RebelEOS.com

Images of the new EOS 1000D / Rebel XS

2008-06-23T12:01:00.003+01:00

Here are some images of the upcoming EOS 1000D (Rebel XS) for your perusal... Here's what's going on inside... ...the layout of everything looks very consistent with the rest of the EOS digital range... ..and here's what you'll get in the box (if you buy it with the EF-S 18-55mm IS kit lens)...

EOS 1000D officially released

2008-06-16T07:34:00.005+01:00

While I was away on holiday, Canon made it official. The EOS 1000D has been released and here it is:

The SRP of the EOS 1000D (which looks set to be called the Digital Rebel XS in the US) is set at an unlikely £499 in the UK and from the listing on Amazon UK that looks like the price of the body only (body + kit lens is currently priced at £579.99). Amazon are currently selling the 450D with kit lens at £483.30 so the price of the 1000D will have to be significantly less than that for anyone to buy it instead of the 450D which would be a better camera for less money.
Surely the actual retail price of the EOS 1000D + kit lens (at least at Amazon) is going to have to be closer to £400 or less for anyone to buy it rather than pay a bit more for the 450D.

As for the features and functionality, they look pretty comparable to the 400D except with the addition of live view which, as I said previously, will be crucial in appealing to the mass market of consumers used to point-and-shoot compact cameras but looking for more. The kit lens is the same as that of the 450D and incorporates Image Stabilization so that's another improvement over the 400D.

With an appealing set of features and a very affordable price I predict the new EOS 1000D will very quickly become Canon's top selling EOS digital SLR.

Links:
Read more about the new EOS 1000D on Canon's (UK) site
Or visit their 1000D minisite

More Rebel XS / 1000D rumours

2008-05-22T13:27:00.008+01:00

Swedish site Kamera & Bild are suggesting the following specs for the rumoured new Canon entry-level digital SLR, the Rebel XS / 1000D.

No mention of their source but here are the specs they're suggesting along with the equivalent specs of the 450D (Rebel XSi), the Canon PowerShot G9, the Canon Ixus 90 and the Nikon D40X.

	450D	1000D	G9	Ixus 90	D40X
Sensor Mega-Pixels	12.2	10.1	12.1	10.0	10.2
Auto Focus	9 point	7 point	9 point	9 point	3 point
Burst shooting (FPS)	3.5	3	1.5	1.4	3
LCD size	3.0"	2.5"	3.0"	3.0"	2.5"
Live View	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Weight	475g	540g	320g	155g	495g
Price (Amazon.co.uk)	£519.40	£???	£277.23	£200.50	£418.95

Other information includes "Digic III processor" (all the above have that), "menus similar to 450D" and "cheap price" which matches up with the general consensus.

Some of those specs look a bit strange when laid out like that. In terms of distinguishing it from the XSi, the smaller screen will be a big factor so that makes sense and taking out 2 AF points might help a litlle too. But why would it be so heavy? Perhaps this rumoured weight is with the kit lens (the other SLR weights are body-only).

It's a little hard to see how Canon will persuade consumers to buy the 450D if these specs turn out to be correct. Although the differences between the 40D and the 450D are now quite subtle. I suppose they could remove some of the more obscure features such as exposure bracketing for the 1000D.

Photoshop - Instant Image Pop

2008-05-21T11:15:00.003+01:00

Once you have adjusted the levels/curves of your photo as you would normally do, make sure the background layer is your active layer and then follow these steps:

1. Go to Layer > New Adjustment Layer > Levels
2. In the New Layer dialogue box that pops up, select "Soft Light" from the Mode drop-down menu
3. Click OK and another dialogue box will appear but behind that you should see your image is now a bit more "poppy"
4. In the dialogue box that just appeared, you can adjust the output levels bar to adjust the amount of pop by moving the light and dark sliders until you're happy with the look.

When you're happy with the results, why not show them off in the RebelEOS Flickr group photo pool.

Canon Rebates USA '08

2008-05-19T16:26:00.003+01:00

Yesterday marked the start of Canon's rebate season in the US and this time there's no forms to fill in, the discount is applied at payment.
Between May 18 and July 19 Canon are offering the following discounts:

Body / Lens / Flash	Cashback
EOS 5D	$300
EOS 40D	$200
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM	$125
EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM	$125
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM	$100
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM	$100
EF 50mm f/1.2L USM	$100
EF 35mm f/1.4L USM	$100
EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM	$75
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM	$70
EF 17-40mm f/4L USM	$50
EF 70-200mm f/4L USM	$40
EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM	$35
EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM	$30
EF 28-90mm f/4-5.6 III	$15
Speedlite 580EX II	$30
Speedlite 430EX	$15

Click here to get the coupons

For European readers, a slightly different set of rebates have been going since March and finish 30th June so get in quick!

Canon Cash Back '08

2008-05-19T15:00:00.011+01:00

Just a reminder about that Canon's spring cash-back rebates in Europe are still going on until 30/06/2008. Included are £45 off the already widely reduced 400D, discounts on a number of high-end and L-series lenses such as £40 off the ever-popular EF 17-40mm f/4L and money off Canon's top-end flashes. Here's the full list:

Model / Lens / Flash	Cash Back
EOS 5D body	£150
EOS 40D body	£100
EOS 400D body	£45
EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM	£40
EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM	£40
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM	£75
EF 17-40mm f/4L USM	£40
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM	£50
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM	£45
EF 50mm f/1.2L USM	£50
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM	£75
EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM	£45
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM	£50
EF 70-200mm f/4L USM	£40
EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM	£40
EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM	£40
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM	£75
Speedlite 580EX II	£40
Macro Ring Lite MR-14EX	£20

EOS 1000D - New Entry-Level Canon DSLR

2008-05-14T12:14:00.013+01:00

Update: Canon have now announced the EOS 1000D. Read about it here: EOS 1000D officially released

Update 2: See some images of the EOS 1000D here

Update 3: Some thoughts on the price of the EOS 1000D

The rumour mill has started to churn after the discovery that the help file for the new version of Canon's RAW processing software, Digital Photo Professional, names the Digital Rebel XS/1000D among its supported cameras.

At the moment there is no such thing as a 1000D so the obvious speculation is that, based on the high number, Canon are planning to release a new entry-level DSLR.

Canon recently added the EOS 450D to their DSLR range and, because it's new, it's selling at a higher price point than its predecessor, the 400D (which is still available and at bargain prices while everyone tries to sell off their stock). The major upgrade in the EOS 450D was the inclusion of Live View which allows you to see the photograph you're about to take on the camera's LCD.

This "Live View" feature is familiar to anyone who has used a digital compact (or a phone camera) and many compacts are now sold without a viewfinder as they've become near-obsolete.

Considering this, I suspect the 1000D will slot into the price bracket between the top-end of the Canon Ixus range (~£200) and the current price of the EOS 450D (~£520). There is also the Canon G9 (Canon's high-end compact) to consider which costs around £280 so I anticipate the 1000D sitting at around £400 or a bit less on release.

As for features, I think it'll be a cut down version of the EOS 450D but, if they're aiming to bridge the gap between compacts and DSLRs, they'll definitely keep live view in.

It's hard to think what features they won't include from the 450D; some of the more advanced manual options I guess.

Will Canon change the landscape of the camera market yet again? Time will tell.

RAW vs JPEG

2008-02-07T23:00:00.000Z

In my last two posts I looked at reasons to consider using the RAW mode of your camera. Today I'm concluding by considering the pros and cons of both the RAW and JPEG formats and the situations where one might be more appropriate than the other.
The following table show the pros and cons of the two formats (in my opinion):

JPEG	Pros:	Smaller files.
		Quicker to save on camera.
		No post processing required.
	Cons:	Fixed white balance.
		Lossy format can limit post processing options.
RAW	Pros:	Higher dynamic range.
		More options in post processing.
		Raw data from the camera sensor.
	Cons:	Big files mean shorter bursts and less photos per memory card.
		Time required to post-process each photo.

Here's a quick run down of file format considerations for some different shooting situations:

JPG more suitable for:

Sports - you'll often be shooting in burst mode and JPEG will allow you to take more images before your camera's memory buffer gets full.
Holidays - when you may not have access to a computer to offload your photos but are likely to be taking lots, JPEG will certainly allow you to take many more photos per memory card and you can always switch to RAW for the odd photo where you might need it.
Weddings - You'll probably be best using a combination of RAW and JPEG at weddings depending on what part of the day it is. Those bright white wedding dresses can confuse cameras so having the ability to easily adjust the white balance with RAW files can be very useful.

RAW particularly suitable for:

Creative shooting where exposure and white balance might need tweaking later.
Colourful shots where you are capturing a mix of many colours or tones and need the best performance over the whole range.
Portrait sessions, day trips or any time you know you will be able to get back to your computer fairly soon to upload the photos and free up your memory card ready for more.

In the end, it's your decision what format to use when and there are no hard rules but hopefully I've encouraged you to at least try out the RAW mode and given you some ideas as to when and why it's a feature of your camera that shouldn't be ignored.

Why shoot in RAW mode? (Part 2)

2008-02-06T20:30:00.000Z

In yesterday's post I looked at what goes on inside your camera when you take photos in RAW format compared to JPG and suggested a couple of reasons why you might want to use RAW in some circumstances.

Today I'll look at a practical example of the benefits of RAW using the photo of a swan below...

JPG file from camera

This is the photo as is came out of the camera shooting in RAW+JPG mode. It's a fairly average photo of a swan. The composition and focus are pretty good and the pose of the swan against the pleasing texture of the water gives it potential but it just doesn't really grab your attention.

This is the JPG from the camera so, as we learned yesterday, the camera has used its inbuilt presets, which are designed to give adequate results over the whole range of different conditions, to come out with a fairly average image.
The subject is a bit underexposed and the colours are all just a bit midrange and dull (click on the image to if you'd like to see a bigger version).
Had I taken this photo in JPG only mode, I could either just accept the processing the camera has done and send it off to the printers or I could spend a fair bit of time in Photoshop trying to improve the contrast, white balance and colour range using a combination of adjustment layers to come up with a version that looks a bit better.

However, since I have the RAW version of the photo, I have the option to process the raw data from the camera's sensor however I see fit. If you're familiar with film photography, it's helpful to think of the RAW file as the negative and the JPG file as a print of that negative. The RAW file, like the negative, represents what the camera saw at the time of taking the photo and the JPG file, like the print, represents a processed version of the image.
In the film case you can either rely on the photo lab to make appropriate decisions about how to convert the negative into an image on paper (usually a standard process that is adequate in most cases) or you can set up an expensive dark room at home and make your own decisions about how to process each photo depending on the look you're trying to achieve in this case.
The digital case is very similar - either you let the camera make the decision using its standard process that usually works or you take your digital negative (RAW file) and you make your own decisions based on the merits of the particular photo.

My version processed from the RAW file (click to see it bigger)

Here is the photo of the swan after I've processed it in Photoshop Camera Raw 4.0.
Processing the RAW image myself gave me the flexibility to emphasise the features of the photo that inspired me to take it in the first place.

I was able to increase the brightness by pushing up the exposure and brightness settings, then I increased the vibrance to bring out the blues of the water and the browns of the young swan's remaining baby feathers. I then pushed up the Blacks setting slightly to undo some of the effect of the increased brightness in those areas. Finally I decided to push the contrast up by quite a significant amount to bring out the texture of the water and further accentuate the colours.
Hopefully you agree that the final result is a significant improvement.

Learning how to adjust the numerous sliders in RAW processing software to produce the result you're after can take a little time but I think being able to rescue a bland photo and turn it back into the scene you remember is worth working for.

In the next post I'll be summarising the pros and cons of the RAW and JPG modes and discussing some situations where you might want to use one rather than the other.

If you have any success stories working with RAW, why not sign up to the RebelEOS flickr group and share them or just post your results in the photo pool.

Why shoot in RAW mode? (Part 1)

2008-02-05T21:00:00.000Z

This week I'm looking at RAW vs JPG shooting modes.
In this post I'll discuss RAW mode and how it differs from JPG mode...

Has the following ever happened to you?
You find yourself and your camera faced with a scene full of different colours and tones so you shoot away excited about how fantastic this vista will look framed on your wall. However, you get home and upload your photos only to find that the scene you remember just isn't quite as spectacular. I know I have found myself in this situation. It's quite a disappointment!

Assuming that you composed the shot well and your subject is in focus, it's likely that the blandness of your photo is due to a combination of incorrect exposure and/or white balance. If you've taken the photo in JPG only mode, this can be fixed to some extent in Photoshop using a combination of adjustment layers (curves is a good place to start) and after quite a bit of work you can usually come up a fairly decent result.

In Part 2 I'll put the life back into this well composed but bland coloured photo of a swan

However, you give yourself a much better chance (and will come out with a noticably better result) if you've taken the photo in RAW format.
Let's briefly look at why...

When you shoot in JPG only mode, you are actually shooting in RAW mode as well. A RAW file just holds all the information about what your camera's sensor saw when you pressed the shutter button. In JPG only mode, your camera takes this picture information and makes a decision about how to process into an image. It takes the data from the sensor and makes decisions (some based on your input and some based on camera presets) about white balance, sharpness, colour saturation, contrast and other things and then compresses the picture into the lossy JPG format and throws away the original RAW information. This is often fine and the camera will usually make good decisions and produce very acceptable results.
But wait - was there any useful information in that RAW data that the camera just threw away?
Well the fact that the RAW option exists is a give away that there is! When you shoot RAW, you keep all the information about what the camera sensor saw and you get to make the decisions about white balance, colour saturation, sharpness etc and since you're the photographer and, unlike the camera, you have a sense of aesthetics and an idea about the mood of the scene when you shot it, often you'll come up with something better.

In Part 2 I look at a practical example and greatly improve a well composed but bland photo of a swan using just a few simple RAW processing adjustments.

DIY Camera Spirit Level

2008-02-04T23:44:00.000Z

When I saw these handy little spirit levels that slot right into your camera's hot shoe, the first thing I thought was, "What a great idea for those of us without bubble levels built into our tripods" (or for those times when you're balancing your camera on top of an uneven wall or some other non-level surface).

They retail around £10/$20 so the second thing I thought was, "That seems a lot of money for a little piece of plastic with coloured water in it".

"I could make one of those", I thought. So I did and here's how...

To build this hot-shoe camera spirit level, you'll need the following:
A cheap 2 or 3 vial spirit level
- This one is from Tesco and cost £1.47. It had handy screws that allowed me to remove the vials very easily but if it hadn't, the plastic construction would have made it still fairly easy.

An old plastic credit / membership / loyalty card - Make sure you don't need it anymore - you're about to cut it up)
Scissors (suitable for cutting small things)
Super glue (Cyanoacrylate) - I'll warn you now. Be careful. The process is a bit fiddly and as you put things together it's easy for glue to squeeze out the edges and you'll be stuck before you know it! I don't want you driving to hospital with a half made camera spirit level stuck to your finger.

If you have all those things, on with the show...

(Note that all photos can be viewed bigger by clicking on them.)

The first thing to do is cut out 2 squares of your plastic card to the size of your camera's hot-shoe slot. This should be around 18mm wide.

Take your two squares, place one on top of the other then slide this into your camera's hot-shoe. If it fits and doesn't slide out when you point your camera upwards, take them out, stick them together and move on to the next step. However,if the fit is too loose, you could add a third square of plastic but I found this to be too thick. You could sandwich a square of thin card between the 2 plastic layers to increase thickness slightly.

Next, open up your spirit level and remove the 2 vials. Mine had 3 vials - two short and one longer. I've used the 2 short ones to keep it small.

Cut 3 rectangles from your plastic card of around 18mm by 9mm. We'll use these later.

Cut a large rectangle from your card that has a length equal to the length of a vial plus its width and a width the length of a vial. If that's not clear, see the next photo...

The arrangement of the vials is in a T so that we can get the camera level in two axes. The large piece of plastic card should therefore be big enough to accommodate your vials in a T as in the picture.

Glue down your vials onto the large card. This is a bit tricky because the vials are cylinders but it is possible.

Glue the 3 small rectangles together on top of each other.

You've now got all the component parts of your hot-shoe spirit level. The only thing that remains is to put them all together...

Glue the 3 small rectangles on the centre of the 2 squares as in the photo.

At this stage, I cut the surplus plastic from the level platform but there's no need to do so.

The final step is to glue the two parts shown in the photo together. Make sure to line everything up straight before you glue else your levels will not be aligned correctly.

Here's the finished camera spirit level from the side...

...and from above...

It's extremely small and light - you won't notice you've got it until the moment you need it and at that point you'll be glad that you do.

Remember - nobody likes a wonky horizon!

If you like this, why not subscribe to our RSS feed so you don't miss out on all the future DIY builds. Next up is budget DIY flash accessories...

A tripod made of string?

2008-01-31T21:07:00.000Z

You don't have to have been taking photographs for long to find out that sometimes a potentially great photo can be ruined by camera shake (the movement of your hands while the camera shutter is open).

The best solution to camera shake is to put your camera on something stable. Often when out and about there'll be a handy fencepost or wall to rest on but sometimes you have to provide your own platform in the form of a tripod. Tripods are very valuable for times when light is low or when you don't want the camera moving between shots but they're generally bulky to carry around.

The following video shows you how you can get back some of the stability of using a tripod with a contraption made from nothing more than a bolt, a washer and a piece of string. I shall call it the StringPod!
Intrigued? Watch on to find out how. Although you're not going to get all the stability of a proper tripod, this contraption is truly pocket-sized and should allow you to get some photos you would have missed out on otherwise.

Just try to ignore the odd looks you'll get while using it!

Introduction to RebelEOS.com

2008-01-30T21:05:00.000Z

When Canon released the EOS 300D (the original Digital Rebel) in 2003, they defined a whole new market, bringing us a camera worthy of professionals at a price that was truly acceptable to the masses.

Producing great results when you just wanted to point-and-shoot and with the advanced manual capabilities of an SLR, now we had a camera that didn't feel like it was holding us back but pushing us forward. Freed from the worry of wasting film when experimenting or having to turn the bathroom into a dark room, photographers everywhere have been experiencing the revolution ever since.

Lots of Help for Beginners

If you've just bought your EOS and are looking for help with getting started or you're wondering why you should buy one, head over to our introduction to the world of digital SLRs (with a specific EOS flavour) or, if you're already looking for the next piece of kit to go with your shiny new camera, see our guide to essential accessories to get you going.

Top Tips

Looking for help on how to reproduce a particular style or effect you've seen in magazines or just in need of some inspiration?
Take a look around the Popular Effects section for ideas and tutorials or post an example to the forums and let the community give you the answers.