Is this a good buy for a beginners DSLR user?

[Anonymous]

Filter:

Yes, you absolutely do need a filter beause you have kids. For $25 you can protect your expensive lens and throw away the filter when it gets scratched. I use a UV filter. I'm just not sophisticated enough to think otherwise.

OP: if you are really lucky, you will use this camera for a few years and then say "I've gotten so good I need something more sophisticated," in which case, the money would have been totally worth it.

[Anonymous]

Good to see DCUMer take up the religious war of Filter or No Filter with their usual zest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well I can ask here and avoid the embarrassment: I need a filter for my camera lense?

Not if you've got a lens hood. If so, maybe so...

I am not very good with the hood and sometimes get the edges of it in the pictures. I much prefer the UV filter and I've never had a photo instructor not recommend such a filter as a protective measure. I've never had any sort of tinting from the filter and it gives me piece of mind. It's saved a my lenses, for sure.

Protecting your lens with Filter vs Lens Hood is something of an photography religious war.

http://dpfwiw.com/filters.htm#lens_protection

I am a professional photographer and I have always used a filter over my lens. Every photographer I know and have worked with use one as well. If you are willing to damage your lens for a smidgen more light, more power to you. However, when I plunk down $1,500 on a lens, I fully intend to protect it at all times. Even if you are not using the top of the line lenses, you are still going to pay a few hundred bucks for one. Protect your gear!

[Anonymous]

I am also a professional photog and would NEVER use a lens without a filter. It protects your lens, which is the most important piece of equipment a photographer buys . Always buy good glass, and always use a filter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am also a professional photog and would NEVER use a lens without a filter. It protects your lens, which is the most important piece of equipment a photographer buys . Always buy good glass, and always use a filter.

Like I said, it's a religious debate. The fact that there are Jews doesn't invalidate Catholicism. The fact that you obviously feel very strongly about the issue is only further evidence that the debate will always rage.

I'm fairly neutral. But just to play devil's advocate, why would you spend $1000 on a lens, then stick a $20 optical element in front of it? Use a lens hood.

No matter how expensive or how well coated, filters inescapably degrade the optics of any camera. Filters reflect a small amount of incoming light out of the camera and invite the unwelcome internal reflections known as flare. Flare can be as conspicuous as a series of UFO-like hexagonal blobs of light hovering in the sky or as subtle as a loss of color saturation. With any filter in place, meticulous shading of the lens becomes mandatory. If they're not perfectly flat and parallel to the image receiver, filters can also introduce aberrations. Stacking filters only compounds these problems, but a purely protective filter constantly swapped out for another serving a real photographic purpose quickly becomes a nuisance.

Light loss and aberrations seldom reach practical levels, but flare's a fatal image flaw, and a common one at that, especially when the sun's low in the sky near your subject. Why compromise on quality when careful handling, a lens cap or a rigid lens shade provide adequate protection under most shooting conditions?

[Anonymous]

IOW, if you're going to stick a filter on it, don't bother buying that expensive lens. (And, yes, I'm still playing devil's advocate)

[Anonymous]

As for OP's question, the Rebels are good entry-level SLRs and you can go quite a few years before you realize their full potential. The only thing I am not fond of is its performance at high ISOs, but chances are you'll get a lot of use out of this camera before (if ever) that becomes a problem. The kit lens with the rebels is so-so. I personally opted for a body only and a great (and fast) lens, say a 50mm at 1.4, which is an awesome portrait lens.

As for filters, I am squarely in the hod and lenscap camp. Sticking a $20 piece of glass in front of a $500 piece of glass just doesn't make sense to me, but yes, this is a war of ideologies, so beware

I also thought you could get away without all the extra stuff in this package. You need a card and a bag and you're good to go for quite a while. Make sure you get a fast card - I don't think the one in this kit is the fastest but I can't tell. I wouldn't get anything less than 30MB/s write-speed. Memory is cheap, and there is no reason why you shouldn't get the fastest card for your money - it could cost you some great shots! You may also want to pick your own tripod after you know what type of photographer you are - do you want a lightweight compact one, or a sturdy carbon fiber one that can handle more substantial lenses with good stability.

If you are just asking if the price is good for all the stuff that is included in the package, the answer is yes, it's a good price.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am also a professional photog and would NEVER use a lens without a filter. It protects your lens, which is the most important piece of equipment a photographer buys . Always buy good glass, and always use a filter.

Like I said, it's a religious debate. The fact that there are Jews doesn't invalidate Catholicism. The fact that you obviously feel very strongly about the issue is only further evidence that the debate will always rage.

I'm fairly neutral. But just to play devil's advocate, why would you spend $1000 on a lens, then stick a $20 optical element in front of it? Use a lens hood.

No matter how expensive or how well coated, filters inescapably degrade the optics of any camera. Filters reflect a small amount of incoming light out of the camera and invite the unwelcome internal reflections known as flare. Flare can be as conspicuous as a series of UFO-like hexagonal blobs of light hovering in the sky or as subtle as a loss of color saturation. With any filter in place, meticulous shading of the lens becomes mandatory. If they're not perfectly flat and parallel to the image receiver, filters can also introduce aberrations. Stacking filters only compounds these problems, but a purely protective filter constantly swapped out for another serving a real photographic purpose quickly becomes a nuisance.

Light loss and aberrations seldom reach practical levels, but flare's a fatal image flaw, and a common one at that, especially when the sun's low in the sky near your subject. Why compromise on quality when careful handling, a lens cap or a rigid lens shade provide adequate protection under most shooting conditions?

Never, in my 18 years of doing photography have I ever heard of using a lens hood to protect your lens. We use lens hoods to help protect from flare. Out of curiosity...are you a professional or a hobbyist? I ask because if you are simply doing photography as a hobby, I can understand just using a lens hood. You have time to think about how you are handling your equipment. So as I said before, I have never met a professional photographer who does not put a filter on their lens. When shooting a wedding, portrait session, journalistic assignment, your lens is much better protected with a filter than with a lens hood. Most photographers I know use the lens hood with a filter on the lens.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, but does OP strike anyone as a professional photographer? From where I'm sitting (s)he is about to purchase a first dSLR. Ideological debates over filter vs. lenshood have precious littte meaning at this stage of the game. I'm also guessing it'll be a while before OP is going to shoot any weddings - professionally, that is

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but does OP strike anyone as a professional photographer? From where I'm sitting (s)he is about to purchase a first dSLR. Ideological debates over filter vs. lenshood have precious littte meaning at this stage of the game. I'm also guessing it'll be a while before OP is going to shoot any weddings - professionally, that is

I always find it amusing when folks on DCUM and elsewhere start yammering on and on about how they're a "professional photographer". I know folks who get paid for their work. I also know people who are "professional edible arrangement makers" and "professional balloon-animal makers" also "professional painters". This doesn't, of course, mean their work is any good, or that they make any money at it to speak of. It's essentially a vanity project. The barriers to entry are shockingly low. Meanwhile, what counts are the photos. The proof's in the pudding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am also a professional photog and would NEVER use a lens without a filter. It protects your lens, which is the most important piece of equipment a photographer buys . Always buy good glass, and always use a filter.

Like I said, it's a religious debate. The fact that there are Jews doesn't invalidate Catholicism. The fact that you obviously feel very strongly about the issue is only further evidence that the debate will always rage.

I'm fairly neutral. But just to play devil's advocate, why would you spend $1000 on a lens, then stick a $20 optical element in front of it? Use a lens hood.

No matter how expensive or how well coated, filters inescapably degrade the optics of any camera. Filters reflect a small amount of incoming light out of the camera and invite the unwelcome internal reflections known as flare. Flare can be as conspicuous as a series of UFO-like hexagonal blobs of light hovering in the sky or as subtle as a loss of color saturation. With any filter in place, meticulous shading of the lens becomes mandatory. If they're not perfectly flat and parallel to the image receiver, filters can also introduce aberrations. Stacking filters only compounds these problems, but a purely protective filter constantly swapped out for another serving a real photographic purpose quickly becomes a nuisance.

Light loss and aberrations seldom reach practical levels, but flare's a fatal image flaw, and a common one at that, especially when the sun's low in the sky near your subject. Why compromise on quality when careful handling, a lens cap or a rigid lens shade provide adequate protection under most shooting conditions?

Never, in my 18 years of doing photography have I ever heard of using a lens hood to protect your lens. We use lens hoods to help protect from flare. Out of curiosity...are you a professional or a hobbyist? I ask because if you are simply doing photography as a hobby, I can understand just using a lens hood. You have time to think about how you are handling your equipment. So as I said before, I have never met a professional photographer who does not put a filter on their lens. When shooting a wedding, portrait session, journalistic assignment, your lens is much better protected with a filter than with a lens hood. Most photographers I know use the lens hood with a filter on the lens.

Take it up with your fellow "pros". I'm sure you'll be able to convince 'em!

http://www.flickr.com/groups/procorner/discuss/72157621747379767/?search=filter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am also a professional photog and would NEVER use a lens without a filter. It protects your lens, which is the most important piece of equipment a photographer buys . Always buy good glass, and always use a filter.

Like I said, it's a religious debate. The fact that there are Jews doesn't invalidate Catholicism. The fact that you obviously feel very strongly about the issue is only further evidence that the debate will always rage.

I'm fairly neutral. But just to play devil's advocate, why would you spend $1000 on a lens, then stick a $20 optical element in front of it? Use a lens hood.

No matter how expensive or how well coated, filters inescapably degrade the optics of any camera. Filters reflect a small amount of incoming light out of the camera and invite the unwelcome internal reflections known as flare. Flare can be as conspicuous as a series of UFO-like hexagonal blobs of light hovering in the sky or as subtle as a loss of color saturation. With any filter in place, meticulous shading of the lens becomes mandatory. If they're not perfectly flat and parallel to the image receiver, filters can also introduce aberrations. Stacking filters only compounds these problems, but a purely protective filter constantly swapped out for another serving a real photographic purpose quickly becomes a nuisance.

Light loss and aberrations seldom reach practical levels, but flare's a fatal image flaw, and a common one at that, especially when the sun's low in the sky near your subject. Why compromise on quality when careful handling, a lens cap or a rigid lens shade provide adequate protection under most shooting conditions?

Never, in my 18 years of doing photography have I ever heard of using a lens hood to protect your lens. We use lens hoods to help protect from flare. Out of curiosity...are you a professional or a hobbyist? I ask because if you are simply doing photography as a hobby, I can understand just using a lens hood. You have time to think about how you are handling your equipment. So as I said before, I have never met a professional photographer who does not put a filter on their lens. When shooting a wedding, portrait session, journalistic assignment, your lens is much better protected with a filter than with a lens hood. Most photographers I know use the lens hood with a filter on the lens.

Take it up with your fellow "pros". I'm sure you'll be able to convince 'em!

http://www.flickr.com/groups/procorner/discuss/72157621747379767/?search=filter

Take a look at the work of the people who do use the filters, and then the people who do not use the filters. I will take advise from those that use the filters, thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Take a look at the work of the people who do use the filters, and then the people who do not use the filters. I will take advise from those that use the filters, thanks!

This whole debate is rather silly, and I was going to let it go, but...what does this even mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Take a look at the work of the people who do use the filters, and then the people who do not use the filters.

War photographers like Robert Capa, Larry Burrows, Tim Page, D. Douglas Duncan, and others did not use protective filters on their lenses. War is a rough environment. Studio photographers like Yosuf Karsh, Bert Stern, Richard Avedon, Irving Penn, and others did not use protective filters on their lenses.

Who are the "people who do use the filters"? Everyone who's ever received an A290 in their Christmas stocking?

Anyway, if anyone's interested in reading further...

http://photo.net/mjohnston/column66/index.html