Woohoo it's finally here!

[John27]

Hey all,

Got my T1i today finally! Also picked up a Canon Gadget Bag, extra battery, and I already had a Manfrotto Tripod (3001) with a nice Bogen Fluid Ball head (I forgot the model, and it's not right in front of me). Got the tripod free!

Anyway, I will post pics later after we go do some shooting tomorrow, tonight we messed with it and tried to see what settings worked with different shots, followed some of our literature, etc. Basically, a lot of excellently exposed and well focused shots of, half a kitchen table leg, my foot, etc. Tomorrow we will actually take some shots! haha.

One thing I had read, and the Canon manual concurs, is to use a "Class 6 or better" memory card, so I did, picked up a 4GB Fujifilm Class 6. I also already had an older class 4 card. For grins I tried it, took a couple dozen pictures in rapid succession, no problem, even 1080p video, no problem. I can't seem to find a reason why this class 4 card wouldn't work? If I decided to buy another class 4 card, would I see issues down the road or is that a little too "generous" of a guideline (Class 6+).

So anyway, I'll post some shots soon! I've got the kit lens right now, probably will for a while. I know alot of people are, as they have, going to tell me to "Ditch that kit lens and get some real glass". Well, I'm taking donations. Otherwise, I'm dealin' with the kit lens for now. The thing is, I know it's no L, but this thing isn't an evil curse either. I think sometimes people forget that there IS such a thing as an entry-level product, and it IS possible for someone to be new. This thing takes phenomenal pictures in full auto with a kit lens, I know all of you disagree, but all of you aren't jumping up from a $79 point and shoot! Using the creative modes it gets even better! I'm really looking forward to being able to afford some decent lenses, but please, don't chastise me for sticking with the kit for now!

-John

By the way, sidebar here, on the subject of lenses- there is a telephoto lens by Canon (75 mm - 300 mm - F/4.0-5.6 - Canon EF), it reviews poorly, but it's cheap. I can pick one up around $150, sometimes less. There is a similar lens with a " III " in the name as well, same situation, poor reviews. Now, those in mind they ARE cheap, are we talking kit lens performance? Or worse? I can afford THAT investment, and I am wanting something to take pictures of niece/nephew soccer games, thoughts?

-John

 

[Blake.Oney]

I have no idea about Canon gear, so take this with a grain of salt, but if the games you are shooting will be in nice daylight where you can get a fast enough (1/500) shutter speed then that lens should be fine for that. At that price you shouldn't expect the sharpest images in the world, but it should do just fine for someone who is learning and needs some range at a cheap price.

 

[MohaimenK]

haha it was only less than 3 months ago I ws where you are with my T1i. I was excited about those lenses too till I realized that I really want to get serious about photography then I picked up other lenses instead and picked up a 5D last night.

But congrats! It does take good pix!

 

[Morpheuss]

That is so awesome I can't wait to see some pictures you take. I got a canon t1i but as my signature says its back in the states I can't wait until I get to take some pictures with mine.

 

[tnvol]

Congrats on your new camera!

 

[Robin Usagani]

John, you can get a used 55-250mm IS for about the same price. I would stick with IS for longer lenses. There are only 4 modes I use on the camera: Manual, Aperture Priority, Shutter priority, and Video. There rest I couldn't care less if they disappear. I suggest sticking with those settings. You can take amazing pictures with kit lens. Don't think you will outgrow it anytime soon.

 

[Taylor510ce]

Congrats. I have a t1i, and I highly recommend it for a first SLR, especially since its coming down in price with the t2i out.

As for the Canon Lens, I would recommend the Tamron 70-300.

Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD Macro Lens for Can AF017C700 - B&H

It has 2:1 macro which isn't GREAT macro, but it basically will allow you to be a foot or so closer than the 75-300 to a small subject and still be able to focus ( in turn making it fill the frame more ) Its just slightly shorter also ( although its a little bigger around I believe. ) Tamron also gives a 6 year warranty with it, it comes with a hood and its pretty light.

 

[John27]

Thanks for the tip on the Tamron, it'll be a while yet, but we took about 2600 shots today, spent the entire day shooting. Went to the river, couple parks, niece & nephew soccer gamess, etc. I'll post some of the good ones later. I am quite satisfied with the kit lens, just wish I had a longer focal length!

And yeah, auto modes gave me too much of a point and shoot feel to the images (although portrait wasn't too bad.) But the extent of that was messing around before we went out, I already have a point in shoot, I spent too much money on this to use it in auto! I've been almost exclusively using Shutter Priority, I did use Aperture Priority to do some nice shallow DOF shots, but that was it. It was super bright today, I had a UV filter that came with the bag so I used it, it actually did improve the picture, it made the skies expose closer to the rest of the shot. I used primarily 1/125 for most shots, with an exposure comp of about -1, and utilizing fill flash with a flash comp of -2/3 (on camera flash) when taking pictures of flowers or people closeby. This was all during a bright day outside at a state park (mostly). Anything I should have done differently? I'll show you all the results soon.

Thanks!

John

 

[Robin Usagani]

UV filter can only make your photo worse.

 

[white]

UV filter can only make your photo worse.

I dunno, this guy sounds like a beacon of objectivity, and if he says the UV makes everything nice and preddy, then I just have to believe him.

Have fun with your new purchase, John. May you buy many future lenses and camera bodies and make splendid pictures.

 

[XCountryGuy]

UV filter can only make your photo worse.

You probably saw a video somewhere that showed some guy hamming away on his crappy old lens and concluded that filters aren't really necessary. Maybe you heard some discussions about putting cheap glass in front of expensive lenses. Is your experience and testing so broad that it enables you to make such universal, emphatic statements? The way you put this statement out there, without qualifiers, makes it sound like a filter would never be a good option.

 

[Geaux]

I think what schwetty is saying is that a UV filter can only make a shot worse, not improve it like the OP is stating. If it were a CP or ND filter, than I would believe the OP saying it exposed his sky correctly..

Not sure he meant they actually suck (though some might think so)

 

[Taylor510ce]

I think what schwetty is saying is that a UV filter can only make a shot worse, not improve it like the OP is stating. If it were a CP or ND filter, than I would believe the OP saying it exposed his sky correctly..

Not sure he meant they actually suck (though some might think so)

I agree. While some more explanation could have been given. His statement is correct IMO. They are good for protection when needed ( flying mud, salt water, kids throwing crap ) etc etc. But other than that a HOOD will offer enough protection without compromising the image.

 

[John27]

I dunno guys, I will take some shots today to compare it could have just been my imagination. I didn't intend on using based on what I had read, but it was there, in the bag, so I said "okay". Originally the sky was absolutely blown out (this was at a soccer game), even with a 1/500 shutter, so I stuck it on, didn't notice anything (untrained eye, 3" LCD screen on the back of the camera) changing on the field or the players, but the sky was much darker, and it was blue as opposed to white.

However, since so many more-experienced-than-I individuals seem to think it was detrimental, I will play around with it if the sun comes out today, maybe take some UV filter side-by-sides. One of the things I noticed was that pro/well equipped photographers hate UV filters, and amateurs like them (being general here but bear with me, if you are a pro or an amateur and disagree with that, it's irrelevant, this is a generalized statement). So my theory is, it's not the photographer that is different but the equipment. Maybe a T1i with a kit lens can have noticeable improvements where as a 5D mkII with an L lens would only be hindered, just a thought.

I didn't have a good comparison because I deleted the first blown-sky shots (game hadn't started yet, I was messin'), and when I noticed the improvement on the sky exposure I just left it on the rest of the day.

These two were on my facebook, I'm not at home the rest of the shots are on my desktop, I'll post more later.

By the way that second one was actually an "accident". We wanted to get some shots of the boats driving by on the river (to try the panning technique to give the feeling of speed to the shot.) But where we were we could get much better shots if we were about three feet of the bank, so I set the tripod up in the water and we got a couple shots, long story short we randomly tossed everything over there while taking some hand-held shots and just noticed it looked all cool and intentional :lmao:. My girlfriend noted that it would be a great advertisement picture for any of the "products" shown!