Looking at Rebel XT, maybe . . .

[3rdcat]

I am looking at used XTs on eBay (and sending the usual mildly invasive emails to ascertain whether the seller really owns the camera and has a sense of how well it works). Having bought cameras previously on eBay, I think I can steer clear of most of the pitfalls of that vast and wild emporium.

My question regards whether the XT is the camera I ought to buy. I am interested in a digital SLR because I like the idea of instant access to my picture, but I have one specific concern. First, I want to be able to take pictures that have a file size of eight to ten Megabites. Surely an 8 Megabite comera will not yield that sort of file in jpeg. mode. I have never had a camera that takes a picture in RAW, but I have noticed that the XT can. Has anyone worked with an XT and Photo Shop Elements to make decent pictures? If so, what is the size of the average file?

Many thanks for any light you can shed on this question.

RHF

[astroskeptic]

Did you make a decision? I'm not sure but it sounds like you're weighting file size as an important consideration, perhaps out of concern for storage limitations, but I would suggest that this is an unimportant consideration except in unusual situations. Storage is relatively cheap but even if you can't expand storage you always have the option of trading quality for file size. I have no personal experience with the XT.

[Delbrajan]

I've heard that the Rebel XT is an excellent starter digital SLR. I have not worked with an XT and do not have Photoshop Elements (I've got CS4,) but can tell you that once you learn to work with RAW files, you'll probably never shoot JPGs again. The RAW files are not processed in camera (jpgs are,) so they look a bit flat and dull when you look at the RAW file alone. But they contain much more digital information than jpgs do, and you have much more control over the results you get when you process them in Adobe Camera RAW without ever taking them to Photoshop Elements (or CS4.) But your question is about size. My 30D RAW files are 3504x2336 pixels and average around 6.5-7.5 MB in size (which translates to 35.3 by 23.5 inches.) My 40D RAW files are 3888x2597 pixels and average around 10.9 MB. I get excellent results in both sizes and wouldn't say the larger file has any difference in quality by virtue of its size. They do take up a lot of storage space, but storage is getting less expensive all the time. Also, when downloading files from my camera, I convert them to .dng files (digital negative,) which still contain all the CR information, but eliminates the "sidecar" xmp files that accompany the CR files and saves a bit of storage space. For example, I'm looking at a file I just downloaded -- the CR file is 6.7MB, but the same file converted to dng is 5.49MB. (Not a lot of difference, but it adds up.) My photo downloader has a box to check for "convert to dng." When that box is checked, it downloads the CR files but also converts them to dng and saves the dngs to another location. I usually throw away the CR files and work with the dngs. I don't think there's any difference in working with the CR files over the dng files. But I DO think there's a GREAT difference in working with RAW files over jpgs.