Can you tell the difference in picture quality of Canon's 40D/EOS XTI/XSI?

[Mysteriouskk]

Would it be better to get the XTI and a $500 lens, XSI and kit lens, or 40D kit lens?

Is it easy to tell the difference between a kit lens and a $500 lens?

What about a $500 lens and a $1000 lens?

 

[GTaudiophile]

Wow, that's a loaded question.

As they say, "bodies come and go but lenses are forever".

I tend to believe that an XTI + L Glass is better than a 40D + $100 lens.

Now $500 vs. $1000? Totally depends on the lens type. Some say that the EF 70-200 F4L IS lens is worth the $500 over its non-IS counterpart. Indeed the 70-200 F4L IS has the reputation of being one of Canon's finest.

Now, the $600 17-40 F4L versus the $1200 16-35 F2.8L MkII? I have read that the 17-40 is 95% as good, as long as you are shooting in an environment where 2.8 is not necessary.

So it really depends.

 

[ElFenix]

xti kit lens is by far the cheapest piece of glass there. assuming that you took the same picture with all 3 cameras, i'd just look for the softest one and that'd be the xti with kit lens. slrgear shows that the new 18-55 IS lens is sharper than the 28-135 that comes with the 40D, so, combined with the fact that the xsi will capture more detail, i'd be able to pick those out too.


but if you were to just take several different pictures and resized the xsi pics to 10 mp, i doubt i could just ID one with any regularity.


if it's a question of money i'd get the xti with the new 18-55 IS lens (the lens that comes with the xsi).

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Wow, that's a loaded question.

As they say, "bodies come and go but lenses are forever".

I tend to believe that an XTI + L Glass is better than a 40D + $100 lens.

Now $500 vs. $1000? Totally depends on the lens type. Some say that the EF 70-200 F4L IS lens is worth the $500 over its non-IS counterpart. Indeed the 70-200 F4L IS has the reputation of being one of Canon's finest.

Now, the $600 17-40 F4L versus the $1200 16-35 F2.8L MkII? I have read that the 17-40 is 95% as good, as long as you are shooting in an environment where 2.8 is not necessary.

So it really depends.

I have the 70-200 F4L IS and I never regretted spending the extra dollars for the IS.

 

[Deadtrees]

You won't see a difference when it comes down to the image quality of those cameras. Get whatever offeres the best deal. I'd suggest 40D as it's got better controls/grip.

The lens...You may notice a difference or not. It really depends on how serious you become. You'd be using a cropped sensor so that the quality of corner area expensive lenses offer
wouldn't matter. You may not develop pictures large enough for the quality details to appear. You may not care at all about the bokeh. You may not care about these and those stuffs the others care.

Those questions that you've asked will be only answered by you in time. For now, just get whatever 'feels' good and a cheap kit lens.

 

[Jawo]

I have really enjoyed using my XTI with grip. I also have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and Canon 70-300 IS USM f/4-5.6. Its a good camera and I have enjoyed shooting with it very much. With the XSi out now the XTi should be really cheap. It really depends on what you like the best and what you can afford.

Go with the best body you can afford, but still able to buy nice glass.

 

[rudder]

I don't think the sensor is neutered in anyway. The price difference comes from the added features of the 40D... a magnesium frame for one, 6.5 fps, etc.