Should I buy a Canon Rebel?

[matfoster]

they'll get you pictures. learn to use them well and you'll get some good results.

 

[khallene]

Yes I have decided I will settle for 2 lens. But no more!


So you guys think this is a good choice of lens?

Two lenses for this week you mean! Just wait, you'll get the itch soon enough!

 

[burstintoflame81]

What is your budget range?

You might be able to pick up a T1i cheap because the T2i is coming out soon. If you have a bigger budget, I would advise investing more in your lenses. I bought a T1i and quickly got rid of the kit lense. I now use a Tokina 16mm-50mm F/2.8 as my main walk around lens ( Its like $550 ) I have a Tamron 70-300 f4-f5.6 which is decent but is not stabilized. You could always get a good walk around lens and a good 2x or 3x teleconverter.

I guess all of this depends on how much you want to spend and how high of a quality of image you are shooting for.

 

[Ron Evers]

I read through the thread before commenting & am disappointed none picked up on, or commented on what jumped out @ me in the OP.

"Majority of the time I leave the setting in auto because I dont feel like adjusting Fstops/shutterspeed and whatnot while I'm taking pictures of animals."

I infer from this statement that you have not learned the functionality of your S3 yet & here you are wanting a DSLR for better quality pics. Your S3 is capable of taking very fine pics, certainly equivalent to many I see on the forums taken with very expensive DSLRs by folk who do not know what they are doing.

My suggestion to you is to learn how to use the camera you have until you are comfortable using it in Av & Tv modes at least. I doubt you would see a difference in your pics using a Rebel XS in auto over what you are getting now.

To demonstrate I show you two pics taken with my S5, a later version of your camera but not much different. wildlife & macro, your interest:

I assure you they were not taken in auto.

 

[NateWagner]

One thing to add though Ron, is that on the other hand changing Aperture/Shutter Speed etc. are much easier on a DSLR than on a P&S. Obviously it can be done on the P&S, it's just more time consuming and less intuitive (typically).

That being said, a DSLR will typically result in better images, if because of the lack of a shutter lag, better auto focusing, better at handling ISO, etc. That being said, where you will really start to take advantage of the DSLR is when you step out of the Green Box, and start taking control over your images.

 

[Ron Evers]

Nate, I do not consider the S3/S5 to be point and shoot cameras unless used in auto - same as a DSLR can be a point and shoot. They are much like a DSLR without the flipping mirror with a zoom lens. My point is that unless the OP learns to use a camera in other than auto he should save his money & work with what he has which is not a shabby camera.

 

[NateWagner]

ok, to be honest I don't know much about the S3, it may have the dials that makes it quite easy to modify the aperture etc. I was thinking more along the lines of an A5xx or whathaveyou. To be honest, below DSLR, their lines confuse me.

That being said, it is if nothing else still a bridge camera to which the second section of my post is still absolutely true (if to a lesser degree in some aspects).

 

[radlations]

How far were you from that squirrel?

I know how to manually adjust the settings on my camera I just dont like how its done on the S3.

"I doubt you would see a difference in your pics using a Rebel XS in auto over what you are getting now. "

Wow is this true?

 

[NateWagner]

I personally don't think so. As I mentioned earlier

That being said, a DSLR will typically result in better images, if because of the lack of a shutter lag, better auto focusing, better at handling ISO, etc. That being said, where you will really start to take advantage of the DSLR is when you step out of the Green Box, and start taking control over your images.

Now, actual picture quality of a still image, I think would probably be similar enough that you really couldn't tell the difference one way or the other. Where the DSLR comes in handy is more with moving subjects and the lack of shutter lag etc.

 

[radlations]

The extra megapixels, the good lens, the fact that its a DSLR, and the fact that it cost me 700$ will be enough for me to get the best out of the camera which means I will venture into M-mode

 

[Ron Evers]

"How far were you from that squirrel?"

I was about 20' away & using the Sony 1.7x Tel-converter.

If you want to see what others with your camera are doing with it, visit the S3/S5 users forum @ this link:

Canon s5IS Users


I think many DSLR owners would be surprised.

 

[radlations]

Okay I have an even better question. Were any of those pictures photoshopped or altered?

I know people use programs to increase the quality of their pictures. Personally I don't agree with altering your photos. I could probly make a picture taken off of my camera phone and make it as good looking as a picture taken from a rebel with enough editing.

While we're on this subject, does this mean that photographers from national geographic and whatnot ALSO alter their photos?

 

[Overread21]

Let me ask you this - if you shot film would you develop the negatives of leave them just as they were in camera?

The same is true of a digital file - if you just leave it as out of camera all you do is let the auto codes perform the processing and editing for you. Much of the time they are ok, but often as not you can take the RAW materials and do far better in editing yourself.

Its not all about making things a lie its about getting the most out of the data that the camera sensor captures. This is why many photographers shoot in RAW mode on the camera - the results are not usable until they are edited (by the photographer) and once done (its a process that takes moments) you have the begings of the image - you can fine tune things after that. Note the fine tune - you have to get a good pure image to start with still.

 

[Overread21]

I know people use programs to increase the quality of their pictures. Personally I don't agree with altering your photos. I could probly make a picture taken off of my camera phone and make it as good looking as a picture taken from a rebel with enough editing.

On the internet yes you can - we've seen it done here. Though each image was often a composite of 4 stiched images of the camera phone. However you try printing that or cropping and such and you will quickly find that the DSLR has some major advantages.
Also factors such as sensor size are key - many wildlife images have that highly blured background effect (incamera) which is the result of good lenses (eg ones with a wide max aperture life f2.8) as well as the fact that the larger sensor in hte DSLR makes this an easier possiblity - the point and shoot cameras have much greater depth through their smaller sensors which makes getting this effect very hard.

However the greater depth of field of the point and shoot is what gives them an edge over a DSLR in macro photography - however again you try printing and editing and the higher quality DSLR sensors do often show an advantage

 

[Ron Evers]

"Okay I have an even better question. Were any of those pictures photoshopped or altered?"

I do not have Photoshop but do have Lightroom now but not when those shots were taken. I used a free download called PhotoScape @ the time & likely sharpened the images a bit.