A Portrait Shoot With a $35 Rebel XT

We've all heard that equipment doesn't make the photographer, and that a great photographer can create great images with whatever camera they have. But, how does that actually translate? How different do images look when taken with an early DSLR, compared to a modern mirrorless?

Have you ever seen that gif from Saving Private Ryan where Matt Damon ages 50 years in a few seconds? That is how I felt when I learned that teenagers have started buying early DSLR and digital cameras because they like the retro-style results. I guess that is how the generations before me felt when I started shooting film! Nevertheless, I grew curious as to what the early DSLRs could do. Although I had one — fairly early, not right at the start — the only negative characteristics I can remember were softness and a lack of dynamic range; neither added much "character" to my cynical eyes.

In this video, we see Eli Infante find and buy a $35 (~£30) Rebel XT from around 2005, and conduct a portrait shoot. Although the quality is probably lacking when the images are blown up or you get to pixel-peep the files, the results are truly impressive. It seems that the real difference in shooting with an early DSLR compared to a modern mirrorless is primarily quality of life additions to the technology, such as Eye AF, facial recognition, AF points, AF tracking, and so on. To those looking to start photography, perhaps a cheap DSLR is the best point of entry!

Rob Baggs's picture

Robert K Baggs is a professional portrait and commercial photographer, educator, and consultant from England. Robert has a First-Class degree in Philosophy and a Master's by Research. In 2015 Robert's work on plagiarism in photography was published as part of several universities' photography degree syllabuses.

Log in or register to post comments
6 Comments

.

I started with a 6mpx Canon D60 and got some amazing photos. I think those wescott strobes put his gear up into the 1000 range though.

I still believe the rebel xt sensor had a different look, a better look. I suppose flawed digital can be romanticised like flawed lens design.

The shots were all great. I have never used a mirrorless digital camera so what I am going to say is born of ignorance of those cameras. That said though I started taking pics when I was a kid using a Kodak 126 camera of my mom's. When I got a job in my late teens I graduated to a 35mm point and shoot with built in flash. Wow what an improvement. I could not afford an auto focus point and shoot but the fixed focus was great. Eventually I was able to by a Vivitar Pentax K 1000 knock off witha 35 to 80 mm lens. I later added a vivitar 70-210 series 1. It and a couple more Pentax knockoffs later I moved to my first digital camera. It had 640x480 resolution but boy oy boy it was fun. I then moved on to 1 MP and 3.5 MP cameras before Pentax came out with the ist DL 6MP Dslr. I grabbed one and my photographic world turned upside down. The ist DL was so advanced compared to a K1000 it was a dream come true. All those auto modes and manual settings took most of the hoping out of shooting good shots and since it was digital I could shoot til I got a good shot. My brother was stunned at how good the pics of him on his motorcycle turned out. I now use a Pentax KS2. So much better than the DL. Even so the DL still is capable of great shots and is far more capable of great shots than the K1000. All that said , of course the Canon XT made great images. Is it as easy to to great shots with it as with modern Canon Mirrorless cameras? No way. But the fact remains that it was and still is worlds better than Canon AE1. I am grateful for this article for it shows that a truly affordable older digital camera can take excellent photos even in a world of far superior tech. Very few people who want to truly learn photography have a legit excuse in cost. A quick look at ebay shows with savvy shopping you can get a dslr lens combo and a cheap yet serviceable laptop for a grand total of a 100 to 150 dollars ! Kids buy t-shirts and jeans for those prices. So sure the xt might have been a bit more tricky to get great phots out of than a modern mirorless but wow oh wow how much better it is than an all manual film camera !! The results of this fellow's experiment surely come as no surprise to those who grew up on film before digital was a thing.

Light control, composition and direction of the model will always be far more important in portraiture than the technical specs of a camera. A great lesson for students to learn early on.

Although it's been said that 'the camera doesn't matter', which I've proven wrong decades ago, one thing is for certain....the lens DOES matter. This Canon is a worthy camera for this demonstration, but it's the lens which proves its worth here. Thank for this noce article.