3 ms·
I still have my digital rebel XT from 2005. With a nifty-fifty on it ($100), I was able to make poster-size prints that looked perfect (no jaggies) at 1-foot v
by mod 12y ago
I still have my digital rebel XT from 2005.
With a nifty-fifty on it ($100), I was able to make poster-size prints that looked perfect (no jaggies) at 1-foot viewing distance.
6 megapixels!
So yep, totally agree that the body will get the job done.
You also need quite a lot of skill to be able to make the sensor look bad. For me personally, if something doesn't look good, it's my fault. I missed focus or exposed poorly.
That said, my camera sucks so bad in low-light. 5D MKII here I come...
- saryant 12y agoI still shoot with a Digital Rebel XT as well, generally with a 28mm/1.8 but I also have a 50mm/1.4. I just finished a two week trip doing entirely street photography with the 28mm and an iPhone 6. No question, the Canon wins in everything except ease of use. I don't use it to take a snapshot of some street food dish, I reach for my phone. But for walking around Taipei street markets at night the iPhone doesn't come close. The low light performance of a large sensor with a wide-aperture lens is superb, even with a camera that's now 10 years old (still going strong!).
- slantyyz 12y agoIn addition to ease of use -- the more conspicuous or large the camera, the greater the likelihood that people won't want to be photographed.
- mod 12y agoAgreed--which is strange, since I expect it's less likely to be used anywhere. Pictures with my phone often go straight to social media. Pictures with my camera are curated and I only choose the best ones. Maybe 2% are ever viewed by another living human.