an issue



what seems to be the officer, problem?
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 5243 times:

Quoting ChrisH (Reply 21):
slowly but surely? yea if you've been sleeping under a rock for the last 1½ years.... D2x was the first in early 2005.

Yeah, sorry folks, could have been a little clearer on this one. I was actually referring more to the 350D's immediate competitors than to the high-end Nikons. D50, D70 and D100 all only went as far as ISO200 (if I remember rightly).

Anyway, we should stop turning this thread into a Canon/Nikon debate and get back to answering the guy's questions.

Karl


25 JakTrax : Fully agree with that link, Clickhappy. I don't care how good other cameras are in comparison with my own, to be quite honest. The question here was s
26 Post contains images Fly747 : Yea, let's see some images of yours. Ivan
27 Post contains links and images ATCme : Wow, thanks for getting back on track. I almost abandoned this thread because it had gotten so far off topic. As for pictures, it would be awesome to
28 Post contains links Scottieprecord : If you'd like to see some examples of the 350D, all of my shots from Jan 10 on were taken with it... http://www.airliners.net/search/phot...Mike%20Pas
29 Post contains images JakTrax : OK, here's some images taken with the 350D: All the above are completely unedited in Photoshop (because I can't use it!), i.e. as they came straight o
30 Post contains links and images JeffM : View Large View MediumPhoto © Mike Paschal N i c e.............!
31 Historic747 : Nice pictures
32 JeffM : Why would you buy it then?
33 JakTrax : I don't actually own Photoshop, so I'm probably being a little negative when I say I can't use it properly. To be honest, I've never tried - and I'm a
34 Post contains links and images A388 : Very nice photos Mike! I liked everyone of them. Just one example of your nice photos here: View Large View MediumPhoto © Mike Paschal Regards, A
35 Scottieprecord : Thanks for all the compliments guys! Hope my shots convince ATC of the potential the 350D has... Y'all have a nice day! -Mike
36 Kukkudrill : You got those shots centred edge to edge straight out of the camera? Wow.
37 Post contains images Fly747 : They are sharpened though so not completely unedited as you claim Ivan
38 JakTrax : I guarantee you 110% they are straight from the camera. The credit for the sharpness surely must go to the quality of my lenses and not Photoshop. Iva
39 Fly747 : That's funny because if you look closely on your images, the smaller sizes posted here you see these "funny" pixels all round the aircarft which usua
40 Kukkudrill : To be fair I don't think you can really make a judgement from the resized versions. Charles
41 JakTrax : My in-camera sharpening is set to 0, so this is the result that setting achieves. Funny it may be, but I assure you they are untampered with. Why do y
42 Fly747 : Looking at the originals they don't look sharpened, so it must be just the way they look when reduced in size I guess. Ivan
43 TACAA320 : Just because of the ISO ?
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Best Spotting Settings For A EOS Digital Rebel posted Sun Sep 17 2006 23:50:11 by Airlinelover
My First Day With Canon Digital Rebel XT.. posted Thu Aug 10 2006 06:27:24 by COIAH756CA
Should I Buy EOS 350D (rebel XT) posted Mon Jul 3 2006 21:23:47 by Phxplanes
EOS 350D/Rebel XT Advices For A Newbie To (D)SLR posted Tue Feb 28 2006 17:39:09 by Jorge1812
A Good Price For Canon Digital Rebel XT posted Sun Sep 25 2005 22:44:07 by Jetmatt777
Lense For Canon Digital Rebel XT (350D) posted Tue May 31 2005 02:07:47 by LOT767-300ER
Nikon D70 Or Canon EOS Digital Rebel posted Mon Oct 18 2004 05:04:00 by AA777
Who Uses The EOS Digital Rebel (300D) posted Sat Nov 8 2003 10:42:31 by Maiznblu_757
New Canon EOS Digital Rebel posted Fri Oct 10 2003 04:35:11 by Don
Canon EOS 10D Vs. New Rebel XT posted Thu Sep 8 2005 16:02:27 by Flyfisher1976
Who Uses The EOS Digital Rebel (300D) posted Sat Nov 8 2003 10:42:31 by Maiznblu_757