File :-(, x, )
CANON REBEL XTI Anonymous
Canon REBEL XTI..... THIS CAMERA I WANT ... IT MAKES ME DROOL.... 10.1 MEGA PIXELS ... SHOOTS 3 FRAMES PER SEC. ... IT'S GODLY... BUT IT COSTS $900 GRRRRRRRRRR
>> sage sage
     File :-(, x)
get a job
>> Anonymous
seconded. putting aside a few $ from your paycheck each pay period helps
>> Anonymous
>>64053
>10.1 MEGA PIXELS ... SHOOTS 3 FRAMES PER SEC. ... Fun thing is, these things are mostly irrelevant for actual photography.
>> Anonymous
>>64066
How so? I was planning to buy the Rebel XTi as well. Should I reconsider for another camera?
>> Anonymous
>>64067
No, you shouldn't. But bear in mind that neither the number of megapixels nor the speed determine the quality of your photos (with very rare exceptions).
>> Anonymous
>>64072
So, it's like a... it's not the gun, but how you aim it type of thing?
Thanks for the advice, Anon.
>> Anonymous
>>64073
No, I didn't mean that. Of course, how you aim it is the most important thing; but, for example, some cameras allow you to shoot indoors without flash (like the Rebel XTi), and some don't (like Sigmas), and this can limit your possibilities a lot.
As for megapixels, even 4MP from a decent camera is good enough for A4-sized prints at least; I doubt many people need more. Shooting speed is even less important if you're not shooting sports or wild animals.
>> Anonymous
>>64075
WTF that is the worst explanation ever, Some camera's let you take pictures inside without flash? WTF does that even mean, If your talking about high ISO performance then that makes more sense, but anyone can take a picture indoors, So WTF

Also sigma has a few good f1.4 and f1.8 lenses that let any camera shoot indoors (averagely lit) at like ISO 400. So again you are wrong!
>> Anonymous
>>64075
Thanks again for the reply!
Hope I didn't come across as sarcastic, because I really appreciate the help!
>> Anonymous
>>64076
Yes, I meant high ISO performance. And no, even a f1.4 lens won't help a Sigma camera much, since those suck pretty bad even at ISO 400 (not to mention the extremely shallow DOF you'll get with such lens at full aperture).
>> Anonymous
>>64053

$900???

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830120072

Am I doin it rite?
>> Anonymous
>>64079
First, that's body only, and second, not everyone lives in the US.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>64066
The 3FPS is actually incredibly useful. It means that, when taking a picture of something, I can fire off a burst of three shots in one second and triple my chances of getting a good one without camera shake or someone blinking etc.
>> Anonymous
>>64089

5FPS is even better. 8 too (D2XS). 10 too (Mk3).

Too bad my 3 fps camera is too slow for action sequences, I want a D200
>> Anonymous
>>64089
Well, with a 2fps camera, you can fire off the same burst in only 0.5 seconds more... It's good to have a faster camera, but not really that important to drool over.
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
>>64102

5FPS is niiiiice. It just helps a fucken' lot when shooting a gig. And enough buffer for six seconds, nice (jpg, best quality)!

But I'm still waiting to win in lottery and the announce of 5D's successor (which will have 5FPS, or then nothing just makes sense anymore in life).
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>64104
Well, with a P&S, you can fire off that burst in only three seconds more.

Trust me, you can feel the difference.