Canon EOS Rebel 300D

Elizabeth Schott · 10-25-2004, 09:47 PM

Quote:

I wouldn't get the Canon Digital Rebel for one reason alone: it doesn't have a true spot metering which I use all the time on my current 3.4 megapixel Minolta.

Michele my Canon has three different meter settings, which one is this and what does it do to make it different? I wonder if this could help me with my painting copies? Honestly I don't think anything would help that?

Nikon was out of my reach, but the Canon is great, you and Marvin must have incredible cameras.

Marvin that is BIG for you to speak so highly of prints from your camera, you are picky, picky, picky. Are you ever just using your monitor?

Michele Rushworth · 10-25-2004, 10:26 PM

Spot-metering basically means that you can tell the camera to set the exposure based on a very small area in the center (or other region you specify) of the viewfinder. It can be as small as one percent of the total viewing area. This is great for situations where the face is lighted differently from everything around it (which happens most of the time, for me.)

For example, if my subject is in a dim room with a nice strong light on the face I want to set the camera to expose precisely for the face, and not let the camera average out the light on everything. That would produce an over-exposed (too bright) face.

Or, if my subject was outside with sky behind them, again I'd want to use spot metering so that the face would be correctly exposed. Otherwise the camera would average everything and darken it all down, since the sky is so bright. Then the face would come out too dark.

Instead of spot-metering the Canon Digital Rebel used something that I think they called "center weighted" exposure or something like that. It's my understanding that the camera would tend to adjust the exposure for what was centered in the viewfinder but would still try and average things out over the whole viewfinder, with a bit of exposure adjustment for what was in the center region of the viewfinder.

With true spot metering the camera completely disregards whatever is outside the "spot" and doesn't try to "average" what's around it when figuring out the exposure. So the face is always correctly exposed, if done properly.

Later, if I want to get a nice exposure of the sky or the dim background to see details in the shadows I can center my image on those areas and take another shot. Or I can turn spot metering off and get an average overall exposure. For all portrait sessions I take many shots with all different exposures. The most important shots for me though are the ones that are spot-metered with a perfect exposure for the face. The rest of the exposures are just used for supplemental information.

Marvin Mattelson · 10-26-2004, 12:02 AM

Michele, welcome to the digital world. With the Nikon you actually don't even need a meter. Once you take your picture, you can view a histogram of the image. This lets you know if any of the values have been clipped off, be they shadows or high lights. You can adjust your exposure by 1/3 of a stop increments in either direction. There is also a high light preview which graphically indicates which, if any, light areas have been blown out to white. This is about as idiot proof as you can get.

I would also suggest buying Nikon Capture software which allows you to edit Raw files and make very subtle adjustments without compromising the original data of the shot.

The kit lens will come in handy if you can't get sufficiently back from the subject (in the event of a full figure) or want to get a wider expanse of background. I would suggest both. They are both great lenses for the money. When I purchased my 70-300 lens, Nikon was running rebates, so it cost me $250. It's great for zooming in to get critical detail. The 80-200 Nikon lens is even sharper but is much much heavier and costs about $1600. The rebates may still be in effect.

The D70 is a full featured camera and not a stripped down version of a better model. I love mine.

Marvin Mattelson · 10-26-2004, 12:09 AM

Beth,

I think the color and detail of my prints is much much better and and the detail is clearer than what's on my monitor.

I also have a consideration that looking back and forth from a painting, which is reflective, to a monitor, which is back lit, can't be good for one's eyes. I think it's better to go from reflective to reflective.

Then again I'm a pretty traditional guy, for a radical!

Michele Rushworth · 10-26-2004, 09:13 AM

I've been shooting only digital now for about three years. I imagine they'll stop making film before long, the advantages to digital have been so great.

Thanks for the tip about the histograms on the Nikon D70. My sister's Digital Rebel (she's a pro landscape photographer) has that feature too and I forgot how useful she felt it was. Glad to hear the Nikon has it too.

As I mentioned in the other camera thread, I got the kit lens and will ask for the longer one for Christmas. Thanks for the suggestions.

Mike McCarty · 10-26-2004, 09:43 AM

Quote:

The kit lens will come in handy if you can't get sufficiently back from the subject (in the event of a full figure) or want to get a wider expanse of background. I would suggest both.

I agree with Marvin. In my experience, you have to be able to operate between about 60mm and around 200mm. The trouble is, this always seems to span two lenses.

And remember that the Nikon D70 has a multiplier of 1.5, so the lens that begins at 70 will actually be 105. So, just as Marvin suggests, if you are in a standard residential room, you will not be able to operate effectively.

Being able to zoom in to get detail is a real nice feature to have, but, the fact is you can always move in closer. If I could only have one lens I would get the one with the kit, then I would start saving my lunch money for the added power.

Marvin Mattelson · 10-26-2004, 11:10 AM

The advantage of zooming as opposed to moving closer is that you avoid changing perspective or adding distortion. Distortion is a function of being too close.

Elizabeth Schott · 10-27-2004, 10:59 AM

Marvin, back to the monitor thing.

Is your printer a really good printer? I have an epson 1170, which is good - but not as good as my PowerBook G4 monitor.

So I could just be getting - not as good prints - as your printer produces.

Laura B. Shelley · 10-27-2004, 02:41 PM

I agree with Marvin. Working from a digital file, there is a great deal of room for error, and for my photography skills, that's a good thing! My Epson printer has made it very convenient to generate all sorts of versions of my references and pin them up on the easel. I've tried working directly from a monitor on a number of occasions, but for my aging eyes, a print on paper works better.

Michele, I am not sure what you mean about not being able to spot-meter with the Digital Rebel. They call it 'partial metering', and it uses a small area in the center of the frame to determine exposure. You can take your reading close up as you would with a conventional light meter, then lock it with a button, back off and take your shot. My father pointed that feature out to me; it works in the non-programmed modes. Of course that procedure isn't as convenient as something like being able to select an exposure point in the frame while your shot is properly composed. Is that how the Minolta works?

The programmed modes in the Digital Rebel use "evaluative metering", which looks at the whole frame and what the camera determines to be the main subject and background, and makes an educated guess. If you set the camera for manual exposure, then it uses the center-weighted algorithm and gives you a viewfinder display to tell you if it thinks your currently set exposure is over or under.

I admit that I'm coming at the photography question mostly from the standpoint of a digital artist. So what works for me may not be broadly applicable. I know this stuff is not a priority for most artists with the classical training I lack, and why should it be? I'm a computer geek--what can I say?

I have been editing and manipulating photos for years, so it's second nature to me. Great precision while shooting is not necessary for my purposes. I don't have to get the white balance right or really even choose a decent exposure, as long as I don't OVER-expose and burn out the highlights. All I truly need is enough pixels, reasonable sharpness and (the very expensive and complicated) Photoshop to fix everything else.

Laura

Michele Rushworth · 10-27-2004, 03:54 PM

While I'm not a Photoshop whiz, I'm pretty good at it. No amount of Photoshop tweaking will give me color anywhere near as accurate as having a correct exposure to begin with.

It is important to me to be able to meter on a particular part of the face while my tripod and camera are in the position they will be for the shot. During a client photo shoot I have to work very fast and don't want to be taking the camera on and off the tripod to go up and meter the light on the face. (I don't have a separate light meter to do that.)

It's possible the Digital Rebel has something close enough to true spot metering to do the job, but in the list of specs the Nikon D70 did actually list "spot metering" while the Digital Rebel didn't. That was the deciding factor for me.