Rebel T3 Accessories

[Zyclone]

Greetings everyone!

I am new to using a DSLR and currently have an out of the box EOS Rebel T3 kit with the standard 18-55mm lens. I was browsing amazon for a few accessories like lens filters, a lens hood and a remote. I found a few options on amazon but I am not sure if they are good. Is it recommended to buy Canon brand accessories only? Or will an off brand do just as good?

I live in sunny San Diego, CA and I like to take photos of family, friends when we are out and about around town, or while I am on a hike taking pictures of people with landscapes in the background.

Here are the link to the items I am looking at, I would appreciate it if I could get some feed back on these products:

Remote

http://www.amazon.com/Aputure-Coworker-Wireless-Powershot-Replaces/dp/B002KDXQKG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&...

Remote

http://www.amazon.com/Neewer-Wireless-Shutter-Release-Control/dp/B004WB8EYM/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1...

I already have a tripod and thought a remote would be a better way of taking a group photo instead of me setting a 10 second timer and running into the frame.

Lens Filters

http://www.amazon.com/Professional-Filter-Accessory-CANON-Cameras/dp/B0053V5MF4/ref=cm_cd_al_qh_dp_t

I believe these are supposed to reduce the light/sunshine that shows up in photos sometimes. But I am new to this, so I am not exactly sure which color lens will help me the most and in what situations. Also, this looks like some cheap made in China stuff, hence the low price. Is it good enough or a waste of money

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Delectronics&field-keywords=rebel%20t3%20le...

When I search for "Rebel T3 lens filter kit" the results show "58mm len filter" but my lens is 18-55... is it compatible? I am confused.

All feedback is welcome! I am open to any suggestions and product recomendations.

Thank you. 

[TCampbell]

The Canon EOS Rebel T3 doesn't have an IR receiver like most other EOS bodies.  It can be triggered by "wired" remote, and some vendors make a "wired" module which you connect to the camera... but their module can be triggered by their own wireless remote.    This is basically how the "Aputure" device in your link is working.  The "Neewer" device emulates Canon's own remote, but that particular device is designed to work with cameras that have a builtin IR receiver.

As for filters...  a few basics:

1)  Filters thread onto the front of the lens.  Lenses come in different sizes so naturally the diameter of the threads would be different.  Your lens has 58mm diameter threads so you need 58mm diameter filters to fit.  Also note, however, that if you buy additional lenses in the future and if the lens uses a different thread size then you'd have to use different filters to fit that lens.  Almost all of my own lenses are 77mm diamter, but I do have one lens that has 67mm diameter (and also one at 82mm).  I have lots of 77mm diameter filters, but I don't have any 67mm filters... instead I have a 67-77mm "step up ring" (it's 67mm on the side that attaches to the lens, and 77mm on the other side so that I can attach my 77mm filters.   The step-up-ring is very inexpensive (I think mine may have been $15).  But you can only "step up" ... you wouldn't want to "step down" as this would cause the edges of the filters to show up in the image.

2)  Filters, being flat, can create reflections which show up in your images as "ghosting" or "flare".  Use with caution and if you see strange artifacts in your images resembling paranormal activity... you would want to remove the filter and reshoot.

3)  Your camera has a built-in UV & IR filter located directly in front of the sensor.  This is necessary in digital cameras -- so they all have the filters on the camera already.  The thread-on UV filters are a hold-over from film days in which there was no built-in filter in front of the film plane.  Bottom line:  you don't need a UV filter on a digital camera.

That's two points for why filters are unnecessary and potentially may degrade your image quality.  But there are some times when filters are beneficial:

1)  A polarizing filter helps reduce reflections in your image and its surprising how many places you get reflections where you wouldn't think you'd find them (like in microsocopic particles in the air.)  When you use a polarizer you can cut the reflections off plant foliage and even in the sky.   Plants look "greener", and the sky looks "bluer".  The filter seems to help saturate the colors (it's really just blocking the reflections which were preventing you from seeing the true colors.)

You would want a "circular polarizer".  Avoid "linear polarizers" or sometimes called "top polarizers".  The phase-detect focusing sytem in DSLR cameras as well as the metering system can struggle to lock focus if the light is polarized.  A "circular polarizer" really is a "linear polarizer" except that it has an additional layer on the backside that they refer to as a quarter-wave plate.  This alters the light so that the focusing and metering systems in the camera will function properly.

2)  Neutral density filters -- think of these as "sunglasses for your lens".  They reduce the amount of light which can pass through the filter.   It's purpose is to change the shooting circumstances of the shot because it can allow you to slow the shutter speed or increase the aperture size.  They are often used to help "imply motion" in a shot because it can allow you to slow the shutter enough that objects in motion will appear blurred in your image (shots of running water and waterfalls are VERY popular with these types of filters.)  They do come in various "densities" (the amount of light they block).  

If you only get one neutral density filter, I'd probably suggest a 3-stop version.  But the filter might not be noted as  "3 stop"... they are often labeled with a density notion where each "0.1" worth of density equals 1/3rd of a stop.  Thus 0.3 is 1 stop.  0.6 is 2 stops, and 0.9 is 3 stops.   Those gorgeous waterfall picures where the water looks especially smooth and creamy are typically shot with a 10-stop version (ND 3.0).  But the complication with a 10 stop filter is that it blocks so much light that the camera cannot see to focus or meter.  You have to take these shots manually... metering and focusing without the filter.  Then switch off auto-focus, carefully thread on the filter (without bumping focus), and manually increase the exposure time by 10 stops longer than whatever you metered.

There is other types of filters which start to get a bit more advanced.  E.g. "gradient" neutral density filters are clear on one half and tinted on the other and they are usually rectangular and slide into a special holder.  They're popular for landscapes because you can darken the sky (commonly over-exposed) without darkening the landscape below.

There are also special effects filters... but much of this can now be handled by the software on a computer (although often a true filter will do a better job than the computer software).  

The computer cannot do what a polarizing filter does (if you need to polarize a shot, you must use a real polarizing filter -- this cannot be done with software.)  And since the point of a neutral density filter is to change the shooting cirumstances to allow for a different exposure then you'd otherwise have had to shoot... you also can't emulate that on the computer.

This brings us to lens hoods.

The hoods on zoom lenses often have a strange "tulip" shape to them.  This is because the angle of view is wider when you zoom out (short focal lengths) and if not for cutting out bits of the lens hood, the lens would actually "see" the sides of the hood in the corners of the frame (causing "vignetting" in your shots.)  

As such, hoods tend to be made for the specific lens -- they're designed to handle the specific angles of view that the lens has.  Canon's own hood for the 18-55mm lens isn't a tulip.  It's just a very shallow hood.  

Note that the T3 comes with the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II.  Canon also makes the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 STM.  You would not have the STM version of the lens with the T3 (it's not what they bundle as the kit lens).  The STM uses a different hood than the non-STM.  Make sure that any hood you look at is for the non-STM version of the lens.

Most people are probably not going to bother with the hood for the kit lens.  Some of the longer zooms can have deeper hoods where it provides a noticeable benefit, but on wide-angle lenses where things are shallow, there are limited circumstances where the hood helps.  I have a 24mm tilt-shift lens.  That lens comes with the hood included.  But I don't bother to carry the hood becuase it takes up space in my bag to carry a hood that would rarely be a benefit.  In those circumstances I'll just hold something adjacent to the lens to block the light (e.g. hold your hand, a booklet, etc. to block the light from hitting the front glass without the thing you are holding being visible in the image.)

[Zyclone]

Thank you so much for the wealth of information @TCampbell and @ebiggs1 !

How can I tell which remote is better for my camera between these two?

http://www.amazon.com/Infrared-Replacement-Powershot-MagicFiber-Microfiber/dp/B001OAC4WC/ref=sr_1_13...

http://www.amazon.com/Aputure-Coworker-Wireless-Powershot-Replaces/dp/B002KDXQKG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&...

The fish eye and the telephoto lens sound like I could make some fun photos, and it comes with the filters and hoods as a bonus. Is it worth the $100 for a casual user?

http://www.amazon.com/58MM-Professional-Accessory-CANON-REBEL/dp/B0057CPD1M/ref=sr_1_20?s=electronic...

Or should I keep it simple and get these filters.

http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-Definition-Professional-Piece-Filter/dp/B0054RJ77Q/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&q...

---

@TCampbell wrote:

The Canon EOS Rebel T3 doesn't have an IR receiver like most other EOS bodies.  It can be triggered by "wired" remote, and some vendors make a "wired" module which you connect to the camera... but their module can be triggered by their own wireless remote.    This is basically how the "Aputure" device in your link is working.  The "Neewer" device emulates Canon's own remote, but that particular device is designed to work with cameras that have a builtin IR receiver.

As for filters...  a few basics:

1)  Filters thread onto the front of the lens.  Lenses come in different sizes so naturally the diameter of the threads would be different.  Your lens has 58mm diameter threads so you need 58mm diameter filters to fit.  Also note, however, that if you buy additional lenses in the future and if the lens uses a different thread size then you'd have to use different filters to fit that lens.  Almost all of my own lenses are 77mm diamter, but I do have one lens that has 67mm diameter (and also one at 82mm).  I have lots of 77mm diameter filters, but I don't have any 67mm filters... instead I have a 67-77mm "step up ring" (it's 67mm on the side that attaches to the lens, and 77mm on the other side so that I can attach my 77mm filters.   The step-up-ring is very inexpensive (I think mine may have been $15).  But you can only "step up" ... you wouldn't want to "step down" as this would cause the edges of the filters to show up in the image.

2)  Filters, being flat, can create reflections which show up in your images as "ghosting" or "flare".  Use with caution and if you see strange artifacts in your images resembling paranormal activity... you would want to remove the filter and reshoot.

3)  Your camera has a built-in UV & IR filter located directly in front of the sensor.  This is necessary in digital cameras -- so they all have the filters on the camera already.  The thread-on UV filters are a hold-over from film days in which there was no built-in filter in front of the film plane.  Bottom line:  you don't need a UV filter on a digital camera.

That's two points for why filters are unnecessary and potentially may degrade your image quality.  But there are some times when filters are beneficial:

1)  A polarizing filter helps reduce reflections in your image and its surprising how many places you get reflections where you wouldn't think you'd find them (like in microsocopic particles in the air.)  When you use a polarizer you can cut the reflections off plant foliage and even in the sky.   Plants look "greener", and the sky looks "bluer".  The filter seems to help saturate the colors (it's really just blocking the reflections which were preventing you from seeing the true colors.)

You would want a "circular polarizer".  Avoid "linear polarizers" or sometimes called "top polarizers".  The phase-detect focusing sytem in DSLR cameras as well as the metering system can struggle to lock focus if the light is polarized.  A "circular polarizer" really is a "linear polarizer" except that it has an additional layer on the backside that they refer to as a quarter-wave plate.  This alters the light so that the focusing and metering systems in the camera will function properly.

2)  Neutral density filters -- think of these as "sunglasses for your lens".  They reduce the amount of light which can pass through the filter.   It's purpose is to change the shooting circumstances of the shot because it can allow you to slow the shutter speed or increase the aperture size.  They are often used to help "imply motion" in a shot because it can allow you to slow the shutter enough that objects in motion will appear blurred in your image (shots of running water and waterfalls are VERY popular with these types of filters.)  They do come in various "densities" (the amount of light they block).  

If you only get one neutral density filter, I'd probably suggest a 3-stop version.  But the filter might not be noted as  "3 stop"... they are often labeled with a density notion where each "0.1" worth of density equals 1/3rd of a stop.  Thus 0.3 is 1 stop.  0.6 is 2 stops, and 0.9 is 3 stops.   Those gorgeous waterfall picures where the water looks especially smooth and creamy are typically shot with a 10-stop version (ND 3.0).  But the complication with a 10 stop filter is that it blocks so much light that the camera cannot see to focus or meter.  You have to take these shots manually... metering and focusing without the filter.  Then switch off auto-focus, carefully thread on the filter (without bumping focus), and manually increase the exposure time by 10 stops longer than whatever you metered.

There is other types of filters which start to get a bit more advanced.  E.g. "gradient" neutral density filters are clear on one half and tinted on the other and they are usually rectangular and slide into a special holder.  They're popular for landscapes because you can darken the sky (commonly over-exposed) without darkening the landscape below.

There are also special effects filters... but much of this can now be handled by the software on a computer (although often a true filter will do a better job than the computer software).  

The computer cannot do what a polarizing filter does (if you need to polarize a shot, you must use a real polarizing filter -- this cannot be done with software.)  And since the point of a neutral density filter is to change the shooting cirumstances to allow for a different exposure then you'd otherwise have had to shoot... you also can't emulate that on the computer.

This brings us to lens hoods.

The hoods on zoom lenses often have a strange "tulip" shape to them.  This is because the angle of view is wider when you zoom out (short focal lengths) and if not for cutting out bits of the lens hood, the lens would actually "see" the sides of the hood in the corners of the frame (causing "vignetting" in your shots.)  

As such, hoods tend to be made for the specific lens -- they're designed to handle the specific angles of view that the lens has.  Canon's own hood for the 18-55mm lens isn't a tulip.  It's just a very shallow hood.  

Note that the T3 comes with the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II.  Canon also makes the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 STM.  You would not have the STM version of the lens with the T3 (it's not what they bundle as the kit lens).  The STM uses a different hood than the non-STM.  Make sure that any hood you look at is for the non-STM version of the lens.

Most people are probably not going to bother with the hood for the kit lens.  Some of the longer zooms can have deeper hoods where it provides a noticeable benefit, but on wide-angle lenses where things are shallow, there are limited circumstances where the hood helps.  I have a 24mm tilt-shift lens.  That lens comes with the hood included.  But I don't bother to carry the hood becuase it takes up space in my bag to carry a hood that would rarely be a benefit.  In those circumstances I'll just hold something adjacent to the lens to block the light (e.g. hold your hand, a booklet, etc. to block the light from hitting the front glass without the thing you are holding being visible in the image.)

---

[ebiggs1]

Either remote looks as if it will  work with your camera.  I never tried or even seen either of them.

Everything else is not worth the electrons to send the ad to your computer.  IMHO, of course.  But the Opetka set is the better choice.

[Zyclone]

Thanks for the suggestions!