I just got a Canon Rebel XTi for Easter. I'm considering minoring in photography and I currently have been using my father's film Pentax from like, 1972 (I know it's ghetto, but I've taken some really nice pictures) and I have been dying to get a Digital SLR for quite some time now. I'm a little hesitant about opening it up because I haven't really had any time to research other cameras that are sort of in this price range, and there's a 15% restocking fee which I would like to avoid at all costs, lol. My folks got me the 70-300mm lens (which i'd be keeping as an addition), but since I would be using this minor more towards press passes for concerts, I'd need a smaller lens like 50mm f1.2 or so? Does anyone have any knowledge about this camera? Or even recommendations for a better SLR? I've looked this one up and the only downside I really saw was that it didn't have spot-metering, and that worries me because at concerts, I always use spot. So yeah, if anyone has any suggestions or comments, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks!
IMHO, they made a very good choice (but then I'm biased towards Canon ;) ). To gain spot metering, in the Canon lineup you'd need to step up to the 30D (about $500 more), or jump to Nikon (looks like even their D40 offers that)--however you lose the high-ISO noise control Canon is known for. You can also look at the Pentax K100D or K10D (about XTi and 30D level respectively) and probably use your old lenses, though I'm not sure how well they handle low light. Finally there's the Sony A100--really a rebadged, cheapened Minolta, but I'm not much of a fan of theirs. So after all that, I think you already have the best option.
I shoot a 20D center-weighted at dance concerts all the time with no trouble. Spot metering would be nice, but I don't miss not having it.
For lenses, you already know that 70-300 is way too slow. The 50/1.2 would be nice, but is way too expensive for what it is at $1400. The 50/1.4 is $300 and the 50/1.8 is $75. So long as you're close that should be fine--the 1.4 probably is the best choice as the 1.8 can hunt in low light.
BTW, what's ghetto about using a good old Pentax? Remember that before Canon became the pro choice was Nikon, and before them was Pentax. One of the preferred 645 medium format setups is still Pentax.
Pentax = ghetto???? Not in the least. Pentax is a great camera maker. And you already hit on the most important part..."but I've taken some really nice pictures"...isn't this what photography is all about?
If spot metering is very important to your niche, then you need to step up to 30D as Chris suggeested or move to Nikon.
Noise has always been an issue during high ISO operations and if you can control the noise in-camera, that will save you a lot of time in messing around with the photo. Using noise removing programs is an option that is not uncommon.
I didn't mean that in a bad way, I've been extremely pleased with the pictures i've taken with the Pentax. But compared to all the cameras now, it's a lot more old fashioned, and completely manual, and it's probably the best thing to actually LEARN on. But it does have it's limitations, like the camera itself can only go up to 1/1000 of a sec for shutter speed, and so on.
Anyways, I guess the main point is that the XTi is my price range for a camera, as of this moment. Since the only experience I have with cameras is obviously, well, P&S, and my father's film SLR. So I wanted my transition to be a smooth one because I don't have any experience with a digital SLR. I basically want to make sure that this is the right beginning camera for me. Something that I can use and expand on with lenses, because really, if you have an eye for photography, and great lenses, some would argue that it really doesn't matter the body. But since my preference for locations would be at concerts, if I could find a camera for my price range that does the job best, then I should be getting that one instead.
I've heard nothing but really great things about the XTi. The only negatives were 3 things. The battery is 10% worse than the XT because of the increase in the LCR screen. There's no spot monitoring, and no image stabilizer. BUT, it ranked over the Nikon D80 (which is $200-250 more) in image quality, noise, dynamic range, color, and white balance. So I think that just being able to handle a higher ISO speed is a huge plus, even though it wasn't ranked better in all the other areas. So yeah, obviously, I'd have to fork out the money for an image stabilizer lens, or just hope to have super steady hands at low shutter speeds.
I'm thinking of returning the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 because I haven't really heard anything great about it. And although I could definitely use a telephoto in my collection, it seems as though this is not the one I should be using? So the 50mm 1.8 I shouldn't even consider, right? I should just invest in the 1.4? I heard that for 80 bucks, it's not bad, it just doesn't compare to the 1.4.
I've heard there's been a lot of problems with the D70 though. And from everything i've now read about it, the XTi, overall, is better than the D70, and in some cases, even can compare to the D80. And that if I were to go to a Nikon, the one closest to the Canon would be a D40x, from what I've seen.
In all, this is more along the lines of what's the best camera and lens (in a decent price range) that can give me what I need to succeed, and to eventually get photo passes for shows. Obviously down the road I would love to upgrade to like a 5D, and even better lenses, but for someone who is just transitioning from a film SLR to digital, and basically wants something to grow off of, I just want to make sure the Rebel is what I really want. And I think it is...
If you are transitioning from SLR to Digital SLR...there really is not much of a difference. You are off to an excellent start...the rules on focus, shutter speed, aperture, composition, etc., still apply.
Like Berny said, you've already handled an SLR, so the transition will be fairly easy--the concepts are all the same, a camera is still a camera whether you are capturing the image on plastic film emulsion or on a CMOS or CCD chip.
You will find that DSLRs are FAR more efficient in using the battery since they do not depend on the LCD for all operations. My 20D goes a month or more ata time between recharges (probably something like 1500-2000 shots per battery and I'm running two). As I mentioned before, the spot metering would be nice, but I've found the center-weighted metering to be sufficient. Finally, Canon does not do IS in the body on their DSLR line, and I'm happy with that. It's more useful for longer lenses, and they optimize it for the particular lens it's installed in. Also, IS is of limited usefulness in a concert situation--it accounts for camera movement, not subject movement. So, bump the ISO, get a stable platform (tripod), or learn to be steady.
As you mentioned, the body doesn't matter as much as the lenses. So, get a good collection of Canon lenses and switch bodies later. More bang for your buck and better images to start with.
For lenses it depends on what you want to do with them. The one you have is not suited for low-light, but for well-lit situations it's fine. I haven't used it myself, but it has a reasonably good reputation when used within its limits. For low light, you obviously want as fast as possible. The 50/1.8 is a great deal for the money; while it's cheaply made, the optics are top-notch. I have a 50/1.8 Mk I in my bag and will only sell it off when I get the 1.4 version--which is nicer all around. The fast telephotos can get expensive, but are worth it. I've been able to use both the 135/2 and 300/2.8IS and can see where they got their legendary status--absolutely fantastic lenses. However at $1k and nearly $4k you pay for it. Then there's the zooms. For low light IMHO the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 cannot be beat. I own the first and have used the IS version of the second many times (and it's the next lens purchase). Again, their legendary reputation is well-earned.
Now, about those old cameras. What's wrong with old? My cousin inherited our grandparents' old Pentax gear (dates from the late '60s-early '70s) and it's still going strong. I still have my first SLR: an Olympus OM-2 that needs a battery & possibly shutter attention, but otherwise is fine. To top that off, I deliberately bought a Mamiya 645Pro and am having a ball with it. It's nice to step back to a full-manual camera now & then, it makes you slow down and think about what you're doing where digital gets you to blast away & pick the best later instead of really thinking about what you're doing. I'm even looking at old folding cameras from the '50's for fun.
My cousin inherited our grandparents' old Pentax gear (dates from the late '60s-early '70s) and it's still going strong. I still have my first SLR: an Olympus OM-2 that needs a battery & possibly shutter attention, but otherwise is fine. To top that off, I deliberately bought a Mamiya 645Pro and am having a ball with it. It's nice to step back to a full-manual camera now & then, it makes you slow down and think about what you're doing where digital gets you to blast away & pick the best later instead of really thinking about what you're doing. I'm even looking at old folding cameras from the '50's for fun.