dwight wrote:
> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> dwight wrote:
>>> "markB" > wrote in message
>>> om...
>>>> From dwight, on 2/8/2008 5:33 PM:
>>>>> "markB" > wrote in message
>>>>> om...
>>>>>> From dwight, on 2/7/2008 6:25 PM:
>>>>>>> To heck with all this nonsense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've got the Canon Rebel XT, and now I'm reading about the new
>>>>>>> Rebel XSi.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/n...er/PMA2008.jsp
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do I want one?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it truly has spot metering, hell yes!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -mb
>>>>> Yeah, but it has to be compelling.
>>>>>
>>>>> Years ago, I bought the S1. Then the S2 came out (3MP to 5MP), but it
>>>>> wasn't compelling. Then the S3 came out (6MP instead of my 3MP AND
>>>>> 12X optical zoom vs. my 10X), and it was somewhat compelling. By
>>>>> then, I'd bought the Rebel XT and upgrading the S1 was out of the
>>>>> question. The S5 came out, and I was seriously tempted, but...nah.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then the S1 zotzed out. Because it had a service bulletin out on it,
>>>>> Canon ended up replacing my S1 with a refurbished S3, so the S5 no
>>>>> longer looked quite so compelling.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, my Rebel XT isn't all that old. I'd have to look long and hard
>>>>> at the XSi before shelling out for a new camera.
>>>>>
>>>>> And spot metering...? Since I work almost exclusively on manual, I'm
>>>>> sure I could continue to screw up my shots even with that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given my track record, it's probably the NEXT Rebel that will grab
>>>>> me.
>>>> I'm impressed if you use full manual that much! I usually walk around
>>>> on shutter priority.
>>> I bought the S1, because I was frustrated with my film work. I spent the
>>> first month on full AUTO, but I've been using manual settings ever since.
>>> Of course, the S1 had live view, so I could adjust on the fly and pretty
>>> much know what I was going to get. With the XT, I rely heavily on the
>>> light meter, but I'm getting comfortable with shutter speeds, aperture,
>>> etc. I like my images a tad darker than AUTO gives me. The trade-off is
>>> those missed opportunities, while I'm fumbling with the settings.
>> Have you tried using the over/under exposure settings in the camera? You
>> can also bracket the exposures to get one shot with differing exposures.
>> This might help you get shots at those times when you don't have time to
>> work under full manual mode. Shooting in the RAW format also gives much
>> better control over exposure during post processing.
>
> I'm familiar with all of that, and I suppose I could always do my
> corrections in post-processing, too, but I drive stick. I think it's more
> fun, but sometimes that extra second results in a missed shot. I admit that,
> sometimes when timing is critical, I'll switch over to Auto, but that's
> rare.
>
>>>> I've been needing a DSLR for a while but there just hasn't been one that
>>>> compelled me. I don't need 12MP, but at this level, this one finally
>>>> looks like there are no glaring weakneses, and has the features I
>>>> couldn't find in one camera. Like the Nikon D40x has no dust reduction,
>>>> the XTi has no spot metering. But the XT remains a nice camera, and I
>>>> know what you mean about needing enough advance to compel a move up.
>>>>
>>>> -mb
>>> You may not NEED 12MP, but that will be the standard soon enough anyway.
>>> And more is usually always better. It's just that the jump from 8 to 12,
>>> for me, isn't enough to make me shell out another $1000, when I've
>>> already got a camera that's more capable than its user.
>>>
>>> The biggest problem with a DSLR, as I'm sure we'll all attest to, is the
>>> Lust for Lenses. I've got four in my arsenal already, and I'm auditioning
>>> two more in the near future. I'll have the 400mmL glass over the next
>>> couple of weeks, and will be working on another Real World Lens Test (or,
>>> Results That the Average Mook Can Expect) for the website. This is the
>>> 400mm prime (not zoom), and if it is as sharp as I hope it is, I'll be
>>> thinking long and hard about picking one up for my own.
>> This is why I will consider DLSRs with in-body image stabilization before
>> my next purchase. It reduces future lens costs dramatically and the
>> lenses are much lighter.
>
> I understand that. That 400mm doesn't have IS, but as long as I'm shooting
> faster than 1/80, I'm probably good. My 70-300 has it, and the 100-400L that
> I rented had it (and that sucker got heavier as the day wore on), and I'm a
> convert to IS. My S1 (now S3) has it built-in, and when I first started
> using it, I swore it was magic. Shooting handheld at 1/20th of a second...
>
> I wonder what would happen if you put an IS lens on a camera with IS.

It would either work really good or really bad, IMO.