Newbie..zooming question

Hey, this is a great website/forum!!


I just recently bought a Canon 450d. Wanted to get something on the low end because i am not a profesional photographer. I just wanted something that will capture the children as they continue growing up.


My question is. The camera came with a 18/55 mm lense. I am having trouble zooming. For the life of me i can NOT get the camera to hold a zoom while taking the photo. When i lookingat the lcd screen i can see the camera zooming...x5...x10. Then when i click to take the picture i get an image from far away? I've looked through the manual many times but i can't seem to figure out what i am doing wrong. Any help would be greatly appreciated.


An example would be...if i zoom across the soccer field to see my kid in the huddle listening to the coach, i can zoom using X5 and X10 and just have a very close picture of my kid. Then i take the photo and see i have the whole group. I've tried many settings...allproducing the same results. Very frustrating.


thanks again,


keller

It sounds like you are zooming digitalyin live view mode. Your real zoom is in the lens, you adjust it by twisting the zoom ring on the lens.

What Jarhead said. To start off look through the veiw finder and zoom with the lens until you get what you like then use live view and manual focus at 5 or 10X zoom. You picture will still be at the distance you zoomed with your lens though.

It almost sounds as if you're trying to zoom by pressing the magnification key instead of turning the zoom ring on the lens.


The magnification key in live view gives you a close up of the picture you are about to take. It doesn't *change* the picture you're about to take.


The way to zoom is to turn the ring on the lens itself.

Oh, i thought maybe i could use the magnification to get an even closer shot. If you go to this site, and scroll down to the 3 pictures of the clock....how can this person, with the same lense get such a close picture of the clock?


http://www.digicamreview.com/canon_eos_450d_rebel_xsi_dslr_review.htm


thank you for the help!!


keller

I think that is just a crop of the big picture.

Again, thank you very much for all your help.


One more question...If i do want to capture that picture of my child listening to the coach in a huddle across the soccer field (and i do want to) what would be the best lense to capture this picture. Oh yes, on a budget!


I guess i should say, cheap, but yet a good lense....if that is possible.


keller

canon 75-300 4-5.6 or canon 55-200 IS

To get the same shot as using a 10x magnification, you'll need a lens with 10x more reach than your current 55mm. There are no cheap options to get you a 550mm lens, but there are some cheap options to get you somewhere close, and with a bit of cropping (there's no way your monitor is 12 megapixels) it'll look like the same thing.


The only somewhat cheap lens that I'd really recommend to someone is the 70-200... I would try to convince them to save until they can afford the image stabilized version (nearly twice the price). If the non-IS version is the most you can afford, then go for that one. If that's out of your price range, consider then 100-300mm . If that's too rich for you, drop down the the 55-250mm. I don't think anything else in the low-end price range is worth even considering...


If you don't mind the lack of versatility of a prime lens (no zoom), the 200mm f/2.8 is an awesome lens for just a bit more than the 70-200 f/4.


Perhaps someone will back all that up, or tell you that I'm all wrong. ;) That's all based on reviews here (and elsewhere, but mainly here) for the cheapest telephoto zooms. I'm still saving for my entry to DSLR land, so I've yet to actually use ANY of these lenses.


edit: Perhaps also consider the 18-200mm EF-S lens. You could sell your 18-55 to help offset the cost, and you get to keep yourself down to a single lens. The quality isn't as good as the 70-200, but is (as far as I can tell) better than your kit 18-55mm. You do get image stabilization, which the low-end 70-200 doesn't give you.

I think it would be great if Canon offered a digital zoom option, it could save file space and even be setup as a "metadata crop" for raw shooters.


In the mean time, I suggest the 55-250 lens. For the price it can't be beat.

Thank you so much everyone for your help. I love the canon 450D, but goodness there is just a lot to learn.


keller

Keller, to be honest, it sounds to me that you'd be happier w/a super zoom camera, (e.g. Canon PowerShot SX10 IS) than a DSLR.


It gives you a lens equivalent of 28mm to 560mm....plenty of range for that huddle.


I'm assuming you haven't had the DSLR for long, so I would return it in exchange for SX10 that costs about $340. A very cheap way of getting that 550mm mentioned earlier in this thread.


Canon SX10 IS Features

• 10 Megapixel resolution with 20x Optical zoom
• Wide-angle to telephoto lens & Optical Image Stabilization
• A superzoom lens with a focal length of 5.0-100mm (35mm film equivalent: 28-560mm)
• Latest Canon DIGIC 4 processor with improved face detection
• A flip-out vari-angle 2.5 inch LCD for flexible viewing
• Electronic view finder for those sunny days when you can’t see the LCD image
• Face Self-Timer - automatically detects increase in number of faces and makes adjustments
• MovieSnap - lets you capture high-res images while shooting videos
• Takes SD/SDHC cards and AA batteries

I started off in digital photography w/an earlier version (SX3) of this camera and captured some nice soccer match pictures while remaining in the stands and using the 10x power.


Just a thought that may be a viable solution for you.


Good luck


Bill

The problem with recommending lenses is that to do it right you need to know some things about the shooter: How much they want to spend? How important is image quality? What kinds of shots they like. A pro puts a premium on getting the best shot -- and the best lens. But what about someone who wants to do family shots and won't ever make prints bigger than 5x7.


Keller is using a kit 18-55 lens that he will probably outgrow in a few years. But for now he's not seeing a problem with it. He might notice a slight difference in his shots if he got a 70-200 L -- and he might not. He may not want to spend a bunch of bucks right now. He may not want to get into collecting a lot of lenses yet. We don't really know.


If I wanted to get a zoom that could get in close at the soccer games and do good family shots, I think I might go a slightly different route than anyone has mentioned. The 70-300 IS would do a good job with getting in close, especially with the crop factor of his camera. It costs a bit more than the 55-250 but it has image stabilization and is a bit better in terms of quality. The 70-300 IS is a nice lens for the money. But Keller will still have to switch lenses.


If he doesn't want to do that, he might try the Tamron 18-270 VC. He ends up with one lens that covers almost the same ground as the 18-55 and the 70-300 together -- and he can sell his kit lens. The Tamron is about the same cost as the Canon 70-300 -- and I believe the quality is close. It's also got a very nice image stabilization. But he doesn't have to switch lenses because the Tamron has a 15x zoom.


After Keller gets a clearer sense of what he wants out of photography, he can decide if he wants to spring for one of the Canon 70-200s and see what a great lens can do. In the mean time, he may want to consider getting a fast prime lens for indoor family shots -- something in the 28-35mm range. He could learn a lot with either the Canon 35mm f2 or the Sigma 30mm f1.4.