Get a Canon XTI with a good lens or 40d with included lens?

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Mysteriouskk
Would most people recommend either canon or nikon?

They are more alike than different. Go to the store (Best Buy, Circuit City, etc.) and hold a Nikon and a Canon in your hand. Play with the menus. Look through the viewfinder. See what you like better.

Personally, I shoot two Nikon bodies and six lenses. No complaints. I've found that Nikon's lenses/flashes to be less expensive than their Canon equivalents, especially on the used market.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: punchkin
The noise is evident even at 400 ISO.

Here is a full-size ISO 400 image from the XSi from Canon's website. What noise are you referring to?

the user reports or the reviews or anything else... go on giving bad advice.

There aren't any XSi user reviews. The XSi hasn't shipped yet; your reviews and reports don't even exist yet (outside of your own mind).

I would highly question technical advice from a person that can't even copy/paste a URL into a forum post.

I was writing of the user reviews related to cameras with the XSi's AF module, i.e. the 30D and 400D, and the user reviews of the .40D Your technique is called "quoting out of context", and it's hard for some AT posters to get past, apparently. Welcome to adulthood.

This particular ISO 400 image shows the effects of heavy noise reduction.

Have a nice life. You may learn to argue some day. In the meantime, remember, among other things, that making bald assertions of fact such as "model X will surely be better" don't qualify.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Mysteriouskk
Is the 40d a lot more bulky than the xsi?

It is more comfortable to hold. Many people look past this in the interests of lower budget and/or size constraints-- some even claim after making this decision that a smaller grip feels better. Who's to say if this is actually true? In any event, the proper way to shoot handheld is usually with your left hand supporting the lens, so unless you are planning to do extended shooting sessions, the grip size won't matter much.

Would most people recommend either canon or nikon?

Yes.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: punchkin

You'll lose that bet if you actually make it with someone. Samples are up on the web already, and reviews will follow. You have painted a rosier picture of the XSi than reality. The 40D's AF will blow it away. It's not only got around half the frame rate of the 40D, but a smaller buffer. Most people don't actually use Live View; it's a frill. Etc. etc. etc. In addition, the 18-55 IS can be had much cheaper than $190.

i couldn't fill the buffer using jpegs with on an XTi with a high speed CF card. an even higher speed SD card should keep the XSi running along smoothly.

the live view implementation is actually better on the XSi than the 40D. it has contrast-detect AF, so it can focus with the mirror up. you can use the XSi as a big digicam if you want. XTi has no live view.

further, the 18-55 IS (which comes with the XSi, not the XTi) has a better range for APS-C cameras such as the XSi and 40D than the 28-135 that comes with the 40D. further, i think the 28-135 is a bit slow in the portrait range to get the background blur that is desirable for portraits. additionally, the 28-135 is in no way a landscape lens. lastly, the XTi's 18-55 is known as pretty much the worst kit lens of any of the SLRs on the market today. if you're price sensitive you might want to get the XTi without lens and then the 18-55 IS. then you can add a ~100mm macro lens and get both portrait and macro out of the way. or you could add the canon 50 f/1.8 and a set of extension tubes for macro, and use the lens without tubes for a torso portrait lens.

the XTi is not what i would call a good camera for macro, however. the viewfinder is small and when you've got a macro lens on it's widest aperture it will be hard to ensure the focus is where you want it. the XSi, with it's live view, will be much better for macro work. depending on how fast the contrast detect AF is, it may be better than the 40D for macro work on moving subjects (bugs).

as for which (XTi vs. XSi vs. 40D) is more comfortable: a) that's personal preference, and b) most likely no one here has seen an XSi in person, let alone held one, so take any advice about it with a grain of salt. i never had a problem with the XTi, myself. but then again i don't have huge hands.

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: punchkin
The noise is evident even at 400 ISO.

Here is a full-size ISO 400 image from the XSi from Canon's website. What noise are you referring to?

the user reports or the reviews or anything else... go on giving bad advice.

There aren't any XSi user reviews. The XSi hasn't shipped yet; your reviews and reports don't even exist yet (outside of your own mind).

I would highly question technical advice from a person that can't even copy/paste a URL into a forum post.

I was writing of the user reviews related to cameras with the XSi's AF module, i.e. the 30D and 400D, and the user reviews of the .40D Your technique is called "quoting out of context", and it's hard for some AT posters to get past, apparently. Welcome to adulthood.

This particular ISO 400 image shows the effects of heavy noise reduction.

Have a nice life. You may learn to argue some day. In the meantime, remember, among other things, that making bald assertions of fact such as "model X will surely be better" don't qualify.

#1: cool off

#2: what "heavy" noise reduction evidence are you seeing? are you sure it isn't caused by JPEG compression or being slightly out of focus?
I'm looking at the center rider's hairs. I can see them fairly well, especially for being slightly out of focus. Sure there's some noise reduction, because some is required at any ISO above the base sensitivity of the sensor, but I wouldn't describe it as "heavy". Believe me, I can show you heavy noise reduction from ISO1600 shots from my D50.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
additionally, the 28-135 is in no way a landscape lens.

Yes it is. That range preserves detail to the traditional landscape shots. UWA lenses render the sky and ground with too much real estate.
For example, you are in a meadow looking at a mountain range in the distance, typical calandar type shot. Some guys anxious to try out there new UWA would go nuts. Only to realize that the sky and foreground take up too much real estate, and the mountains only take a sliver of the image instead of getting the traditional 1/3.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: punchkin
I was writing of the user reviews related to cameras with the XSi's AF module, i.e. the 30D and 400D, and the user reviews of the .40D

Here is what DPReview said about the XSi AF sensor:

Although we've not had a chance to test the changes, Canon is claiming the AF system has been revised in the XSi / 450D. Certainly the AF chip appears to be different to the one we showed in the 400D review.

The premier digital camera review site says the AF chip is different than the one used in the 400D, and you admitted using reviews of the 400D AF chip to come to your conclusion. I'm making an educated guess that Canon has changed the AF software too, to go along with the hardware changes.

In the meantime, remember, among other things, that making bald assertions of fact such as "model X will surely be better" don't qualify.

You mean like this bald assertion:

Originally posted by: punchkin
The 40D's AF will blow it away.

 

[Fardringle]

jpeyton, if you are going to feed the trolls, at least get some good pictures and post them online for us.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: punchkin
I was writing of the user reviews related to cameras with the XSi's AF module, i.e. the 30D and 400D, and the user reviews of the .40D

Here is what DPReview said about the XSi AF sensor:

Although we've not had a chance to test the changes, Canon is claiming the AF system has been revised in the XSi / 450D. Certainly the AF chip appears to be different to the one we showed in the 400D review.

The premier digital camera review site says the AF chip is different than the one used in the 400D, and you admitted using reviews of the 400D AF chip to come to your conclusion. I'm making an educated guess that Canon has changed the AF software too, to go along with the hardware changes.

In the meantime, remember, among other things, that making bald assertions of fact such as "model X will surely be better" don't qualify.

You mean like this bald assertion:

Originally posted by: punchkin
The 40D's AF will blow it away.

It is still in the air. I don't see how a chip and a new algorithm will make the XSi's AF better unless it offers cross point sensors on all points, and extra assist points around the center like the 40D's.

 

[Mysteriouskk]

So I guess getting either camera, Xsi or 40d is pretty much safe...

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: Mysteriouskk
So I guess getting either camera, Xsi or 40d is pretty much safe...

By all means yes. The Xsi looks like the best DRebel since the original 300D.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: ElFenix
additionally, the 28-135 is in no way a landscape lens.

Yes it is. That range preserves detail to the traditional landscape shots. UWA lenses render the sky and ground with too much real estate.
For example, you are in a meadow looking at a mountain range in the distance, typical calandar type shot. Some guys anxious to try out there new UWA would go nuts. Only to realize that the sky and foreground take up too much real estate, and the mountains only take a sliver of the image instead of getting the traditional 1/3.

i guess you're right about that. use the proper length for the composition you need. i just think the 28-135 is a bit limited on APS-C bodies because it is completely lacking in wide angle. you might need to move further away from your subject landscape than you can get.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: Mysteriouskk
Is the 40d a lot more bulky than the xsi?

Would most people recommend either canon or nikon?

I would say it depends on how serious you want to get with your photography. Head over to the buy and sell forum on Fredmiranda.com. Pretty much all you will see is canon and nikon glass for sale. This can be a significant savings. I primarily buy used lenses and never had any issues with them. Plus the overall selection for those two bodies is better now.

Now if you don't anticipate ever getting past the need for 1 or 2 lenses, sure look at Pentax, Sony, etc. Then base your decision on ergonomics and such since most cameras will be comparable in quality.

 

[91TTZ]

I would go for the good lens, my reason being that lenses hold their value better than the body. When the body and its sensor are outdated, good glass is still good glass. The glass is the main investment.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: Mysteriouskk
So I guess getting either camera, Xsi or 40d is pretty much safe...

By all means yes. The Xsi looks like the best DRebel since the original 300D.

& no doubt the ergonomics & viewfinder will also suck

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: dug777
& no doubt the ergonomics & viewfinder will also suck

what the fuck is wrong with you? Go molest your D80.


Stop the insults now.

esquared
Anandtech Senior Moderator

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: Mysteriouskk
So I guess getting either camera, Xsi or 40d is pretty much safe...

By all means yes. The Xsi looks like the best DRebel since the original 300D.

& no doubt the ergonomics & viewfinder will also suck

You seem to know a lot about sucking. While I don't doubt your vast experience on the subject, you could try contributing something instead of being a twit on the forum. Get rid of the fanboy mentality.

Same goes for you. Knock off with the insults.

esquared
Anandtech Senior Moderator

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: Mysteriouskk
So I guess getting either camera, Xsi or 40d is pretty much safe...

By all means yes. The Xsi looks like the best DRebel since the original 300D.

& no doubt the ergonomics & viewfinder will also suck

You seem to know a lot about sucking. While I don't doubt your vast experience on the subject, you could try contributing something instead of being a twit on the forum. Get rid of the fanboy mentality.

Cool your jets with the personal insults :roll:

Ask a broad group of DSLR users what they don't like about the 350D & 400D, and they would all highlight the ergonomics & viewfinder, especially when compared to the 400D's most direct competitor from Nikon, the D80, or the K10D from Pentax, or even the Alpha.

It has an excellent low noise @high ISO sensor, and of course it takes a huge range of excellent Canon lenses, but if you can save up for the 40D you get a bigger, much more comfortable body, and a much bigger, brighter viewfinder...since you hold it and look through it to use it, they're hardly inconsequential factors.

You may not like my views on that, but they're hardly the views of a 'twit' or 'someone who sucks a lot of dick' (I'm not sure the latter insult was called for, or indeed in any way appropriate on here), as you suggest.

For what it's worth, I'm very impressed with both the ergonomics and viewfinder on the 40D

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: Mysteriouskk
So I guess getting either camera, Xsi or 40d is pretty much safe...

By all means yes. The Xsi looks like the best DRebel since the original 300D.

& no doubt the ergonomics & viewfinder will also suck

You seem to know a lot about sucking. While I don't doubt your vast experience on the subject, you could try contributing something instead of being a twit on the forum. Get rid of the fanboy mentality.

Cool your jets with the personal insults :roll:

Ask a broad group of DSLR users what they don't like about the 350D & 400D, and they would all highlight the ergonomics & viewfinder, especially when compared to the 400D's most direct competitor from Nikon, the D80, or the K10D from Pentax, or even the Alpha.

It has an excellent low noise @high ISO sensor, and of course it takes a huge range of excellent Canon lenses, but if you can save up for the 40D you get a bigger, much more comfortable body, and a much bigger, brighter viewfinder...since you hold it and look through it to use it, they're hardly inconsequential factors.

You may not like my views on that, but they're hardly the views of a 'twit' or 'someone who sucks a lot of dick' (I'm not sure the latter insult was called for, or indeed in any way appropriate on here), as you suggest.

For what it's worth, I'm very impressed with both the ergonomics and viewfinder on the 40D

The 450D viewfinder appears to be nearly the same size as the 40D viewfinder. I don't think most people looking at that camera will be hung up on the brightness of the viewfinder. I actually feel that Canon could usefully create an even smaller camera, and would love pancake lenses in Canon mount... I think you have to remember how most people will use these cameras.

The 400D shooting experience will be vastly superior to the point-and-shoot experience, and the viewfinder may seem beautiful to someone who's never used a better one. In addition, many more advanced shooters seem to use cameras like the 400D as a smaller walkabout/less serious camera, family snapshot camera or what have you, and seem willing to put up with the smaller viewfinder, although more would be better. I don't see many people using these cameras for manual focus.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: Mysteriouskk
So I guess getting either camera, Xsi or 40d is pretty much safe...

By all means yes. The Xsi looks like the best DRebel since the original 300D.

& no doubt the ergonomics & viewfinder will also suck

You seem to know a lot about sucking. While I don't doubt your vast experience on the subject, you could try contributing something instead of being a twit on the forum. Get rid of the fanboy mentality.

Cool your jets with the personal insults :roll:

Ask a broad group of DSLR users what they don't like about the 350D & 400D, and they would all highlight the ergonomics & viewfinder, especially when compared to the 400D's most direct competitor from Nikon, the D80, or the K10D from Pentax, or even the Alpha.

It has an excellent low noise @high ISO sensor, and of course it takes a huge range of excellent Canon lenses, but if you can save up for the 40D you get a bigger, much more comfortable body, and a much bigger, brighter viewfinder...since you hold it and look through it to use it, they're hardly inconsequential factors.

You may not like my views on that, but they're hardly the views of a 'twit' or 'someone who sucks a lot of dick' (I'm not sure the latter insult was called for, or indeed in any way appropriate on here), as you suggest.

For what it's worth, I'm very impressed with both the ergonomics and viewfinder on the 40D

The 450D viewfinder appears to be nearly the same size as the 40D viewfinder. I don't think most people looking at that camera will be hung up on the brightness of the viewfinder. I actually feel that Canon could usefully create an even smaller camera, and would love pancake lenses in Canon mount... I think you have to remember how most people will use these cameras.

The 400D shooting experience will be vastly superior to the point-and-shoot experience, and the viewfinder may seem beautiful to someone who's never used a better one. In addition, many more advanced shooters seem to use cameras like the 400D as a smaller walkabout/less serious camera, family snapshot camera or what have you, and seem willing to put up with the smaller viewfinder, although more would be better. I don't see many people using these cameras for manual focus.

I'd still (quite stubbornly ) note that the 40D is a pentaprism 95%/.95x/22mm eyepoint as opposed to a 450D pentamirror95%/0.87x/19mm eyepoint, and at the margins those things do make quite a difference to the user.

I don't dislike it being small, but I think it can be done a lot more comfortably than the 400D, which just feels hella cramped. The D40/x/60 must be a comparable size, or maybe even smaller (?), and it's very comfortable to hold and use (although I missed the top lcd terribly).

You make some good points however, and of course the electronics are top notch, and the Canon lens range is extremely comprehensive.

It will let you take awesome photos, but then, so will pretty much any other big brand DSLR these days, and then things like viewfinders, ergonomics and top lcds become important, especially if you try shooting with a range of cameras before you buy.

 

[punchkin]

It looks like the XSi's noise performance really is pretty poor.
http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos450d_preview/

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: punchkin
It looks like the XSi's noise performance really is pretty poor.
http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos450d_preview/

Are you being facetious? I don't see anything out of whack. Only the boxer one, but that is just a horrible picture in everyway.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: punchkin
It looks like the XSi's noise performance really is pretty poor.
http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos450d_preview/

Are you being facetious? I don't see anything out of whack. Only the boxer one, but that is just a horrible picture in everyway.

No, not at all. The camera seems to destroy a huge amount of detail at higher ISOs. Check out the bicyclist picture at ISO 1600, for example.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: punchkin
No, not at all. The camera seems to destroy a huge amount of detail at higher ISOs. Check out the bicyclist picture at ISO 1600, for example.

gah, not another camera with built in over agressive NR. I hate this trend.

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: punchkin
No, not at all. The camera seems to destroy a huge amount of detail at higher ISOs. Check out the bicyclist picture at ISO 1600, for example.

gah, not another camera with built in over agressive NR. I hate this trend.

I was just looking at 100% crops of D300 images at high ISOs, and the fine texture detail is just wiped out by noise reduction. So, apparently the D300 and D200 sensors have the same light-gathering ability, but the D300 applies better noise reduction.