[Newt]

I've been a Pentax guy since the mid 60's. Have 5 of em. I'm thinking of jumping ship and trying a Canon EOS 35mm. Maybe a used unit. Any suggestions on which model/s would be a goodie? Best bang for the buck so to speak? I don't know diddly about Canons 35's. Not interested in another digital at this time. Thanks Newbie

[MooseAndSquirrel]

I've had Canon Rebels (models XS and 2000) and think they're one of the best values out there- one of the lightest SLRs on the market, enough features for the beginner to moderate amateur photographer, and very affordable- especially now with all the digitals flooding the market, film camera prices are dropping. I think it's a perfect hiking SLR, especially for its light weight. The Elan II is the next step up in a consumer Canon SLR, more pricey and is highly regarded, with a few more features you may or might not need. I think the Rebel series is an excellent entry level SLR.

[Bob K]

Canon is a good choice. I don't want to start a Nikon-Canon-Contax debate, but Canon currently has the best quality and selection of lenses at the 35mm SLR level, imo. Plus they are pushing the envelope at the digital SLR end, so your investment in lenses is probably good for both film and digital for a long time. At 35mm, this is the company you want to go with for nature photography. If you are going to try a Canon to compare it against your Pentax cameras, it's important to use one of their better lenses. Unlike digital cameras where there are still significant differences in the sensors and the software/firmware, film-camera selection is secondary and almost irrelevant compared to the importance of lens quality. There are a few things you look for in a good, versus ordinary, camera -- like depth-of-field preview, smaller exposure setting intervals, and mirror-lockup -- but those things aren't all *that* important, imo. As examples, I would be willing to sacrifice some of those features if I could cut a pound of weight or if I could apply the cost difference to a good, pro-quality lens.

[MooseAndSquirrel]

[marta]

I have the Canon Elan II and I have been very very happy with it. I used to have an Olympus OM-1. In fact, I went through two of those before I switched. I bought both Canon (50 & 28) and Tamaron (90mm macro) lenses. I'm happy with all the lenses although the autofocus on the macro is real touchy. I tend to just go with manual focus on the macro. I decided on the Elan because I wanted it more strudy built. The rebel seemed a bit plastic to me and I'm rough on gear. I decided to stay with Canon when I purchased a digital because of similar controls. I've been pretty happy with the G series although I'm still struggling with focus.

[Bob K]

You're right -- for landscape shots with wide-angle lenses, I tend to use the smallest apertures and widest depth-of-focus I can get away with. There is usually no need to check depth-of-focus. But being able to see your depth-of-focus is essential in other types of shots, like wildlife or macro, where you are trying to control the blur from the motion of the animal or the wind blowing the object, and still get the entire animal or object in focus; or if you are trying to create a nice blur effect on the background of your macro shot without blurring the object itself. For certain landscape shots, especially with longer lenses, you might want to make sure everything you think (or calculate) is in focus, really is. As far as plastic bodies -- I like them for hiking because they are lighter. Again, it's the lens system that matters most. Marta, can you elaborate on how you're struggling with focus? I believe the G-series only goes to f8 and in general you aren't going to get the same sharpness throughout your images (front-to-back) compared to an SLR. -

[Andrew]

I own a Canon Rebel Ti. It was a gift, so I had no choice. LIke others have said, it is made of plastic. I've put it through some rough hikes and so far it's doing great. If I had a choice, I'd definately be happy with the Rebel Ti, but I most likely would've bought the Elan 7E (E for eye-focus), one rung up the ladder from the Rebel. Solidly built, no-gimmicky black finish, and a few more extra features then the Rebel Ti. But then again, it's not the camera you own, it's the lenses, as you probably already know. Tell us what you got later on

[Tom]

[Bob K]

Yep, I was wrong on that. What made me think that is that on all the pictures I have seen from those cameras, the far-away parts of the landscapes always seem fuzzy, but that's probably from diffraction, or possibly from the lack of overall sharpness from the small sensors. Apparently, the DOF problem is on the other end with the prosumer digital cameras: you can't get a DOF small enough if you want it. Using f2.8 on the G3-G5 class cameras, for example, equates to about f11.2 on 35mm. (This would give you the best of both worlds in shots where you do want DOF -- shutter speeds of f2.8 with a DOF of f11.2!) Having never owned a prosumer digital, I better not try answering the focusing distance question either although this guy seems convincing: "The general rule for scenic photographs, where one wishes to maximize the depth of field, is as follows. Set the focus at the distance of the most distant object. Then set the lens opening to the size of the smallest object to be resolved in the foreground." I.e. it's like Tom said: for max DOF, focus at infinity and use the smallest aperture you can that doesn't produce too much diffraction. -

[marta]

I haven't figured out what exactly is my issue with the focus. I an looking for that crispness but also I occasionally take pictures where the subject is out of focus. I've taken several pictures where the subject is in the foreground and they are out of focus and visa-versa on landscapes). First, I haven't tried the manual focus a lot. Mostly I've been shooting Av priority and just recently started shooting manual exposure. Adding manual focus has been a challenge because of the location of the focus button on G2. I am very used to having the through the lens and preview button to check my focus on the SLR. I pretty much know what I'm going to get as far as focus on the Elan. But I haven't figured out some way to see what I'm getting with the G2. The LCD is pretty worthless as far as focus. It's great for exposure but I just can't tell the focus much. Most of the time it is fine but at other times totally wrong. I probably need to become much more comfortable with changing the settings. Plus I have to use reading glasses to see a lot of the readouts on the LCD (age ... it's a bummer). I have been trying to shoot F8 on landscapes. The one strong possibility regarding focus may be camera shake. I think that I actually move the camera when I press and take the shot. I've compared the shots my hubby takes on automatic exposure settings with the ones I take with manual/semi-automatic exposure settings and there is a striking difference. And it isn't all the exposure settings. We've both taken similar shots and I've compared the exposure. I've also tried the automatic and it hasn't helped. That leads me more and more to think that I move the whole camera when I shoot. I'll try to pay more attention to the exposure. It is very cool that you can check all that information on-line with digitals. There may be a pattern of my exposures that I can correct. Regarding the camera shake, I'm trying to hold the camera firmer to not move it when I take the shot.

[Alan Bauer]

I was wanting to say exactly that---to me it sounds much more like you are not holding the camera steady. Now if you are getting this with a shot at 1/1000th of a second, that is different....but I'd guess many times you are shooting 1/250th or less, and if you don't press the shutter release button with a gentle finger rolling action vs. PUSH it down fast, you'll get shake almost all the time. Try 3-5 images on a tripod using the timer vs. same 3-5 shots off tripod to see if you see a difference!!

[marta]

I'll give that a try Alan. I'm almost certain that is it also. I may also need to hold it steady longer to make certain the picture is taken. I may be moving before the photo has been taken on the digital. Thanks for the advise everyone. NN sorry about the thread drift. Let's get back to talking about Canon SLRs. Have you checked out Photo.net? It has a lot of good general advice.

[Newt]

I'll have to try some of these hints too as I've noticed my bg fuzzy. I'll admit that the lcd is pretty lame for focus. I never know what I have until I'm at the pc. Thanks for the tips NN

[Bob K]

Marta, how are your shots when you use autofocus? If camera shake is the problem, then your autofocus shots would in general display the same blurryness as manual focus. If your shots are clear with autofocus, but blurry with manual focus, you might want to check the diopter setting on the viewfinder (assuming you are using the viewfinder.) Also, if it's camera shake, the entire picture would get blurry -- the foreground wouldn't be fuzzy with a sharp background and visa-versa. If it's a focus problem, on the otherhand, the in-focus plane still has to be somewhere, so it's usually the case that the wrong part of the picture is in focus.

[MooseAndSquirrel]