Canon Rebel XT - Can't get good pictures.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by emrlaw@att.net, Oct 24, 2006.

  1. Guest

    Here's an update: I exchanged the Rebel for a new one from Amazon.com
    and the photos look the same. So now I know one thing: It's not the
    camera, it's me. Thanks for everyone who offered assistance, though. I
    really appreciate it! I think its time for me to take some photography
    lessons....
     
    , Nov 2, 2006
    #61
    1. Advertising

  2. Mark² Guest

    wrote:
    > Here's an update: I exchanged the Rebel for a new one from Amazon.com
    > and the photos look the same. So now I know one thing: It's not the
    > camera, it's me. Thanks for everyone who offered assistance, though.
    > I really appreciate it! I think its time for me to take some
    > photography lessons....


    Good for you for at least acknowledging this.
    ;)

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², Nov 2, 2006
    #62
    1. Advertising

  3. Mark² wrote:
    > wrote:
    >> Here's an update: I exchanged the Rebel for a new one from Amazon.com
    >> and the photos look the same. So now I know one thing: It's not the
    >> camera, it's me. Thanks for everyone who offered assistance, though.
    >> I really appreciate it! I think its time for me to take some
    >> photography lessons....

    >
    > Good for you for at least acknowledging this.
    > ;)


    Actually, yeah. When he singled out my comment as "not helpful" and
    "ridiculous," even though it was obvious (at least to me) that I was
    right, I thought "what a jerk, he'll have to learn the hard way." Looks
    like he's done so. But kudos to someone who will return to a public
    forum and voluntarily admit that he was wrong.
     
    Derek Fountain, Nov 3, 2006
    #63
  4. Chris Hills Guest

    In message <>,
    "" <> writes
    >Here's an update: I exchanged the Rebel for a new one from Amazon.com
    >and the photos look the same. So now I know one thing: It's not the
    >camera, it's me. Thanks for everyone who offered assistance, though. I
    >really appreciate it! I think its time for me to take some photography
    >lessons....


    It could be (but unlikely ) that Amazon have a duff batch.

    Get some one else to try some shots with your camera and see what
    happens. Or find some one else with a Rebel and you take a couple with
    their camera.



    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    /\/\/ www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris Hills, Nov 3, 2006
    #64
  5. > It could be (but unlikely ) that Amazon have a duff batch.

    Stop this nonsense! This is most unlike this newsgroup, where advice is
    normally completely accurate.

    The cat picture was obviously going to come out looking muddy because
    it's a white cat which wasn't compensated for. Ray Fischer spotted the
    cause of the problem with the guitar photo: it's a crop and there's a
    white door in the background of the full photo. That throws the sensor
    off and produces the same problem.

    The photographer needs to dial in some exposure compensation to account
    for white things in the frame (or change metering mode, or something).
    There's nothing wrong with his camera(s).
     
    Derek Fountain, Nov 3, 2006
    #65
  6. Ray Fischer Guest

    Chris Hills <> wrote:
    >In message <>,
    >"" <> writes
    >>Here's an update: I exchanged the Rebel for a new one from Amazon.com
    >>and the photos look the same. So now I know one thing: It's not the
    >>camera, it's me. Thanks for everyone who offered assistance, though. I
    >>really appreciate it! I think its time for me to take some photography
    >>lessons....

    >
    >It could be (but unlikely ) that Amazon have a duff batch.


    No, there are better explanations. I provided some. When you put a
    big white door in the middle of the frame then the result is
    underexposed.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 3, 2006
    #66
  7. Guest

    I wasn't trying to start World War III here. I just thought this camera
    would take better pictures in full auto mode than I was getting. For
    the record, the guitar photo did not have the white door in the center
    before I cropped it. I focused on the guitar and snapped the picture.
    As far as my white cat is concerned, again, I just set it on full auto
    and took the picture. I thought (obviously incorrectly) that the camera
    would make the necessary adjustments, since it was set on auto. And
    Derek, I do take offense to your comment that I should be "disappointed
    in myself" because I was "blaming" the tool because I didn't know how
    to use it. Everyone else's comments were extremely helpful and
    thoughtful. Yours was juvenile.
     
    , Nov 3, 2006
    #67
  8. JC Dill Guest

    On 3 Nov 2006 15:30:28 -0800, "" <> wrote:

    >I thought (obviously incorrectly) that the camera
    >would make the necessary adjustments, since it was set on auto.


    A camera (any camera) has no way to know if what you are aiming it at
    is white, or black, or a mixed scene. The way a light meter works is
    to assume that the scene is mixed, and to pick shutter/aperture
    settings to properly render a mixed scene. If the scene is lighter or
    darker than "average" then it will be under or over exposed unless you
    use Exposure Compensation to inform the camera how to adjust the
    automatic exposure to properly render the scene.

    That's why a good camera has exposure compensation settings. EC is
    part of what makes the Rebel a better camera than a point-n-shoot
    camera. But it takes knowing what you are doing (e.g. being a
    photographer) to bring out the best in the camera. If you just want
    to be a shutterbug (point, click) instead of a photographer then you
    will waste most of the features of this camera and your photos will be
    no better than if you bought a point-n-shoot camera.

    >Derek, I do take offense to your comment that I should be "disappointed
    >in myself" because I was "blaming" the tool because I didn't know how
    >to use it. Everyone else's comments were extremely helpful and
    >thoughtful. Yours was juvenile.


    You should be ashamed of yourself for failing to recognize the truth
    in what Derek wrote. What is juvenile is blaming the tool for your
    own shortcomings and then persisting in blaming the tool even after it
    has been pointed out that it's your fault, while also blaming
    (shooting) the messenger for pointing this out to you.

    Someday you will grow up enough to be embarassed about this whole
    thread.

    jc

    --

    "The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
    of different horses without having to own that many."
    ~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA
     
    JC Dill, Nov 4, 2006
    #68
  9. philippe Guest

    JC Dill wrote:
    > On 3 Nov 2006 15:30:28 -0800, "" <> wrote:
    >
    >> I thought (obviously incorrectly) that the camera
    >> would make the necessary adjustments, since it was set on auto.

    >
    > A camera (any camera) has no way to know if what you are aiming it at
    > is white, or black, or a mixed scene. The way a light meter works is
    > to assume that the scene is mixed, and to pick shutter/aperture
    > settings to properly render a mixed scene. If the scene is lighter or
    > darker than "average" then it will be under or over exposed unless you
    > use Exposure Compensation to inform the camera how to adjust the
    > automatic exposure to properly render the scene.
    >
    > That's why a good camera has exposure compensation settings. EC is
    > part of what makes the Rebel a better camera than a point-n-shoot
    > camera. But it takes knowing what you are doing (e.g. being a
    > photographer) to bring out the best in the camera. If you just want
    > to be a shutterbug (point, click) instead of a photographer then you
    > will waste most of the features of this camera and your photos will be
    > no better than if you bought a point-n-shoot camera.


    Thing of it is, he got *better* results with the point and shoot.
    expectations were there for DSLRs. How was the OP supposed to know that
    there's a learning curve to getting comparable results when starting
    with the Rebel(or any DSLR)? Calling him juvenile over it is fairly
    condescending, imho, and doesn't really add to the topic. I agree that
    he made a mistake in his assumptions, but that's been corrected.

    P.
     
    philippe, Nov 4, 2006
    #69
  10. philippe <> writes:

    >Thing of it is, he got *better* results with the point and shoot.
    >expectations were there for DSLRs. How was the OP supposed to know that
    >there's a learning curve to getting comparable results when starting
    >with the Rebel(or any DSLR)?


    Isn't that true of just about any piece of technology? If you buy
    something simple, it has limitations, but it can perform very well over
    the narrower domain that it is asked to handle. If you select something
    more capable and sophisticated, it operates over a much larger domain
    and even if it has an "auto" mode that can make fewer assumptions. So
    there are many more opportunities to have something go wrong. You have
    more capability, but you also need to understand the tool better and
    provide more input yourself.

    For another photographic example, if you take your film or flash card to
    the local drugstore, you get whatever their automatic machine provides.
    Most of the time it may be very good, but you don't have control. If
    you go to a pro lab, you get more input into what is done, but they will
    also let you screw up more freely. If you do all your printing at home,
    you get even more control, but then you need to be a lot more
    knowledgeable about how to use that control.

    Another (perhaps silly) example: If you're building a mechanical device
    and you use only the parts you can find in a hardware store, they'll all
    fit together but you won't have much range of choice. If you order
    parts from an industrial supply place, you'll have a much better chance
    to get exactly what you want, but you have to know how to determine
    exactly what you want. If you buy a lathe and a milling machine, you
    can make *exactly* what you want, but be prepared to spend a few months
    making junk until you learn how to use it.

    So I expect more sophisticated cameras to require more knowledge to use
    well, not less. Don't you?

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Nov 4, 2006
    #70
  11. JC Dill Guest

    On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 15:56:54 GMT, philippe
    <> wrote:


    >Thing of it is, he got *better* results with the point and shoot.


    I'm not so sure about that. He got *different* results. It could be
    that he gets better results (compared to his old camera) with the
    default settings on this camera in other situations. Every camera is
    different in how it interprets the light.

    >expectations were there for DSLRs. How was the OP supposed to know that
    >there's a learning curve to getting comparable results when starting
    >with the Rebel(or any DSLR)?


    There's a learning curve for anything that has multiple controls.
    When you get into a different car, you have to learn how all the
    controls react differently from your prior car. The brakes will react
    differently, the steering will be sharper or softer, the turn signals
    and shifter will be in slightly different locations, the heating
    controls will work differently, your view from the driver's seat will
    be different, etc. Ditto for a different camera.

    >Calling him juvenile over it is fairly
    >condescending, imho, and doesn't really add to the topic.


    True, but now he's working on living up to the label rather than
    proving it wrong.

    jc

    --

    "The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
    of different horses without having to own that many."
    ~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA
     
    JC Dill, Nov 4, 2006
    #71
  12. ASAAR Guest

    On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 22:59:04 -0800, JC Dill wrote:

    > That's why a good camera has exposure compensation settings. EC is
    > part of what makes the Rebel a better camera than a point-n-shoot
    > camera. But it takes knowing what you are doing (e.g. being a
    > photographer) to bring out the best in the camera. If you just want
    > to be a shutterbug (point, click) instead of a photographer then you
    > will waste most of the features of this camera and your photos will be
    > no better than if you bought a point-n-shoot camera.


    Not quite. There are many features that elevate DSLRs (and the
    better P&S cameras) above most P&S cameras. EC though, doesn't
    appear to be one of those features, as it seems to be nearly
    universal. My first two digital cameras (S-series Canon Powershots
    from 1999/2000) had EC even though they really had no manual
    settings to speak of. These would be added to later Powershots.
    Even the cheapest Fuji A-series cameras (A310, A330, A345, etc.),
    intended as introductory cameras have EC. There may be some really
    cheap point-n-shoots that don't have EC, but if there are any,
    they're probably the type sold in convenience stores for little more
    than the cost of disposable cameras. Surely not the OP's Canon G6,
    which is one of the most sophisticated cameras available. It may
    only be a point-n-shoot camera, but the G-series Powershots (and
    some Olympus P&S cameras) are good enough for some pros to have
    preferred using them in demanding field conditions over DSLRs.
     
    ASAAR, Nov 5, 2006
    #72
  13. JC Dill wrote:

    > A camera (any camera) has no way to know if what you are aiming it at
    > is white, or black, or a mixed scene. The way a light meter works is
    > to assume that the scene is mixed, and to pick shutter/aperture
    > settings to properly render a mixed scene. If the scene is lighter or
    > darker than "average" then it will be under or over exposed unless you
    > use Exposure Compensation to inform the camera how to adjust the
    > automatic exposure to properly render the scene.
    >
    > That's why a good camera has exposure compensation settings. EC is
    > part of what makes the Rebel a better camera than a point-n-shoot
    > camera. But it takes knowing what you are doing (e.g. being a
    > photographer) to bring out the best in the camera. If you just want
    > to be a shutterbug (point, click) instead of a photographer then you
    > will waste most of the features of this camera and your photos will be
    > no better than if you bought a point-n-shoot camera.


    Hm, can you (or somebody else) write more about this ? For example, I
    bought a P&S camera, Panasonic LX1. This camera has a capability for
    exposure compensation. It has different modes of light metering (spot,
    weighted etc). It allows exposure bracketing shooting. It seems to me
    that these are the same features which you say the DSLR has and which
    allow me to 'squeeze' a better picture. Are there any features which
    DSLR provides for better quality pictures and LX1 does not (apart from
    the fact that LX1 has a smaller sensor and thus worse quality at high
    sensitivities) ? Thanks.
     
    =?iso-8859-1?B?bWlubmVz+HR0aQ==?=, Nov 5, 2006
    #73
  14. Frank ess Guest

    minnesøtti wrote:
    > JC Dill wrote:
    >

    <snip>
    >>
    >> That's why a good camera has exposure compensation settings. EC
    >> is
    >> part of what makes the Rebel a better camera than a point-n-shoot
    >> camera. But it takes knowing what you are doing (e.g. being a
    >> photographer) to bring out the best in the camera. If you just
    >> want
    >> to be a shutterbug (point, click) instead of a photographer then
    >> you
    >> will waste most of the features of this camera and your photos will
    >> be no better than if you bought a point-n-shoot camera.

    >
    > Hm, can you (or somebody else) write more about this ? For example,
    > I
    > bought a P&S camera, Panasonic LX1. This camera has a capability for
    > exposure compensation. It has different modes of light metering
    > (spot,
    > weighted etc). It allows exposure bracketing shooting. It seems to
    > me
    > that these are the same features which you say the DSLR has and
    > which
    > allow me to 'squeeze' a better picture. Are there any features which
    > DSLR provides for better quality pictures and LX1 does not (apart
    > from
    > the fact that LX1 has a smaller sensor and thus worse quality at
    > high
    > sensitivities) ? Thanks.


    Just the one: if you need or want a focal length beyond the LX1's
    range, you're stuck; dSLRs use subsitutable lenses, so you have a
    wider or longer choice.

    'Welcome.

    --
    Frank ess
     
    Frank ess, Nov 5, 2006
    #74
  15. philippe Guest

    JC Dill wrote:
    > On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 15:56:54 GMT, philippe
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Thing of it is, he got *better* results with the point and shoot.

    >
    > I'm not so sure about that. He got *different* results. It could be
    > that he gets better results (compared to his old camera) with the
    > default settings on this camera in other situations. Every camera is
    > different in how it interprets the light.
    >
    >> expectations were there for DSLRs. How was the OP supposed to know that
    >> there's a learning curve to getting comparable results when starting
    >> with the Rebel(or any DSLR)?

    >
    > There's a learning curve for anything that has multiple controls.
    > When you get into a different car, you have to learn how all the
    > controls react differently from your prior car. The brakes will react
    > differently, the steering will be sharper or softer, the turn signals
    > and shifter will be in slightly different locations, the heating
    > controls will work differently, your view from the driver's seat will
    > be different, etc. Ditto for a different camera.


    Not really the same thing, since "standard" reverses itself going to a
    DSLR. With a p/s, auto is the default setting and you have to go out of
    your way (so to speak) to get manual control.. DSLR assumes manual
    control of most aspects of the shot. No?
    >
    >> Calling him juvenile over it is fairly
    >> condescending, imho, and doesn't really add to the topic.

    >
    > True, but now he's working on living up to the label rather than
    > proving it wrong.
    >

    :p

    P.
    > jc
    >
     
    philippe, Nov 6, 2006
    #75
  16. philippe Guest

    Dave Martindale wrote:
    > philippe <> writes:
    >
    >> Thing of it is, he got *better* results with the point and shoot.
    >> expectations were there for DSLRs. How was the OP supposed to know that
    >> there's a learning curve to getting comparable results when starting
    >> with the Rebel(or any DSLR)?

    >
    > Isn't that true of just about any piece of technology? If you buy
    > something simple, it has limitations, but it can perform very well over
    > the narrower domain that it is asked to handle. If you select something
    > more capable and sophisticated, it operates over a much larger domain
    > and even if it has an "auto" mode that can make fewer assumptions. So
    > there are many more opportunities to have something go wrong. You have
    > more capability, but you also need to understand the tool better and
    > provide more input yourself.
    >
    > For another photographic example, if you take your film or flash card to
    > the local drugstore, you get whatever their automatic machine provides.
    > Most of the time it may be very good, but you don't have control. If
    > you go to a pro lab, you get more input into what is done, but they will
    > also let you screw up more freely. If you do all your printing at home,
    > you get even more control, but then you need to be a lot more
    > knowledgeable about how to use that control.
    >
    > Another (perhaps silly) example: If you're building a mechanical device
    > and you use only the parts you can find in a hardware store, they'll all
    > fit together but you won't have much range of choice. If you order
    > parts from an industrial supply place, you'll have a much better chance
    > to get exactly what you want, but you have to know how to determine
    > exactly what you want. If you buy a lathe and a milling machine, you
    > can make *exactly* what you want, but be prepared to spend a few months
    > making junk until you learn how to use it.
    >
    > So I expect more sophisticated cameras to require more knowledge to use
    > well, not less. Don't you?
    >

    Yes, but I've been surprised before, assuming that my 'current level of
    knowledge' at this or that technology would easily transfer to the next
    level. All I'm saying is that the OP's assumption is a natural one to
    make and we've all, at one point or another, done the same thing.. Just
    maybe not with photography, gauging on some of the answers I'm getting
    here..

    ;)

    P.
    > Dave
     
    philippe, Nov 6, 2006
    #76
  17. JC Dill Guest

    On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 15:16:16 GMT, philippe
    <> wrote:

    >JC Dill wrote:
    >> On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 15:56:54 GMT, philippe
    >> <> wrote:


    >> There's a learning curve for anything that has multiple controls.
    >> When you get into a different car, you have to learn how all the
    >> controls react differently from your prior car. The brakes will react
    >> differently, the steering will be sharper or softer, the turn signals
    >> and shifter will be in slightly different locations, the heating
    >> controls will work differently, your view from the driver's seat will
    >> be different, etc. Ditto for a different camera.

    >
    >Not really the same thing, since "standard" reverses itself going to a
    >DSLR. With a p/s, auto is the default setting and you have to go out of
    >your way (so to speak) to get manual control.. DSLR assumes manual
    >control of most aspects of the shot. No?


    DSLR cameras have many semi-automatic settings and most have at least
    one "mostly automatic" setting. But it can't read minds. It can't
    know when the scene is mostly white or mostly black, or when a fast
    shutter or deep depth-of-field are called for.

    Learning to use a DSLR could be compared to learning to drive a manual
    shift sportscar when you only know how to drive an automatic sedan.
    In order to get the full benefit of the extra features of the sports
    car you need to learn more about how to drive.

    jc

    --

    "The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
    of different horses without having to own that many."
    ~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA
     
    JC Dill, Nov 6, 2006
    #77
  18. Frank ess Guest

    JC Dill wrote:
    > On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 15:16:16 GMT, philippe
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> JC Dill wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 15:56:54 GMT, philippe
    >>> <> wrote:

    >
    >>> There's a learning curve for anything that has multiple controls.
    >>> When you get into a different car, you have to learn how all the
    >>> controls react differently from your prior car. The brakes will
    >>> react differently, the steering will be sharper or softer, the
    >>> turn
    >>> signals and shifter will be in slightly different locations, the
    >>> heating controls will work differently, your view from the
    >>> driver's
    >>> seat will be different, etc. Ditto for a different camera.

    >>
    >> Not really the same thing, since "standard" reverses itself going
    >> to
    >> a DSLR. With a p/s, auto is the default setting and you have to go
    >> out of your way (so to speak) to get manual control.. DSLR assumes
    >> manual control of most aspects of the shot. No?

    >
    > DSLR cameras have many semi-automatic settings and most have at
    > least
    > one "mostly automatic" setting. But it can't read minds. It can't
    > know when the scene is mostly white or mostly black, or when a fast
    > shutter or deep depth-of-field are called for.
    >
    > Learning to use a DSLR could be compared to learning to drive a
    > manual
    > shift sportscar when you only know how to drive an automatic sedan.
    > In order to get the full benefit of the extra features of the sports
    > car you need to learn more about how to drive.
    >


    My daughter learned to drive in a '66 Lotus Elan, and she's an
    outstanding road and track driver. But not an outstanding
    photographer.

    What's my point? No point. I'm just saying.

    --
    Frank ess
     
    Frank ess, Nov 6, 2006
    #78
  19. Philippe Guest

    Frank ess wrote:
    > JC Dill wrote:
    >> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 15:16:16 GMT, philippe
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> JC Dill wrote:
    >>>> On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 15:56:54 GMT, philippe
    >>>> <> wrote:

    >>
    >>>> There's a learning curve for anything that has multiple controls.
    >>>> When you get into a different car, you have to learn how all the
    >>>> controls react differently from your prior car. The brakes will
    >>>> react differently, the steering will be sharper or softer, the turn
    >>>> signals and shifter will be in slightly different locations, the
    >>>> heating controls will work differently, your view from the driver's
    >>>> seat will be different, etc. Ditto for a different camera.
    >>>
    >>> Not really the same thing, since "standard" reverses itself going to
    >>> a DSLR. With a p/s, auto is the default setting and you have to go
    >>> out of your way (so to speak) to get manual control.. DSLR assumes
    >>> manual control of most aspects of the shot. No?

    >>
    >> DSLR cameras have many semi-automatic settings and most have at least
    >> one "mostly automatic" setting. But it can't read minds. It can't
    >> know when the scene is mostly white or mostly black, or when a fast
    >> shutter or deep depth-of-field are called for.
    >>
    >> Learning to use a DSLR could be compared to learning to drive a manual
    >> shift sportscar when you only know how to drive an automatic sedan.
    >> In order to get the full benefit of the extra features of the sports
    >> car you need to learn more about how to drive.
    >>

    >
    > My daughter learned to drive in a '66 Lotus Elan, and she's an
    > outstanding road and track driver. But not an outstanding photographer.
    >
    > What's my point? No point. I'm just saying.
    >

    *very* cool... My daughter likes the lotus, but prefers Jaguar.. On
    X-box, that is..

    :)

    P.
     
    Philippe, Nov 7, 2006
    #79
  20. dwight Guest

    "Philippe" <> wrote in message
    news:cR14h.59682$H7.39744@edtnps82...
    > Frank ess wrote:
    >> JC Dill wrote:
    >>> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 15:16:16 GMT, philippe
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> JC Dill wrote:
    >>>>> On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 15:56:54 GMT, philippe
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> There's a learning curve for anything that has multiple controls.
    >>>>> When you get into a different car, you have to learn how all the
    >>>>> controls react differently from your prior car. The brakes will
    >>>>> react differently, the steering will be sharper or softer, the turn
    >>>>> signals and shifter will be in slightly different locations, the
    >>>>> heating controls will work differently, your view from the driver's
    >>>>> seat will be different, etc. Ditto for a different camera.
    >>>>
    >>>> Not really the same thing, since "standard" reverses itself going to
    >>>> a DSLR. With a p/s, auto is the default setting and you have to go
    >>>> out of your way (so to speak) to get manual control.. DSLR assumes
    >>>> manual control of most aspects of the shot. No?
    >>>
    >>> DSLR cameras have many semi-automatic settings and most have at least
    >>> one "mostly automatic" setting. But it can't read minds. It can't
    >>> know when the scene is mostly white or mostly black, or when a fast
    >>> shutter or deep depth-of-field are called for.
    >>>
    >>> Learning to use a DSLR could be compared to learning to drive a manual
    >>> shift sportscar when you only know how to drive an automatic sedan.
    >>> In order to get the full benefit of the extra features of the sports
    >>> car you need to learn more about how to drive.
    >>>

    >>
    >> My daughter learned to drive in a '66 Lotus Elan, and she's an
    >> outstanding road and track driver. But not an outstanding photographer.
    >>
    >> What's my point? No point. I'm just saying.
    >>

    > *very* cool... My daughter likes the lotus, but prefers Jaguar.. On
    > X-box, that is..
    >
    > :)
    >
    > P.


    Not that anyone cares, but...

    I bought my daughter an '88 Mustang convertible with stick (4-cylinder
    slug), to teach her how to drive "properly." After two fender-benders, we
    decided to put her in a point-and-shoot car (with automatic). The
    convertible became my spare, my first ragtop, and later gave way to a '93 GT
    convertible with auto.

    My purely fun car is another '93 Mustang 5.0 with stick, which I much prefer
    over the automatic. Bought that car new in 1993, and it's still with me -
    hopefully for a long, long time yet. Still, for the daily commute and
    rush-hour traffic, it's nice to have an automatic at hand.

    I use my Rebel XT almost exclusively on manual settings. It's automatic
    exposure seems a bit overblown to me, and I like a darker, more colorful
    shot. Of course, I've missed a few "opportunities", while fumbling with the
    settings, but, on the whole, I prefer to shoot on the fly.

    Daughter has a little Canon SD200, and I doubt she ever ventures beyond
    AUTO. Even so, she's picked up some nice images that I missed, either
    because I had the "wrong lens" or messed up the aperture, shutter speed,
    focus, etc etc etc

    dwight
     
    dwight, Nov 7, 2006
    #80
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Steve m...
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    664
    Guest
    Dec 9, 2003
  2. BPO
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    6,312
  3. ^____^

    get Canon D60 or Canon Rebel digital?

    ^____^, Feb 26, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    597
    Hans Kruse
    Feb 27, 2004
  4. Siddhartha Jain

    Canon Rebel 350D/Rebel XT vs Nikon D70

    Siddhartha Jain, Feb 18, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    48
    Views:
    1,073
  5. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Canon 350D/Rebel XT and 400D/Rebel XTi comparison and review

    Wayne J. Cosshall, Oct 18, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    479
Loading...

Share This Page