Canon Rebel XTi?

[dino_martini]

I am looking for an entry level Digital SLR camera. It looks like the XTi fits the bill. Anyone own a Rebel? are there better options out there? Im looking at the XTi with the Canon EF-S 17-85 IS USM Lens. I have looked at all the reviews, but some actual feed back would be appreciated
:thumbsup:

[TurboMedic]

Better go into the camera store and hold it first. I'm sure its a nice camera, they are just very small feeling, if you have big hands. Your best way to find out is to hold and shoot a bunch of different cameras, and use that to decide. Don't get too bent on a Canon vs. Nikon thing just cause everyone else has something, try what you like, buy it, and invest in good lenses and stick with it. Bodies are disposable, lenses are forever!

[seer_claw]

Originally posted by TurboMedic
Better go into the camera store and hold it first. I'm sure its a nice camera, they are just very small feeling, if you have big hands. Your best way to find out is to hold and shoot a bunch of different cameras, and use that to decide. Don't get too bent on a Canon vs. Nikon thing just cause everyone else has something, try what you like, buy it, and invest in good lenses and stick with it. Bodies are disposable, lenses are forever!

Some of the best advise. I agree, go hold and shoot some pics with the entry level cameras. I found that the Rebel's just felt too small in my hands and with other lenses my fingers couldn't get around the hand grip. I went for a Nikon because it just felt better, price was roughly equivalent and picture quality was equal. Try them out and go from there.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Same here, I was dead set on a Rebel XT until I went and held one. It felt small, plasticky and toylike, and the XTi is much the same. The Nikon bodies, however, are much more ergonomic and sturdier. Check out the D50 for an affordable unit, and the D80 for a really remarkable one. Be sure to compare viewfinders between cameras - the difference between the D80 and the lower-priced units is huge!

Now, if you're dead- set on Canon equipment, do yourself a favour, forget about the Rebel and get a used 20D. You'll thank me later. Sure, the LCD screen's not quite as good, but that thing's really just for accessing the menu and making sure you didn't completely screw up the exposure. An extra 2 MP? Negligible. Dust-shake on the XTi? Highly Overrated. All the extra performance and features of the 20D? Substantial!

[Pihsiak]

My complants for the XTi is why not put DiGiC lll? and jack up the frame rate?
Where's the Spot metering? 30d has it.
Dust vibration, Olympus has had it, nothing too special
Hate the 2.5 screen. Give me back a LCD anyday
It would sell better with dual card slots
Make it full frame.... (long shot)

I'm glad the battery grip still fits it.

XTi would be a good first camera to buy, but not worth it to upgrade from the XT.

[gp36912]

meh :D do what turbomedic mentioned, actually hold one and see how it feels :D thats what i did for over 3 weeks trying to decide what camera i liked best, i looked at stats, features, etc. couldn't come up with one i liked the best so i decided to go and just play with a few of them, ended up buying the 30d :( don't get me wrong, its a great camera i love it, but it just burnt a hole in my pocket lol. (well when i say hole, i mean a canyon) but then again i am glad i did that because i will be keeping this camera until it breaks.

[lint]

A friend of mine purchased the XTi for his wife (he has a 20D) right before they went on a 2 week holiday to Europe. Apparently canon is doing something right with the picture styles. His comments are that the XTi with kit lens was sharper than his 20D with 17-40. The dust reduction system works very well, he had to clear his sensor a few times but his wife didn't at all. The complaint is with the form factor, it is small for someone with larger hands. But with a grip it could work. Play around with it and see if you like it.

[seer_claw]

The grip won't work for all people, my fingers didn't fit with a larger lens on. All the battery grip would do is give a place for my pinky to sit. Just go try them out and see what you like. I spent hours trying out the different cameras. Check out Nikon's D70s as well. Its come down in price a lot recently with the introduction of the D80.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by lint
His comments are that the XTi with kit lens was sharper than his 20D with 17-40.

You'll pardon me for saying that he's crazier than a bag of snakes. That kit lens is utter shite.

[lint]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat


You'll pardon me for saying that he's crazier than a bag of snakes. That kit lens is utter shite.

You can say what you will. The kit lens isn't that bad, but it does have its limitations. I personally find it hard to believe that the kit lens would be sharper than the 17-40, but he shoots mostly landscapes, stopped down and with a tripod. In those situations, I can see that the kit lens and the 17-40 would be more comparable than when both are wide open. He's also quite anal about his gear and is a pixel peeper, so if he notices a difference, I believe him.

[Mitsu3000gt]

I've read on other forums alot of people having trouble with the white balance on the XTi's. Anyone here experience this?

[DJ Lazy]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat


Now, if you're dead- set on Canon equipment, do yourself a favour, forget about the Rebel and get a used 20D. You'll thank me later. Sure, the LCD screen's not quite as good, but that thing's really just for accessing the menu and making sure you didn't completely screw up the exposure. An extra 2 MP? Negligible. Dust-shake on the XTi? Highly Overrated. All the extra performance and features of the 20D? Substantial!

That's my next upgrade... the 20D... Really like the XT, but just want something more "professional".. sturdier, extra features, larger in-hand... etc etc...

[Ferio_vti]

Anyone hear about the Nikon D40 coming??
Why would they go a step back from the D50?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0611/06110601nikond40.asp

[BerserkerCatSplat]

^Because there will be a D60 to replace the D50. The D40 is meant to undercut the Rebel XTi in the low-end consumer market.

[canadianx]

Originally posted by lint


You can say what you will. The kit lens isn't that bad, but it does have its limitations. I personally find it hard to believe that the kit lens would be sharper than the 17-40, but he shoots mostly landscapes, stopped down and with a tripod. In those situations, I can see that the kit lens and the 17-40 would be more comparable than when both are wide open. He's also quite anal about his gear and is a pixel peeper, so if he notices a difference, I believe him.

I can only speak from personal experience, using those two lenses in the same type of pics (landscapes) I bought a 17-40 because I was so not pleased with the kit lens. I have a Rebel XT and the 17-40 is hands down way better IMO.

Maybe the XTi has something? Or maybe the 20D and or lens has something wrong with it :)

[lint]

Originally posted by canadianx


I can only speak from personal experience, using those two lenses in the same type of pics (landscapes) I bought a 17-40 because I was so not pleased with the kit lens. I have a Rebel XT and the 17-40 is hands down way better IMO.

Maybe the XTi has something? Or maybe the 20D and or lens has something wrong with it :)

It may be the new picture styles that are incorporated into the XTi. He hasn't had time to apply the same settings to his shots from the 20D, I'm waiting for him to do some more tests.

[turboMiata]

i have both the 18-55 and 17-40. at f/8 and above, there is very little difference in terms of image quality. i have made large prints taken with the 18-55 and surprised myself with the quality of the images.

canadianx, why don't you show us some samples taken from both lenses?

[canadianx]

17-40 (http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i209/canadianx/IMG_2652-1.jpg)

18-55 (http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i209/canadianx/oct92006018.jpg)

Sorry they are not the same scene..

[Mitsu3000gt]

They both look pretty good to me, but I am not a photo expert. If anything, the clarity at the very sides isn't quite as good as in the middle of the photo but I don't know if thats the lens or not.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Stopped that far down, the difference is going to be minimal, with the 18-55 probably exhibiting more chromatic aberration. The benefit of the 17-40L is the ability to shoot wide open (F4) and be much sharper than the 18-55 wide open (F3.5-5.6).

[turboMiata]

canadianx, it's hard to tell from those two images because they aren't full size crops and both are shot at different apertures.

having said that, sharpness, at the end of the day, is defined by resolution and acutance. resolution is the ability to resolve detail and is typically measured in lp/mm and expressed in mtf charts. acutance is the rendering of edge detail in an image. i don't see much of a difference between both images but i think they could benefit from a small boost in contrast (acutance) by sharpening. the images are well exposed but i think remapping the black points might also help a little as well as the shadows appear grey.