Anyone knowledgable about DSLRs or SLR cameras?

[brentspeak]

I recently obtained a Canon EOS Digital Rebel. What other manufacturers make Canon SLR-compatible lenses? (Because Canon lenses are way too expensive for me.)

[GOPisEvil]

1. You might try posting this in the Photography forum

I'm not aware of any, but I'm far from an expert.

[brentspeak]

3. Didn't know we had one. Thanks. n/t

[Dookus]

2. funny

I was just planning to buy one of those. I already have some great Canon lenses and it'd be great to have a digital cam that can use them.

[brentspeak]

4. Mine came with a EF-S 18-55mm lens

I'm a rank beginner at SLR photography. Not sure what my lens is good for. I want something that can zoom in on birds, and get a real good closeup, very detailed. And something that's good for action (sports) shots.

[GOPisEvil]

5. The stuff I see indicates that only Canon series EF and EF-S lenses fit.

I only have one source though...

[brentspeak]

6. Urgh. If that's the case

I would've been better off spending the extra dough on the Nikon D-70. Nikon lenses are advertised at almost half-the-price as Canon.

[GOPisEvil]

7. Really?

I think it depends on the lens. But Canon has some really nice (read: expensive) lenses with image stabilizers.

The Minolta Digital Maxxum has body-integral image stabilizers, and accepts all the old film Maxxum lenses. That's a good value, even though I have a Nikon film camera (with only one lens), I might to with Minolta for a digital SLR.

[brentspeak]

9. s/d

the DIMAGE 60, I think it's called.

[Sgent]

10. Lenses are expensive....

Good lenses are more expensive. The faster the lens and the better the optics, the more it is. Although I haven't looked at the Cannon series, I know they are not especially expensive for what they are.

FYI:

28mm = wide angle
50mm = no zoom
100mm = basic (2x) zoom

Anything more than about 200mm should probably be on a tripod unless your not really interested in blowing up the shot. You'll need a fast shutter speed 1/250 or better to stablize the image.

[Deja Q]

8. I'd wait until D-SLRs

get into the same price range as film SLRs.

Many D-SLRs that are consumer or pro-sumer based (under $2000 NET cost (ignore the upfront sticker costs)) are like any P&S digital camera: A disposable commodity.

Digital cameras lack the shadow and detail depth film allows.

Digital cameras' aggressive interpretation of light make them generally pointless for special effects (e.g. the 'running waterfall' effect)

The sensors' pixels can get stuck in one color (not unlike the problem with LCD monitors that do the same thing, except the effect is temporary). The Canon Digital Rebel often produces this during a long open-shutter exposure.

D-SLR cameras, none of them, allows for easy cleaning of the sensor - and they get dusty. It's easy to break the fragile mechanics, rendering your $1500-net Digital Rebel into a anchor for a dighny.

Now add up how much film you'd have to BUY and then pay for PROCESSING and have a heart attack that $1500+ worth of film + processing yields quite a lot of photographs; probably many more protographs before the industry comes out with the latest toy for you to buy. (so the camera won't even pay for itself!!!)

I've mentioned a couple of the Canon problems. The Nikon D70, otherwise a rather superior model, has a big problem: For fine patterns (e.g. when the sensor looks at a backpack, purse, dress, or cloth of a similar fine crosscheck pattern), the sensor creates impossible-to-completely-remove moire. Post-processing solutions can fix it to an extent, but some will always remain. $1800 net for that? Fuck 'em, forgive my Freedom.

[brentspeak]

11. I've read about a software hack for the Rebel

that might make it comparable to the D70. But I'm afraid to go ahead to do it; might void my warranty if Canon spots it.

For the moment, I'm packing my Rebel in the bubble-wrap it came in, to prevent it from getting too dusty.