Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Can A Canon Rebel 2000 Take A.net Quality Shots?  
User currently offlineAirplanetire From United States of America, joined May 2001, 1809 posts, RR: 2
Posted (12 years 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3382 times:

I think I have pretty much decided that I am going to get a Canon Rebel 2000. Thank you to the members of this website who have helped me with that! I understand that for some time, I probably won't have much or any of an acceptance rate to A.net, but once I learn how to use the camera and I get good scans, will a Rebel 2000 take A.net quality photos? Thank you for your help!

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineHisham From Lebanon, joined Aug 1999, 701 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (12 years 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3346 times:

The camera has very little to do with image quality. Expensive cameras are just made to handle extremely difficult situations.

Hisham.


User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 2, posted (12 years 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3328 times:

Not even that, just the speed and the options.

You should be looking at the lens.

Wietse



Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 3, posted (12 years 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3320 times:

Would you call this an A.net q shot?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Wietse de Graaf



(I don't need the hits, they are allready there...)

EOS 300 (Rebel 2000) with Canon EF 100~400mm L IS

Wietse



Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineAirplanetire From United States of America, joined May 2001, 1809 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (12 years 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3312 times:

That is an amazing shot! I just bought a Rebel 2000 on ebay. I'm so excited. It will come with an 80mm lens. I know that is generally not enough for aviation photography, but soon I am going to start saving to get a 300-400mm lens. That was my plan from the start. The 80mm lens should do a fine job for the other things I want to do with the camera. I do not plan to only do aviation photography, but that will be a big thing for me in a little while, as soon as I have the right lens for it.

User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 5, posted (12 years 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3264 times:

Just remember that the image is formed by the lens, so invest deeply in that.

The image above was shot using a 2200€ lens.

Wietse



Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineNonRevKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (12 years 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3258 times:

I have a Rebel 2000. It's an awesome camera and I like it a lot. I took most of my SXM shots with it. Even though the scans on here are kinda grainy, keep in mind that was my old scaner, not the camera.

The only thing I can say is the 28-80 lens that come with it sucks a fat one. I mean, its not BAD, but it is far below Cannon quality. The colors arent as good as you would get w/ a Sigma or another Cannon w/ a lower F.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Brian Stevenson - SPOT THIS!



User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (12 years 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3243 times:

Brian, what settings have you used for that cockpit photo? nice one.

thanks
Luis


User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (12 years 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3250 times:

The lens and the film are the two things that do the most to dertermine quality of the picture captured. The scan is the next step in the quality chain.

Avoid off brands unless you get the higher ends ones like the Sigma APO series.



At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlineAKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 46
Reply 9, posted (12 years 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3247 times:

Keep in mind, it is neither the camera nor the lens that takes quality shots, it is the guy or girl behind it.........



User currently offlineExnonrev From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 621 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (12 years 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3249 times:

The Rebels are pretty good cameras for the most part. Being all plastic (lensmount included) they won't stand the daily beating that an EOS 1 or Nikon F5 can take. For a starter AF Canon, they can't be beat. (except perhaps for a nice used Elan II or 7) I bought a used Rebel G as a second body and have been very happy with it.

As previously stated, lenses and person behind the viewfinder have much more to do with better shots than the body. All of the "Rebel lenses" (35-80, 28-80, 75-300) are pretty much junk. If it has the plastic mount avoid it like the plague. If you can't afford the L-series (myself included) stick with the standard USM series EOS glass. When I bought my Elan IIe back in '96 I spent the extra bucks and got a 28-105 instead of the 28-80 that Canon usually has as part of a package deal. It is far and away my favorite lens.

Where you should really try so save up and spend the big bucks is for a long (300mm+) telephoto. A cheap long lens is about as useful for long shots as a PhD camera (Push Here Dummy, aka point and shoot) As another post said, some of the higher grade independent lenses (Sigma APO, Tokina ATX etc) are pretty good lenses for a lot less money. I have a Tamron 200-400 which is sharp as a tack up to 350mm, beyond that it gets slightly grainy. Even that isn't near as bad as say, a Canon 75-300. While not a "budget" lens (around $700 new), it's worth putting away come cash for.


User currently offlineHisham From Lebanon, joined Aug 1999, 701 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (12 years 4 days ago) and read 3210 times:

Exnonrev,
Why do you think the 75-300 is junk?
I think it's a decent lens. If USM and a metal mount are your criteria for a good lens, it has both!

Hisham.


User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 12, posted (12 years 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3186 times:

Hisham, there is a 75-300 with plastic mounts and non USM. I think he meant that one.

Wietse



Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineExnonrev From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 621 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (12 years 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3185 times:

I forgot they had a USM version. I've deliberately tried to stay out of camera shops lately to avoid the temptation of buying something that would blow my D60 fund. I'd hate to start saving all over again. Even worse, I forgot about the IS version that I seriously considered when I bought the Tamron!

Hisham's post also inspired me to check out Canon's website for the first time in a while. For those of you considering a 28-105, get the original f3.5-4.5 version, not the new 4-5.6 that Canon just introduced. It seems like a decent lens, but the 3.5-4.5 is tried and true. A lot of Canon shooters think it's the best non-L glass they make.




User currently offlineAirplanetire From United States of America, joined May 2001, 1809 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (12 years 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3169 times:

Can I still take sharp pictures of just stationary close up things with the Canon 28-80 lens? As long as I have quality photos (of just things in general) then I'll be happy for now. I'm going to start saving for a 300 mm lens. What do you think I can get a quality one of those that will fit the Canon body for?

User currently offlineExnonrev From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 621 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (12 years 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3166 times:

For close in ramp shots and such the 28-80 should do fine. Canon wouldn't put their name on it if it wasn't capable of reasonably good photos. I held out for the 28-105 mainly due to the extra reach at the long end and better low light capability. I wasn't aware of its great reputation among Canon folks until some time after buying it.

When it comes to lensmounts I guess I'm just a diehard. I'm still tempted to have my Rebel G converted to metal despite the fact that it would cost almost as much as I paid for the body.

As for a 300mm, the choices are numerous. There's the matter of fixed vs. zoom (the fixed will almost always outperform under the same conditions) and speed. (which is the biggest factor in the price).

If you're dead serious about a quality 300mm, Canon makes a 300/f4 that is outstanding. Of course, that red stripe (L-series) will cost a bundle. (around $1200 new) If that's too much you can check out your local camera stores (the ones that cater to pros and serious hobbyists) and look for a good used one. There are also several good zooms around that are a bit slower, but optically equal to the 300/f4 L. They can be had new for somewhat less ($500-$700) than the 300/f4 L.

Then again you can put off college and your first new car and buy a 300/f2.8.


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...
Canon Rebel 2000 A Good Camera To Start With? posted Sat Sep 28 2002 05:27:33 by Airplanetire
Canon Rebel G/2000 posted Mon Jul 29 2002 23:53:12 by JFKspotter
Canon Rebel 2000? posted Tue Jul 10 2001 05:00:13 by Airlinelover
Problem With My Canon EOS300/Rebel 2000 posted Sat Jun 7 2003 17:06:16 by Jiggles
Canon EOS Rebel 2000 posted Tue Apr 15 2003 22:51:55 by FutureFO
Canon EOS Rebel 2000 posted Tue Oct 30 2001 21:45:52 by Kappa13
Is The Canon EOS Rebel 2000 A Decent Camera? posted Sat Jan 6 2001 02:17:58 by BA
Canon Rebel XTi / 400D Vs. Nikon D80 posted Sat Oct 28 2006 23:03:29 by 9V
Can Someone Explain Why This Was A Quality Reject? posted Sun Oct 1 2006 18:20:48 by AIRBUSRIDER
Canon Rebel XT Question. posted Wed Apr 26 2006 22:00:28 by SlamClick