Canon EOS Rebel Digital

I've wanted to get a Canon 10D for a while now but couldn't rationalize the
cost of it.

The new Canon EOS Rebel Digital, with the same 6.3MP and CMOS but at only $1600
Canadian (which includes an 18-55mm lens--equivalent to about 28mm to 75mm)
caught my eye the other day.

After doing some searching, I got the last kit in southern Ontario that a chain
store had. Otherwise it was bodies only and it would be maybe a few weeks
before more kits arrive.

I did some brief tests tonight. Other than the image being reduced in size,
this is an unaltered on-tripod image.

http://members.aol.com/tdcarls/housetest.jpg

Focusing is a little tricky. Infinity isn't exactly infinity. It has to be
racked out just a little bit. I may have missed something in the manual
though---maybe something to do with field depth---so it could just be me.

It looks like this is going to be one popular little camera!



Todd

http://www.backyardastronomy.com
http://www.skynewsmagazine.com
http://www.simpleastrophotography.com

Forgot to add that the shot is about 20 seconds at f3.5 at the 800 speed
setting.
Todd

http://www.backyardastronomy.com
http://www.skynewsmagazine.com
http://www.simpleastrophotography.com

On 21 Sep 2003 04:43:31 GMT, (Tdcarls) wrote:

I've wanted to get a Canon 10D for a while now but couldn't rationalize the
cost of it.

The new Canon EOS Rebel Digital, with the same 6.3MP and CMOS but at only $1600
Canadian (which includes an 18-55mm lens--equivalent to about 28mm to 75mm)
caught my eye the other day.

After doing some searching, I got the last kit in southern Ontario that a chain
store had. Otherwise it was bodies only and it would be maybe a few weeks
before more kits arrive.

I did some brief tests tonight. Other than the image being reduced in size,
this is an unaltered on-tripod image.

http://members.aol.com/tdcarls/housetest.jpg

Focusing is a little tricky. Infinity isn't exactly infinity. It has to be
racked out just a little bit. I may have missed something in the manual
though---maybe something to do with field depth---so it could just be me.

It looks like this is going to be one popular little camera!



Fabulous. I can use the pic as an excellent guide for the region
around Pleides. I can't believe 800 speed caught everything..this is
truly a mystery. The light of the house in the foreground is somehow
balanced with the stars. The stars being impossibly dimmer than the
foreground....can you explain that?

Tdcarls wrote:
I've wanted to get a Canon 10D for a while now but couldn't rationalize the
cost of it.

The new Canon EOS Rebel Digital, with the same 6.3MP and CMOS but at only $1600
Canadian (which includes an 18-55mm lens--equivalent to about 28mm to 75mm)
caught my eye the other day.

After doing some searching, I got the last kit in southern Ontario that a chain
store had. Otherwise it was bodies only and it would be maybe a few weeks
before more kits arrive.


Very nice. I just got on the local wait list yesterday (#3).

I did look at the 10D, too. But heavier and bulkier -- plus more
expensive and with no lense.

Thanks for that shot!

Phil

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 17:26:15 GMT, Mick wrote:

Fabulous. I can use the pic as an excellent guide for the region
around Pleides. I can't believe 800 speed caught everything..this is
truly a mystery. The light of the house in the foreground is somehow
balanced with the stars. The stars being impossibly dimmer than the
foreground....can you explain that?

1) You don't know how much light was really on the house. That could be from a
single porch light 1/4 mile away.

2) Stars are much brighter than you think. Just a few seconds on film or digital
is all you need to capture them.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"Tdcarls" wrote in message
...

It looks like this is going to be one popular little camera!

Todd--

yeah, i've been thinking of making the move to digital with one of these. i
shoot several hundred rolls of film each year, so it'll probably pay for
itself if i can get decent prints made at a reasonable price (i've yet to be
satisfied with the quality of "photo quality" home printers). since i
already own a compatible lens set (including 24-85 mm usm), i don't need the
lense they offer. i'm thinking of picking up the new 17-40 mm usm lense so
that i don't lose any of my currently well-used wideangle capability. i'm
also thinking of getting the 75-300 mm usm image-stabilized lense to replace
my 75-300 (lots of my photos are action shots where a tripod is
impractical). your results certainly provide some food for thought
(regarding astroimaging capability).

thanks!

clear, dark skies--

mark d.

"mark d. doiron" wrote in message
...
"Tdcarls" wrote in message
...

It looks like this is going to be one popular little camera!

Todd--

yeah, i've been thinking of making the move to digital with one of these.
i
shoot several hundred rolls of film each year, so it'll probably pay for
itself if i can get decent prints made at a reasonable price (i've yet to
be
satisfied with the quality of "photo quality" home printers). since i
already own a compatible lens set (including 24-85 mm usm), i don't need
the
lense they offer. i'm thinking of picking up the new 17-40 mm usm lense
so
that i don't lose any of my currently well-used wideangle capability. i'm
also thinking of getting the 75-300 mm usm image-stabilized lense to
replace
my 75-300 (lots of my photos are action shots where a tripod is
impractical). your results certainly provide some food for thought
(regarding astroimaging capability).

thanks!

clear, dark skies--

mark d.

well don't forget the x1.6 magnification factor. A 17mm lens used with this
camera is equivalent to a 27mm due to the smaller APS sensor size. Your
300mm will become a monster 480mm .

matt tudor

I can't believe 800 speed caught everything..this is
truly a mystery. The light of the house in the foreground is somehow
balanced with the stars. The stars being impossibly dimmer than the
foreground....can you explain that?

800 speed film will pick up a _lot_ of stars in a 25-30 second exposure.

When I went to a location where I've taken many shots with 800 speed film, the
Rebel at 800 speed picked up way more stars. At this site there is a bit of
light pollution that occasionally shows up on film but only as a very small
patch. With a 25 second f3.5 exposure using the Rebel, there was a lot of
light pollution showing. I'd have to say that the 800 speed setting is faster
than the 800 film I was using.

My house is lit up by street lights. The closest would be about 150m and then
the progress in about 75m increments as they get farther away. There are a few
trees sheltering the lights, therefore there is a slightly mottled look to the
house.

Todd

http://www.backyardastronomy.com
http://www.skynewsmagazine.com
http://www.simpleastrophotography.com

yeah, i've been thinking of making the move to digital with one of these.

I've been thinking about it for a long time but the cost of the 10D is so high.
Fortunately this camera puts it in a range that is a lot more affordable for
many.

Next clear night I'll have to try a 90-second piggy-backed shot.

Todd

http://www.backyardastronomy.com
http://www.skynewsmagazine.com
http://www.simpleastrophotography.com

Here's an 83-second shot with the lens wide open---f3.5, 18mm (28mm equivalent)
at 800 ISO. I just did a rough polar alignment and quickly did the
shot---didn't have much time last night.

There's some astigmatism showing but not nearly as much as some of the film
lenses I've had. The pixel noise is more than acceptable IMO.

I really have to say that I'm impressed at what the results are for the cost.

Haze and light pollution has dulled the photo a bit, especially at the southern
end of Cygnus.

Slight tweaking to the colour was done in Photoshop to get rid of the brown
light pollution hue.

http://members.aol.com/tdcarls/cygnus2.jpg

Todd

http://www.backyardastronomy.com
http://www.skynewsmagazine.com
http://www.simpleastrophotography.com