Why the hate on the Rebels??

[Overread]

Nothing there just not a "Pro" Camera. Though more than capable of producing them. If you like the camera shoot with it, and let your work speak for itself. I love brand wars as I love photography but bottom line is its the person not the camera that makes the images. I used a D40 so I'm sure your rebel beats that.

Weather or not it is the person I think owning a "professional" camera is a decent measure of a persons seriousness about being a photographer. I have seen many threads and complaints here and other places about so many amatuers getting into wedding photography and undercutting "professionals" and I think this is a response to that.

+1
There are a lot of rebels out there and in the hands of the right person, with the right lenses and the right lighting/light control they can and will produce fantastic photos - pro grade photos. However many who shoot with rebels and apply for jobs are going to be this new "bought a DSLR now I'm a pro" kind of user. By removing rebels from the options its rather like turning away point and shoot camera bodies - the hirer is trying to avoid lots of novice "pros" and get at the real professionals - many of which whilst having the skills and support gear to use a rebel well will have upgraded their camera body to something more versatile and, well more pro.

It's a simple filter for quick and easy filtering - like when you go to sports matches and they won't let lenses in over a certain length or size.

 

[MrLogic]

I question any pro who doesn't buy the best gear he or she can afford - relative to their photography needs.

Besides, is there a good reason to use a DSLR with a 1.6x or 1.5x "crop factor"... if you are a wedding photographer?

 

[JClishe]

Nothing there just not a "Pro" Camera. Though more than capable of producing them. If you like the camera shoot with it, and let your work speak for itself. I love brand wars as I love photography but bottom line is its the person not the camera that makes the images. I used a D40 so I'm sure your rebel beats that.

Weather or not it is the person I think owning a "professional" camera is a decent measure of a persons seriousness about being a photographer. I have seen many threads and complaints here and other places about so many amatuers getting into wedding photography and undercutting "professionals" and I think this is a response to that.

+1
There are a lot of rebels out there and in the hands of the right person, with the right lenses and the right lighting/light control they can and will produce fantastic photos - pro grade photos. However many who shoot with rebels and apply for jobs are going to be this new "bought a DSLR now I'm a pro" kind of user. By removing rebels from the options its rather like turning away point and shoot camera bodies - the hirer is trying to avoid lots of novice "pros" and get at the real professionals - many of which whilst having the skills and support gear to use a rebel well will have upgraded their camera body to something more versatile and, well more pro.

It's a simple filter for quick and easy filtering - like when you go to sports matches and they won't let lenses in over a certain length or size.

Another +1

I suspect people are linking a person's photographic experience with their financial investment in camera equipment. Ie., if you "only" have a Rebel than you must be some Johnny come lately wanna be photographer.

Which of course isn't true, you can stick expensive L glass in front of a Rebel and have made more of an investment than someone with a higher end body but cheaper glass (and therefore even get better photos than them, in the right lighting).

Like the previous poster said, it's a quick filter.

 

[Overread]

The 7D has a 1.6 crop sensor and its pretty pro - whilst the 1DMIV is a 1.3 crop - so the reason for using 1.6 or 1.3 crop in a wedding is probably similar to why people use only 35mm fullframe camera bodies instead of medium or even large format camera bodies.

 

[aadhils]

Basically any average Joe can buy a rebel (and they do).

Saying "no rebels" would cut down a lot of Photographers who've just bought a Rebel and now think they can take outstanding photos because they have a "pro" camera.

I sort of thought the same thing until I took a few photography classes and found out how much I don't know :blushing:

 

[squee]

I paid nearly $600 for my rebel kit alone. How is that affordable for any Joe photographer?

One of the people saying this in an ad I emailed anyway and told her the rest of my gear and showed her some of my newborn work. She hired me. Then I told her when I met her in person that some of the shots were with a point and shoot. She was surprised. Ha.

I dunno. I had a choice between the Nikon price equivalent of a Rebel (forgot the model) or the Rebel. I choose the Rebel because I'd wanted one for 5 or 6 years and I'd kick myself if I didn't get it when I got the chance.

 

[JClishe]

I paid nearly $600 for my rebel kit alone. How is that affordable for any Joe photographer?

It's certainly within range of the average Joe that thinks that stepping into an entry level dSLR is suddenly going to let them take better pictures than a high end P&S. (even though said average Joe probably knows nothing about photography)

 

[MrLogic]

The 7D has a 1.6 crop sensor and its pretty pro - whilst the 1DMIV is a 1.3 crop - so the reason for using 1.6 or 1.3 crop in a wedding is probably similar to why people use only 35mm fullframe camera bodies instead of medium or even large format camera bodies.

"full frame" has advantages over medium and large format (high ISO performance, speed, flexibility)... and vice versa. Same with film vs. digital.

1.6x crop sensor DSLRs - pro or not - have advantages, too, but those do not apply to wedding photography, as far as I know.

Why would a wedding photographer use a 1.6x crop body, if better options exist?

 

[Dao]

Of course there are exception. My good friend called me last week, his sis-in-law contacted him and asked for help because she just bought a Canon camera from bestbuy and do not know how to turn it on. And the camera is the EOS 7D kit.

My friend was able to help her to turn on the camera, but later on she said everything came out blur. So my friend called me.

Of course, I do not think I can help too much. The only advice I have my friend tell her was, turn on the camera, dial the top wheel (M, Av, Tv ....) to the Green rectangle, point, half press and then shoot. Of course, RTFM as well.

However, since she has a 7D now, so she can apply for the contract. LOL.



But in general, most of the photographer who own a higher end body have more experience. I know there are examples like the one I just mentioned. And I know people who has Rebels can take great photos. Or Video now.

One of my friend is a videographer, he just starts building a video recording equipment with a Rebel. Here are couple photos of the initial setup.

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos..._424408839891_596629891_4856344_3120487_n.jpg

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos..._424408834891_596629891_4856343_7454893_n.jpg


That is a Rebel, but I think it's not bad.

 

[Overread]

Why would a wedding photographer use a 1.6x crop body, if better options exist?

because its capable of producing a product that the photographer and his/her clients are happy with. Further you are assuming that all wedding photographers (and similarly all clients) are after the same thing from a wedding photographic package. Further a "better option" only stands as valid if - for the photographer - fullframe holds properties that they want/need

 

[Village Idiot]

The 7D has a 1.6 crop sensor and its pretty pro - whilst the 1DMIV is a 1.3 crop - so the reason for using 1.6 or 1.3 crop in a wedding is probably similar to why people use only 35mm fullframe camera bodies instead of medium or even large format camera bodies.

"full frame" has advantages over medium and large format (high ISO performance, speed, flexibility)... and vice versa. Same with film vs. digital.

1.6x crop sensor DSLRs - pro or not - have advantages, too, but those do not apply to wedding photography, as far as I know.

Why would a wedding photographer use a 1.6x crop body, if better options exist?

Because they shoot more than weddings and don't want to spend the money on a 1Ds MKIII?

Face it, there's one current full frame option for Canon under $7000 and that's the 5D MKII. Some one may want a camera with better AF. The 7D is a perfectly acceptable choice with the right lenses. Why would some one judge a person with good photography skills based on the equipment they own.

Hand me a 300D with cactus triggers and Vivitar 283's and I can do some work that would make a noob with a 1Ds MKIII look like he's using a P&S.

I paid nearly $600 for my rebel kit alone. How is that affordable for any Joe photographer?

One of the people saying this in an ad I emailed anyway and told her the rest of my gear and showed her some of my newborn work. She hired me. Then I told her when I met her in person that some of the shots were with a point and shoot. She was surprised. Ha.

I dunno. I had a choice between the Nikon price equivalent of a Rebel (forgot the model) or the Rebel. I choose the Rebel because I'd wanted one for 5 or 6 years and I'd kick myself if I didn't get it when I got the chance.

You can get used Rebels (300d - 450d) for $200-$400, iirc. And the XXD+ cost over $1000 new. I paid $2,700 for my camera. Does that kind of put it into perspective?

And Nikon doesn't have a clever marketing name for their entry levels. In fact, the rest of the world knows the Rebels as the XXXd and kiss, I believe.

 

[emh]

I don't mean to start a war! I just want to know if there's a technical reason why people reject Rebels. Like maybe they cause intestinal cancer in babies or something. :er:

Not intestinal cancer but the bright red REBEL logo is known to cause retinal cancer in infants. And spontaneous combustion of chickens...

 

[squee]

I don't mean to start a war! I just want to know if there's a technical reason why people reject Rebels. Like maybe they cause intestinal cancer in babies or something. :er:

Not intestinal cancer but the bright red REBEL logo is known to cause retinal cancer in infants. And spontaneous combustion of chickens...

Well that certainly explains my accident on that farm the other day! I kept blaming my assistant's face for random animals running away and exploding. I should apologize.

 

[bigtwinky]

I owned a Rebel XSI and it was the camera I learned with and grew with for a few years. I shot various things, including a few weddings, some urban shots that are hanging on walls somewhere.

They are great cameras, but they do lack in good high iso performance (and other things, but the one that made me upgrade was ISO). So shooting an event or a wedding with a Rebel, you are already chancing it if its low light. Sure, you can get fast primes, strobes and all that, but the chances that someone who owns a Rebel owns $5000 of lenses and strobes is pretty small.

They are an entry level camera. They are affordable. A cheap Rebel is the price of some point and shoots. So you see them everywhere. By saying no Rebels, they are simply trying to limit the amount of people who think that owning a dSLR, any dSLR, makes them a photographer able to charge for their work.

There are some people out there with amazing skill who are just getting into photography, learning, and using low end equipment like a Rebel. They produce amazing work and their stuff will be even more insane when they learn lighting and processing. But those are not the norm. The norm is uncle Bob with his new toy and his kit lens shooting with the little green box

 

[aadhils]

Another point to note is that people who ONLY own a Rebel is much more likely to be a new photographer. Professionals who choose to shoot some shoots with Rebels most likely have a higher end camera on hand so they're not being excluded.