There are a lot of websites that have just the body. I already have a 35mm Canon rebel with a Tamron lens much like this one
http://www.digitalfotoclub.com/sc/product-features.asp?id=826523143
My question is will this lens fit the 350 XT?

I also have a kodak easyshare with a memory card like this one
http://www.camerastore.com.au/Sandisk+1GB+SD+Memory+Card-details.htm
Will that fit the digital rebel?

I hate to ask such newbie questions, but if this stuff does fit I'm probably better off buying just the body itself. Right?

The rebel will fit all Canon/Tamron/Sigma EF lenses as far as I know (this should go back about 10 years, though you may have problems with really old lenses. Some Sigma brand lenses may need to be "re-chipped" to work with new canons, I don't think this applies to any Tamron lenses.

The lens you pointed out isn't a great lens and on the Rebel because of the multiplication factor you won't get a very wide angle (it should work on the camera though). If you can get a kit with the 17-??mm lens you would probably be better off.

The Rebel uses CF (Compact Flash) vs the SD (secure Digital) in your link. So your existing card won't work.


Hope that helps. :)

FreakyClean- You the man!, man.

I have that camera, and it's totally amazing, you will love it!!!
It's amazing the quality, ease of use on auto, and all the functionality that i have no idea what is when you start playing with manual (I've killed many good shots 'toying with things' lol). Dont let that scare you, because i'm a total amatuer wanna be photographer and i cant put it down. Do yourself a favor, buy a Compact flash card MORE than 512 megs... On Large Format High Detail 512 megs gets you 129 shots. THEY GO FAST when you remember you dont have to pay for exposure (trust me on that one, I'm the 'click commander...' j/k) i really will shoot just about anything half way interesting just to learn what i could have done better, where i could have stood to make it look better, what i could have done to.... and so on.

Getting mine next week...yipee. About the memory card size, I'm opting for several 512mb instead of the 2 or 4Gb, UltraIII from Sandisk, simply because I would rather change cards from time to time, than risk 2gb worth of shots going down the drain due to faults on the card. I say: Better safe than sorry. :grin2:

Cool

I'm opting for several 512mb instead of the 2 or 4Gb, UltraIII from Sandisk, simply because I would rather change cards from time to time, than risk 2gb worth of shots going down the drain due to faults on the card.

I would have suggested 2 x 1GB instead of 4 x 512's but probably too late. Multiple cards are good but I like to be able to shoot at least 100 shots without changing cards. Raw files with the new rebel should be between 8-10MB each I guess.
Files also increase in size the higher the ISO. ISO 1600 files are probably about 25%(or more) bigger in size than ISO 100 files.
I use the Sandisk Extreme cards and have never had one fail in close to 20,000 shots. I have used them from about -10 to plus 40 celcius with no problem, I format with every use.

:)

I would have suggested 2 x 1GB instead of 4 x 512's but probably too late. Multiple cards are good but I like to be able to shoot at least 100 shots without changing cards. Raw files with the new rebel should be between 8-10MB each I guess.:)
Not too late. My brother-in-law rang from Singapore where he's getting it(saving me lots of $$), and said they have a deal on. I'm getting a 1gb free with the camera, and he's getting me an extra 512mb card as well. So that should be ok, I hope.:) Also getting an extra battery. For some strange reason, there's only a saving on the cam with the standard lense. So will have to wait to get another. I want some zoomage to get nice an personal. :)

I still think 512 is too small, approx 60 RAW files (at most). That is 20 bracketed shots.

The more cards you have the more stopping and swapping and the more to keep track of. I could see accidental deletions. I have done that once (and I only have 3 cards I use often), luckily I didn't have any important shots on the card.

Anyhow sounds like your getting a good deal. :)

I still think 512 is too small, approx 60 RAW files (at most). That is 20 bracketed shots. The more cards you have the more stopping and swapping and the more to keep track of. I could see accidental deletions. I have done that once (and I only have 3 cards I use often), luckily I didn't have any important shots on the card. Anyhow sounds like your getting a good deal. :)

You are probably right about the size. I didn't think about the bracketed function. Do you use it a lot?

I reckon I will be using the 1GB most of the time and the 512mb should get some use for lower quality shots like holiday snaps etc.

I can always just get another card, they seem to be dropping in price constantly at the moment here. :)

I bracket certain things like scenes with lots of contrast (like sun and clouds with trees in shadow or wedding dresses). I use exposure compensation a bit too but I'm not sure if the rebel has that.
Also PSCS2 has a feature (HDR) where if you bracket shots you can combine them into a 32 bit file to allow things like cloud detail and shadow detail to remain with out one or both being blown out/filled in. I'm still experimenting with this... it creates 300mb files with my camera. :eek:

Gotta get pscs2. I'm still on 7, so no RAW fun there:rolleyes:
I tend to shoot things contrasty, so I can see myself using it quite a bit. Otherwise I'm sure I will end up deliberately underexposing to be in the safe zone. :cheeky:

Actually you want to overexpose slightly with RAW files as reducing exposure (as a file adjustment) will reduce noise while increasing exposure will increase noise.
RAW files have over 1 stop of data that you don't get in jpg files. So you can over expose and then reduce exposure in raw converter to "bring back" that info. It only works so far though.
So if you can get the exposure right (by bracketing) you can have clouds that are "blown out" (or almost) on the histogram and be able to bring them back in the raw converter to get detail. You usually have to make two PS files one exposed for the clouds and one exposed for the rest of the scene and then combine them in PS (even with something as simple as a gradient layer mask)

Ahh...I see. I thought the dark areas always contained more than the light ones, but I must've swapped them 'round. :)
Looking forward to actually get into this now that I will have a cam of quality. My previous has been a case of taking some shots really well and the rest really badly. Specially when dealing with light, I have been really frustrated, but those days are over soon...I hope.

Going in the darkroom with all my analogues from egypt next week, so hoping to refresh some long forgotten knowledge, that I can then transfer to the digi domain.

Yeah digital is the opposite of film in regards to exposure "safety"

I'm, hopefully, getting a 350 xt for graduation in the next couple weeks. I'm soo excited. Developing and purchasing film has just become to expensive for me and I rarely scan any prints or negatives because my scanner pretty much stinks.

Any suggestions on a reletively inexpensive lens? I have a 70-210mm and a 28-80mm lens for my Minolta 35mm camera, and want something that can reletively meet somewhere in the middle. I've been looking at 28-200mm lenses, but I've heard they can distort the photos.

Price tends to follow quality when it comes to optics. The longer focal range, the more distortion, unless you start spending really big bucks. There's a canon EF 28-135mm which gets good reviews.

The cheaper the worse the lens and a zoom will always be worse than a fixed focal length of similar quality.

If your are going zoom and you care about image quality I would suggest at least a 2 zoom system. Say a 28-75 (or equivalent depending on crop factor) and a 70-300 (or equivalent depending on crop factor).
With my 10D I use a 17-35mm, a 28-75mm and a 70-300mm to cover everything. The 28-75mm (a Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 XR DI) is the workhorse of this combination and is used more than 75% of the time.
With my new camera I use all fixed lenses with the exception of the 17-35mm (Tamron 17-35 F2.8-4 LD DI).

Zooms are nice and quick to take photos but I think fixed/prime lenses make think more about your shot (and they have the better quality mentioned above).

This website is awesome. I'm a SLR idiot, but just reading what you guys talk about helps me a great deal. :grin2: