I just picked up the Rebel XTi/400d

[foghorn67]

It's an small step. I am waiting out for the 30d replacement. Or maybe something will be offered inbetween the 30d and the 5d.
I will probably loose anywhere from 75-125 bucks after selling the XT. But I really needed the AF. It is a world of difference. It's actually the same AF servo as the 30d, including the algorithims (sp?).
I got really frustrated doing portraits once. The Center AF point was over the hair and the cheekbone, and it would be random on what part of the head was selected.
This time it is focusing on what you aim it at, way more accurate. And it's way more responsive.
The bigger LCD is a bonus, I really like it now. The missing 'settings' display isn't missed. It's easier to dial in the settings, and it goes away when your eye is at the viewfinder. If it really bugs just hit the display button.
Noise with increased resolution? There is something slight with the blacks at high ISO, but the other colors are way better. And the resolution will show easily when cropping.
Time will tell when I get some more shots in, but so far I am liking the upgrade...while waiting for something else.

 

[Mikey]

Does the Rebel XTi have image stabilization also? I'm a bit noob about cameras, but I'm really considering getting the XTi sometime soon.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Mikey
Does the Rebel XTi have image stabilization also? I'm a bit noob about cameras, but I'm really considering getting the XTi sometime soon.

Canon's image stabilization is in the lenses, not in the camera body. So any Canon has image stabilization if you buy IS lenses.

To the OP: You need AF for portraits? The people are sitting still, why not just focus manually?

ZV

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Mikey
Does the Rebel XTi have image stabilization also? I'm a bit noob about cameras, but I'm really considering getting the XTi sometime soon.

Canon's image stabilization is in the lenses, not in the camera body. So any Canon has image stabilization if you buy IS lenses.

To the OP: You need AF for portraits? The people are sitting still, focus the bloody thing manually.

ZV

It's hard to do so with the Rebel's cruddy viewfinder

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Mikey
Does the Rebel XTi have image stabilization also? I'm a bit noob about cameras, but I'm really considering getting the XTi sometime soon.

Canon's image stabilization is in the lenses, not in the camera body. So any Canon has image stabilization if you buy IS lenses.

To the OP: You need AF for portraits? The people are sitting still, why not just focus manually?

ZV

In some portraits, the subject is supposed to be rock solid still. In others, you want them to move to capture some emotion. If you get them to laugh, most people don't laugh standing still. Their head moves. It means alot if you shoot with fast lenses wide open.

 

[randay]

Cool thanks for the post! I'm planning on buying one soon too. Is AF as necessary for macro? Is it really really hard to manual focus? I think the 5x macro lens only comes in manual focus

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
It's hard to do so with the Rebel's cruddy viewfinder

I miss the time when great bodies were within the reach of more people. Shoot, I'm paid more for my used Contax RTS II than it cost new and it was still under $400. The thing's a brick too. I could use it as a bludgeon. Thing will probably keep working for as long as I can find PX-28 batteries for it. (OK, so maybe I'm a wee bit miffed that the body that could actually make me go digital, the 5D, costs more than my first car and probably won't last as long as my cheapo screw-mount Chinon CE-3 has.)

ZV

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: randay
Cool thanks for the post! I'm planning on buying one soon too. Is AF as necessary for macro? Is it really really hard to manual focus? I think the 5x macro lens only comes in manual focus

AF is not necessary for macro. Most people just set the lens to manual focus and then move the camera in and out, shooting off shots as the subject moves into focus. IMO autofocus is pointless because the depth of field is so shallow.

At 5x magnification autofocus would be even more pointless. Moving the camera a millimeter forward and back can really change the focus. In fact, it's hard just finding your subject at 5x.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Mikey
Does the Rebel XTi have image stabilization also? I'm a bit noob about cameras, but I'm really considering getting the XTi sometime soon.

Canon's image stabilization is in the lenses, not in the camera body. So any Canon has image stabilization if you buy IS lenses.

To the OP: You need AF for portraits? The people are sitting still, why not just focus manually?

ZV

In some portraits, the subject is supposed to be rock solid still. In others, you want them to move to capture some emotion. If you get them to laugh, most people don't laugh standing still. Their head moves. It means alot if you shoot with fast lenses wide open.

Point. Though I haven't had a problem with an f/1.7 manual focus lens even when when shooting people laughing. Of course, I usually shoot people with a 135 f/2.8 wide open and Neopan 1600 (I like the grain), so it's not like I'm shooting with an f/1.4 lens to know a really small DOF.

ZV

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
It's hard to do so with the Rebel's cruddy viewfinder

I miss the time when great bodies were within the reach of more people. Shoot, I'm paid more for my used Contax RTS II than it cost new and it was still under $400. The thing's a brick too. I could use it as a bludgeon. Thing will probably keep working for as long as I can find PX-28 batteries for it. (OK, so maybe I'm a wee bit miffed that the body that could actually make me go digital, the 5D, costs more than my first car and probably won't last as long as my cheapo screw-mount Chinon CE-3 has.)

ZV

Yeah, I understand the frustration. As far as viewfinders go, crop sensor viewfinders will ALWAYS be smaller and dimmer than FF viewfinders due to optical restrictions. So even a $6,000 1.6x crop sensor camera will still have a viewfinder that pales in comparison to a FF viewfinder, or even a viewfinder on a cheapo Rebel Ti film body.

I think the price is justified though. I once did a very ballpark calculation of possible film and development costs based on my shooting behavior, and it came to something like I could easily blow $100+ in a single weekend.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Mikey
Does the Rebel XTi have image stabilization also? I'm a bit noob about cameras, but I'm really considering getting the XTi sometime soon.

Canon's image stabilization is in the lenses, not in the camera body. So any Canon has image stabilization if you buy IS lenses.

To the OP: You need AF for portraits? The people are sitting still, why not just focus manually?

ZV

In some portraits, the subject is supposed to be rock solid still. In others, you want them to move to capture some emotion. If you get them to laugh, most people don't laugh standing still. Their head moves. It means alot if you shoot with fast lenses wide open.

Point. Though I haven't had a problem with an f/1.7 manual focus lens even when when shooting people laughing. Of course, I usually shoot people with a 135 f/2.8 wide open and Neopan 1600 (I like the grain), so it's not like I'm shooting with an f/1.4 lens to know a really small DOF.

ZV

This was with a Tamron 28-75 2.8. Fast for a zoom, not for a prime. Shooting ISO 100 with two flashes. I will post the gallery tomorrow. Smugmug is down for maint tonight
One misfocus was a bonus. Her hair was razor sharp, and her face gently blurred out. One of my best shots was a mistake.
ooo wait, that shot was with the sigma 70-200 2.8...yeah, really needed to be more accurate with beast of a lens.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
It's hard to do so with the Rebel's cruddy viewfinder

and these words are probably the biggest gripe I have about my 300D. I got an extender too because I wear glasses.. no way could I deal with it. I can deal with the 1.6x crop, so I'm waiting for the "50D." Yes, I'm waiting for two more generations.. that's when I'll be able to dump money into the next generation used.. heh

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Yeah, I understand the frustration. As far as viewfinders go, crop sensor viewfinders will ALWAYS be smaller and dimmer than FF viewfinders due to optical restrictions. So even a $6,000 1.6x crop sensor camera will still have a viewfinder that pales in comparison to a FF viewfinder, or even a viewfinder on a cheapo Rebel Ti film body.

I think the price is justified though. I once did a very ballpark calculation of possible film and development costs based on my shooting behavior, and it came to something like I could easily blow $100+ in a single weekend.

I can see where you're coming from, but at the same time, I'd need to shoot 210 rolls of film (~$5/roll for slides and $4.50 for Fuji pre-paid developing, so call it $10/roll) to make up the difference in cost between my old Contax and a 5D (and that's assuming I can find a 5D for $2,500). That's at lest 5 years worth of shooting for me. Probably closer to 7. I know it's nothing compared to how much some of you all shoot, but remember I don't go out shooting every weekend either. I'll have a $50-$60 weekend every month or two but it's not consistant enough to make up the cost difference any time soon. That, and it "feels" better to be paying for the pictures over time rather than all up front. Spending $400-$500/year on film spread out over 12 months is a lot easier to handle than the $2,100 premium for a digicam spent on one day.

For the modest hobbiest, there's just not the easy access to nice gear that there once was.

ZV

 

[JulesMaximus]

I'm thinking of getting a 30D. Didn't that just come out this year? Are they replacing it already?

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Yeah, I understand the frustration. As far as viewfinders go, crop sensor viewfinders will ALWAYS be smaller and dimmer than FF viewfinders due to optical restrictions. So even a $6,000 1.6x crop sensor camera will still have a viewfinder that pales in comparison to a FF viewfinder, or even a viewfinder on a cheapo Rebel Ti film body.

I think the price is justified though. I once did a very ballpark calculation of possible film and development costs based on my shooting behavior, and it came to something like I could easily blow $100+ in a single weekend.

I can see where you're coming from, but at the same time, I'd need to shoot 210 rolls of film (~$5/roll for slides and $4.50 for Fuji pre-paid developing, so call it $10/roll) to make up the difference in cost between my old Contax and a 5D (and that's assuming I can find a 5D for $2,500). That's at lest 5 years worth of shooting for me. Probably closer to 7.

For the modest hobbiest, there's just not the easy access to nice gear that there once was.

ZV

Let's see... 210 rolls of, say, 36 exposure Fuji Velvia @ $10 each. That's 7,560 pictures and $2,100. Wow, 7 years of shooting? I do believe I've managed to do that much in less than half a year, and I have a feeling you might too if you went digital, AND you'd probably be getting many more great shots as a result.

This isn't factoring in the cost of digitizing your film either, which would probably add further to the $2,100 price tag for a quality scanner or a service.

One thing I do really miss about film cameras though, is the mechanical-ness. With my old Minolta x-700 I have to physically cock the film forward after each shot, and boy does it feel good (and sound cool) to cock it. I think some camera maker actually made a digital camera with a working (but obviously redundent) cocking lever, just for nostalgia's sake.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I'm thinking of getting a 30D. Didn't that just come out this year? Are they replacing it already?

Yeah, the 30D came out this year, and no, they are not replacing it already.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Let's see... 210 rolls of, say, 36 exposure Fuji Velvia @ $10 each. That's 7,560 pictures and $2,100. Wow, 7 years of shooting? I do believe I've managed to do that much in less than half a year, and I have a feeling you might too if you went digital, AND you'd probably be getting many more great shots as a result.

This isn't factoring in the cost of digitizing your film either, which would probably add further to the $2,100 price tag for a quality scanner or a service.

One thing I do really miss about film cameras though, is the mechanical-ness. With my old Minolta x-700 I have to physically cock the film forward after each shot, and boy does it feel good (and sound cool) to cock it. I think some camera maker actually made a digital camera with a working (but obviously redundent) cocking lever, just for nostalgia's sake.

You do make a good point about taking a lot more pictures with digital, including a lot of shots that might otherwise go un-tried. At the same time, having only a limited number of shots does force one to think more about the composition instead of relying on the ability to crop the frame afterwards, or to just take shot after shot until something catches.

On the other hand, the ability to take those risks can also allow a lot more learning by giving the shooter a chance to figure out what he did right (even if it was originally an accident) to get those shots that came out well. And there's never an issue with trying to "use up" the last few pictures on a roll in order to be able to process it promptly with digital.

Then again, film negatives archive better than digital storage media, but it's much easier to have multiple copies of digital files to guard against loss.

Of course, a $500 Nikon CoolScan will give me 24mp images from my slides, but that doesn't save the money from processing and it takes a lot longer.

That's the thing, neither is "better", they're both better and worse in different areas for what I do, which makes it hard to convince myself to do anything. I do need to do something though. I miss my C-8080. (Left it in a dealership loaner car and supposedly they haven't found it. Sucks, but it's my fault for leaving it there.)

ZV

 

[tfinch2]

C-8080