eos 400d for beginner / hdr?

[speakerwizard]

Hi, just after a little advise really, i have used slr's in the past at college and have had a kodak z7590 for a whioe which only has certain manual controls for aperture / shutter etc.

Im looking at the 400d eos for a starter slr, but i have heard that the bundled lens isnt that great so im thinking of body only and getting a different 18-55 seperate. I would also like a nice wide angle lens that isnt to costly can anyone recommend either of these? also has anyone been doing any hdr on the 400d? whats it like?

 

[Karpfish]

The 400D and kit lens is fine for a beginner, but FYI there is the 450D coming out if you want the newest. As far as HDR, its really the execution/software that determines if it is good or not, not as much the camera.

 

[speakerwizard]

Thanks, ill check out the 450 but maybe ill find a good deal on a 400 guess i just wanted to check it can do multi exposures for hdr really, as long as it can thats cool, so anyone got a nice wide angle theyd recommend i like photographing architecture.

 

[ChrisA]

Hi, just after a little advise really, i have used slr's in the past at college and have had a kodak z7590 for a whioe which only has certain manual controls for aperture / shutter etc.

Im looking at the 400d eos for a starter slr, but i have heard that the bundled lens isnt that great so im thinking of body only and getting a different 18-55 seperate. I would also like a nice wide angle lens that isnt to costly can anyone recommend either of these? also has anyone been doing any hdr on the 400d? whats it like?

It's hard to beat the "kit" lens for value. 18mm is fairly wide not what I'd call "ultra wide" but all that you will need most of the time. Lenses wider than 18mm and low cost just don't go together. Get the low-cost kit lens and then tke LOTS of pictures, 1,000 frames or so. Then figure out what shots you were unable to get and buy the lens that would have gotten you those shots.

 

[speakerwizard]

ok, thanks, thats good advise, i think itll have to be the 400d as it seems to be about £200 cheaper than the new 450d from what ive seen and im budgeting for a mac pro at the moment too.

 

[zioxide]

but i have heard that the bundled lens isnt that great so im thinking of body only and getting a different 18-55 seperate. I would also like a nice wide angle lens that isnt to costly can anyone recommend either of these? also has anyone been doing any hdr on the 400d? whats it like?

The 450D has a new version of the kit lens (has Image Stabilization, etc) which has gotten much better reviews than the old kit lens iirc.

 

[speakerwizard]

just when i think ive made a decision !! lol thanks ill have to rethink if the new lens is worth the extra

 

[disdat]

I purchased my XTi last summer, without the kit, but with the Canon 50mm f/1.8 and the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8.

In hindsight, I wished that I waited on the Tamron. I like the lens now, but when I first got the camera, the Canon 50mm was basically the one lens I used for months.

I use the Tamron a lot now, but who knows, I might have chosen a different lens had I waited until I had a bit more experience.

So, my advise is to get the body only with the cheap nifty fifty 50mm for only $75. then decide what kind of lens you need after you take a few shots.

If you would like to see my full XTi review, here is my article:
http://splashofstyle.com/archives/2007/11/15/canon-rebel-xti-400d-dslr-updated-review/

Enjoy which ever camera you decide on!!!

 

[ftaok]

We just got the XTi a week ago and we're loving it. I'm still learning the different settings and such, but I'll jot down my experiences ...

1. We bought it Body Only and the 18-55 IS lens. I figured that this would be the main lens for the time being and I figured the extra money spent would be worth it. From what I've read, the 18-55 IS is a better lens than the 18-55 II.

2. We held our daughter's 2nd b-day party (at an indoor playground) and the XTi was handy. Much much much faster than our Sony P&S.

3. My plan is to eventually get a 28mm f/1.8 lens for indoor/low lighting shots. So to determine if this is the right lens to get, I set the 18-55 to around 28mm and took shots of my daughter last night. I could get decent shots (about 60% of the time) with the following settings: Av mode; 28mm f/4.5; ISO400; auto-shutter; no flash. The shots that came out looked great, but the apperture setting wasn't big enough, so the shutter speeds were around 1/15 to 1/30 ... so I got a several blurry shots. That's why I figure a 28 f/1.8 lens would be better. I could set the shots the same, but the open up the aperture so I can get a faster shutter speed.

4. Eventually, I think the 18-55 will be too limiting on the telephoto side, so I'm thinking that I'll get either the 70-300 IS lens or maybe the new 55-250 IS. This would be the lens that we'd use when we go to the zoo or on vacation. IS would be useful since I don't really want to carry around a tripod (I've done that before and it's a hassle).

I hope this helps your decision.

ft

 

[scotthayes]

the 400d is a fantastic camera. the only two things I'm really glad I got to go with mine are the battery grip (twice the batter life and much nicer to hold) and a Canon 70-200 f/4 L lens. The lens was pretty expensive but well worth it.

 

[ChrisA]

3. My plan is to eventually get a 28mm f/1.8 lens for indoor/low lighting shots. So to determine if this is the right lens to get, I set the 18-55 to around 28mm and took shots of my daughter last night. I could get decent shots (about 60% of the time) with the following settings: Av mode; 28mm f/4.5; ISO400; auto-shutter; no flash. The shots that came out looked great, but the apperture setting wasn't big enough, so the shutter speeds were around 1/15 to 1/30 ... so I got a several blurry shots. That's why I figure a 28 f/1.8 lens would be better. I could set the shots the same, but the open up the aperture so I can get a faster shutter speed.

Have you worked out what the depth of field will be at 28mm and f/1.8
There are some on-line DOF calculators

If you shoot from with the subject five feet away at f/1.8 the depth of focus will be about 8 inches. This is a great effect if you want it. It can be used indoors to "de-clutter" a background but it just will not work for a group shot unless you very carfully pose the subjects to within a few inches - group shots will require a controled studio style technique

You might look into geting a good flash. One that can be turnned around and bounced of the walls the ceiling. On-camra flash is horrible but bounded flash is a very soft and natural looking light especially if you can turn the flash around 180 degrees so it is aimed directly over the photographer's head backwards away from the subject.

That said I like my 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8 lenses and these have even smaller DOF when wide open.

 

[ftaok]

Have you worked out what the depth of field will be at 28mm and f/1.8
There are some on-line DOF calculators

If you shoot from with the subject five feet away at f/1.8 the depth of focus will be about 8 inches. This is a great effect if you want it. It can be used indoors to "de-clutter" a background but it just will not work for a group shot unless you very carfully pose the subjects to within a few inches - group shots will require a controled studio style technique

You might look into geting a good flash. One that can be turnned around and bounced of the walls the ceiling. On-camra flash is horrible but bounded flash is a very soft and natural looking light especially if you can turn the flash around 180 degrees so it is aimed directly over the photographer's head backwards away from the subject.

That said I like my 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8 lenses and these have even smaller DOF when wide open.

I haven't done the calculations (mainly because I didn't know that math was involved), but I am aware that the DOF will be much shallower on the 28mm f/1.8 than on my 18-55 lens. I actually want the shallower DOF to give more of that "artistic" feel. I figure I could always trim back on the aperture to get more stuff in focus, but it kind of defeats the purpose of the fast lens in the first place.

I'll definately look at the calculations, as I'm an engineer and we do calculations for fun.

ft