# Is the new  Rebel XSi really as good as it sounds?



## jg123 (Apr 27, 2008)

I was reading the review over here and the number of premium added features seems amazing, especially for an amateur.  Can someone with experience please tell me what, if any of the new features really stand-out and is this camera a good value?

-boasts an improved autofocus sensor,
- features a newly developed, extremely low noise APS-C size 12.2 megapixel CMOS sensor.
- a large 3.0-inch LCD monitor with an advanced Live View function.
- enhanced 14-bit A/D conversion
- Entirely new 12.4 million pixel CMOS sensor
- Larger 0.87x viewfinder coverage 
- of continuously capturing 3.5 frames per second for bursts of up to 53 images in large/fine JPEG mode 
- incorporates the optional Highlight Tone Priority and High-ISO Noise Reduction functions
- equipped with Canon's Auto Lighting Optimizer technology, which corrects image brightness and contrast automatically
- a spot meter, which reads a tiny area (about 4%) of the picture for extremely precise metering.
- New Continuous Shooting Self Timer Mode

and a few others.

thanks


----------



## Mav (Apr 27, 2008)

The only thing from that list that's even the least bit interesting to me is the:

_equipped with Canon's Auto Lighting Optimizer technology, which corrects image brightness and contrast automatically_

The rest is marketing fluff.  That sounds like Auto Contrast to me if it does it live and incorporates it into its JPEG outputs.  Nikons have done this for years, and it ensures that you get a nice good JPEG straight off the camera and prevents you from having to waste your time with RAW correcting contrast issues manually.  Your eyes can't always see contrast issues, and it's a pain to adjust anyways, so it makes sense for a calibrated electronic eye on the camera to do it for you and adjust it automatically.

So that would honestly be a huge thing for me.


----------



## WDodd (Apr 27, 2008)

I was intrigued by the larger viewfinder and larger LCD because those two things constantly bother me about my XT currently. But other than that its just eh.


----------



## Gopherkid (Apr 27, 2008)

For the same price on BH, they still sell the 30d.  I didnt get a chance to play with the Xsi at all, but I did get to play with a Xti, and assuming they are relatively close, it was a easy choice for me to go with the 30d.


----------



## erman (Apr 27, 2008)

As far as i know Rebel Xsi  is slightly better than Xti ;

Rebel Xsi have
12 Megapixels (Xti is 10Mpx)
Live View LCD
Kit comes with Image  Stabilized Lens (f 3.5-5.6 EF-S 18-55mm)
ISO : 100 - 1600 , It also has a function that camera can automatically decide which ISO to use between ISO 100 and ISO 400 values.
It has bigger LCD Screen than  400 D (Rebel XTi) (3 inches)
Uses SD cards for storage
Dust control, live view and image stabilized lens attracts me to buy this camera...


----------



## jamesino (Apr 27, 2008)

It should, however, be noted that while the XSi boasts a larger LCD screen than the Xti (3" vs 2.5"), the resolution remains the same. Consequently, this means that the LCD screen on the XSi is actually of lower pixels per inch.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Apr 27, 2008)

erman said:


> As far as i know Rebel Xsi  is slightly better than Xti ;
> 
> Rebel Xsi have
> 12 Megapixels (Xti is 10Mpx)
> ...



Thats because the XSi is the model after XTi which is after XT
350D then 400D then 450D. So ya, it should be slightly better


----------



## KOrmechea (Apr 27, 2008)

> 12 Megapixels (Xti is 10Mpx)


Really, that's not too big of a difference.



> Live View LCD


While nice at times, most can live without it.



> Kit comes with Image  Stabilized Lens (f 3.5-5.6 EF-S 18-55mm)


I'm sure that adds to the cost.  Though it is a good point.



> ISO : 100 - 1600 , It also has a function that camera can automatically decide which ISO to use between ISO 100 and ISO 400 values.


The XTi has the same range and I didn't realize choosing an ISO was a difficult thing to do...



> It has bigger LCD Screen than  400 D (Rebel XTi) (3 inches)


A whole half-inch?!  Incredible!


> Uses SD cards for storage


This could be attractive if you're coming off of a point and shoot (as many use them).  

I guess what I'm trying to say is that for about $200 less, you're not really losing out with an XTi.  I'm not quite sold on the new feature set.  

I am surprised though, that no one's made a bigger deal of spot-metering.  That's the one thing I wish my XTi _did_ have.   Like I said earlier though, it's not worth $200...


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Apr 27, 2008)

I personally say go with an XTi, I often like new models but this time I wouldnt go for the XSi, go to the XTi. I am happy with my XTi. Infact very happy.  12 MP isnt much more than 10MP. Barely noticable if any at all.

Live View LCD? I can easily go without that, I like using view finder because there are no glares off the screen and i have a black square with my view inside of it, can see everything easier.

The kit lens, yes its an IS but really its not that great of a lens. The kit lenses never are, its just so u can get something out of the box. I think of it as something for point and shoot people since they always want it to work 100% right out of the box.

I say buy the body and invest into a decent lens. You will be much happier...

TRUST ME!


----------



## Village Idiot (Apr 28, 2008)

jg123 said:


> I was reading the review over here and the number of premium added features seems amazing, especially for an amateur. Can someone with experience please tell me what, if any of the new features really stand-out and is this camera a good value?
> 
> -boasts an improved autofocus sensor,
> - features a newly developed, extremely low noise APS-C size 12.2 megapixel CMOS sensor.
> ...


 


Mav said:


> The only thing from that list that's even the least bit interesting to me is the:
> 
> _equipped with Canon's Auto Lighting Optimizer technology, which corrects image brightness and contrast automatically_
> 
> ...


 
Better AF, lower noise, better tone from 14bit vs. 12 bit, a bigger view finder, and spot meter when none of the other rebels have it is all marketing fluff? :meh:


----------



## asfixiate (Apr 28, 2008)

Looking back now I wish I waited for the XSI. Its got some pretty nice upgrades. 3.0 to 3.5 fps, the view finder on the XTI is .80 and the XSI is .87. 

And everything Village said. the standard kit lens that comes with is a decent upgraded version to the non is version as well.

Look at this link below.  It has a few comparisons.  

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-Rebel-XSi-450D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx


----------



## Alex_B (Apr 28, 2008)

asfixiate said:


> Looking back now I wish I waited for the XSI.  Its got some pretty nice upgrades.  3.0 to 3.4 fps, the view finder on the XTI is .80 and the XSI is .87
> 
> well, there is hardly any difference between 3.0 and 3.4 fps ... you will hardly feel it.
> 
> .8 and .87 is some difference, I agree, but again nothing which really moves the world.


----------



## asfixiate (Apr 28, 2008)

If you look at some of the comparison links though it looks like a decent upgraded version.

1600 ISO comparison is decent one to check out.

The noise looks substantially different.  Comperable to its big brothers.


----------



## Mav (Apr 28, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> Better AF, lower noise, better tone from 14bit vs. 12 bit, a bigger view finder, and spot meter when none of the other rebels have it is all marketing fluff? :meh:


Sometimes more is not always more.  I call it spec creep.  Little things they can do for next to nothing that will do a lot more for propping up sales than they ever will for truly making better photos.

More accurate AF can also mean it takes longer to think.  Lower noise can also mean less detail from more NR trickery.  I think you'd be hard pressed to see the difference between 14-bit and 12-bit RAW, and now you have a larger file to deal with.  My D80 has a much larger viewfinder than my D40 does (0.80x vs 0.94x) and I never notice.  So I doubt I'd notice the 0.80x to 0.87x difference between the XTi and XSi.  They're all tiny and dim compared to what you used to get on film cameras.  And I never use spot metering. :greenpbl:

Save your money and get a nicer lens instead is what I'd say.  Zillions of features on camera bodies don't do much for me, but I like NICE glass.   Speaking of which, I'd be far more interested in the 18-55 IS lens than any new feature on the camera.  I like walking around cities I'm visiting at night or in the early AM catching the good light.  I currently use a pro 17-55 f/2.8 which is big and heavy.  I've been meaning to order a Nikon 18-55 VR.  If that can make up for its lack of speed with the VR and gives me results that are as good, I can save myself the trouble of carrying my heavier lenses around with me.


----------



## asfixiate (Apr 28, 2008)

I still don't see how not being able to notice differences dismisses the advantages to the differences.

I'm not trying to call you out MAV but your constant argument of not being able to notice it is a bit cheesy.

Would you tell the customer that I could have used the best way but I figured you wouldn't notice so I did it this way?

The differences are stated in factual manner. Whether the camera comes with a guy that edits your photos to get rid of noise or the camera does it the fact is thre's less noise, better AF, and better tone.

I could use fire to heat my cave but I like bundling in wooly mamoth fur.

I could use the wheel but I'd rather get 4 of my friends to drag it along.  

Final result is the final result...get there the easiest


----------



## Village Idiot (Apr 28, 2008)

Mav said:


> Sometimes more is not always more. I call it spec creep. Little things they can do for next to nothing that will do a lot more for propping up sales than they ever will for truly making better photos.
> 
> More accurate AF can also mean it takes longer to think. Lower noise can also mean less detail from more NR trickery. I think you'd be hard pressed to see the difference between 14-bit and 12-bit RAW, and now you have a larger file to deal with. My D80 has a much larger viewfinder than my D40 does (0.80x vs 0.94x) and I never notice. So I doubt I'd notice the 0.80x to 0.87x difference between the XTi and XSi. They're all tiny and dim compared to what you used to get on film cameras. And I never use spot metering. :greenpbl:
> 
> Save your money and get a nicer lens instead is what I'd say. Zillions of features on camera bodies don't do much for me, but I like NICE glass.  Speaking of which, I'd be far more interested in the 18-55 IS lens than any new feature on the camera. I like walking around cities I'm visiting at night or in the early AM catching the good light. I currently use a pro 17-55 f/2.8 which is big and heavy. I've been meaning to order a Nikon 18-55 VR. If that can make up for its lack of speed with the VR and gives me results that are as good, I can save myself the trouble of carrying my heavier lenses around with me.


 
Lower noise is from the Digic III processor, the upgrade from the Digic II in the XTI and 30D units and not from NR trickery. There have been comparisons between the 5d and the 40d...a lot of them...and you can notice richer colors from the 14bit processor in the 40d. More accurate AF could mean that the processors are now faster and can think a lot faster. The view finder is getting larger and that's what matters. I can tell the difference between my 300d and my 30d. Spot metering is the only metering I use and is something a lot of the rebel owners that knew what spot metering is were complaining about.

Camera bodies do matter up to a certain point. If they didn't, the pros would all be using entry level cameras and there would be no point in D3's and 1D's.


----------



## jg123 (Apr 28, 2008)

Thanks for all the input so far.

From a logical stand-point I understand that none of the 'upgrades' are earthshattering on their own but surely they all add up to a major difference?

say if you just gave each little improvement a 5% bonus to the xti you would end up with 30-40% in improvements?

Here are the ones that peak my interest.

- 20% bigger lcd
- 30% brighter lcd
- Better kit lens
- higher end sensor
- 20% higher pixel count
- higher continuously capturing 
- auto light optimizer
- live view

The package comes in around $250 higher than the XTI


----------



## asfixiate (Apr 28, 2008)

if you are going to be making a purchase and your budget can include the XSI as well as a decent lense there's nothing wrong IMO in buying the latest camera model Canon offers. Obviously its BETTER than the XT and XTI. Unless you have to crank it to get it running I'm sure its a good purchase you won't regret. 

I bought an XT because of the XTI vs XT issue but my budget was VERY tight at the time.

You can still get new XTs and XTIs as well so you don't need to look in used department.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Apr 28, 2008)

Bigger LCD, same resolution I hear, so less DPI.. Kinda a downgrade in my book but hey! probably wont notice


----------



## Mav (Apr 28, 2008)

asfixiate said:


> I still don't see how not being able to notice differences dismisses the advantages to the differences.
> 
> I'm not trying to call you out MAV but your constant argument of not being able to notice it is a bit cheesy.
> 
> ...


If that's how you truly feel about the XSi vs your perfectly good XTi then by all means go get an XSi! :lmao:  

Don't let me stop you from wasting your money with my "cheesy" views that you don't _ALWAYS_ need to have the latest and greatest camera with all of the latest and greatest little specs no matter how insignificant they may be.  Geez, it's as if whenever a new camera comes out that suddenly the perfectly good XTi is no longer capable of taking brilliant photographs.  Here's another thread where the consensus seems to be that the XSi isn't that big of a deal.

_<set sarcasm level 10>_

Here's a photo that I took very recently with my little D40, the lowest and most stripped down camera in Nikon's entire lineup.  Oh dear heavens, I only had an 0.80x viewfinder which is smaller than both the XSi (0.87) and my D80's "giant" (0.94x) so it's a miracle I was able to see anything at all to compose.  And it only has 3 AF zones vs the XSi's 9 and my D80's 11.  But even worse, I was using a lens that _didn't even have autofocus support on the D40_ because it lacks Nikon's old screw drive motor which is how a lot of Nikon's lenses have focused for the past 20 odd years.  I had to _manually focus!_  And because of the horrible matrix metering in some of Nikon's newer cameras, I had to make religious use of the exposure compensation button.  On some shots I was down to as much as -3.0!  And because my camera doesn't have super duper high ISO performance like the 5D or Nikon D3, I shot at a whopping 1/8s so that I could shoot down at iso400, with NO VR, on a high rise balcony, in the freezing cold, with a lot of wind.  And OMFG, it's _only 6MP!_ _TEH HORRORZ!_ 








Oh yeah, I shot and processed that one from even cheesier 8-bit JPEG files too. :mrgreen: 

_</sarcasm>_


*Stop worrying about every little spec on your camera and get out and take some great photos instead.*  The sooner you do that, the sooner you'll realize that the biggest factor in your photos is YOU and that all of these tiny little specs are insignificant in the end.  If you're brand new and have the money, sure get the XSi.  But if you already have a perfectly good XTi then seriously, you're not missing much.  Yeah it's a "fact" that there are improvements on the XSi.  But it's also a fact that some of these "facts" are blown out of proportion, misleading, irrelevant, or pure BS.  That's the camera marketeer's job - to hype up specs no matter how irrelevant to convince you to keep buying their stuff.  And you're reading and repeating that as if it's all etched in gold.  I had a meeting with the director of marketing and communications at my company last week and was joking about some of the BS going around at the office.  She joked to me that I was at "_BS central_" in the marketing department.   I'm not knocking the XSi.  I'm sure it's a great camera, but there's nothing here that makes this a quantum leap "must have" upgrade over the XTi IMHO.

So yeah, feel free to sell your perfectly good XTi, perhaps to this guy here who's down on his luck at a loss of several hundred dollars to yourself, and then buy the XSi for several hundred more.  Don't let me stop ya.


----------



## Tiberius47 (Apr 28, 2008)

To put things in perspective....

Back in 2000, the Rebel XT/350D would have been the best camera on the planet and would have been worth around $10,000.

It's all the fault of marketting really.  When a new camera comes out, they do their best to convince you that this is the only camera you'll ever need, that it's the best and will serve you well for eternity.  Then a newer model comes out and all of a sudden, everything except the new camera is rubbish, even that camera that they tried to convince you that you needed a year ago.

The best marketting is that which you do yourself.  Think about what you need, and then get a camera that gives you that.  And when a new camera with shinier buttons and more megapixels comes out, ask yourself, "Given that my current camera has served me so well and is still serving me, do I need the shiner buttons?  Do I really need two more megapixels?"  Answer those questions honestly, and you'll realise that most often the answer is, "No, my current camera is fine for me."


----------



## asfixiate (Apr 29, 2008)

Once again I was stating what's better with it and that theres nothing wrong with buying it. I never once said that the XT would no longer work nor did I say I was going to get the XSi. 

I love my XT but within the next 3 years I'm going to upgrade to one of its big brothers.  The XT would still be in my bag always as a backup.


----------



## Mav (Apr 29, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> Lower noise is from the Digic III processor, the upgrade from the Digic II in the XTI and 30D units and not from NR trickery. There have been comparisons between the 5d and the 40d...a lot of them...and you can notice richer colors from the 14bit processor in the 40d. More accurate AF could mean that the processors are now faster and can think a lot faster. The view finder is getting larger and that's what matters. I can tell the difference between my 300d and my 30d. Spot metering is the only metering I use and is something a lot of the rebel owners that knew what spot metering is were complaining about.


The Digic III processor _is_ the NR trickery.  The imaging processor is not the sensor, which is where the noise comes from.  My guess is _at best_ Canon improved the efficiency of the individual photosites just enough that they could now squeeze 12 million of them into the same physically sized sensor without increasing absolute noise levels.  That's at best.  So if the output is even cleaner than before and it's due to the Digic III, it's due to "NR trickery" because that exactly what the imaging processors do at high ISO.  Put the same Digic III sensor on an older 6 or 8MP sensor which has theoretically better noise performance to begin with and you'll have a truly outstanding high ISO performer at very low cost.  That's what I love about my Nikon D40.  Only 6MP so it has nice big photosites in the last rev of that sensor while also getting the very latest image processing engine at the time.  It does great at 1600, and is passable at 3200 too.  Blows my D80 right out of the water.  As for color, that would have everything to do with the color ramps they have programmed in and little to do with the fact that it runs internally at 14 bits.  You can't even see that.  What your eyes see at best are the most significant 8-bits (256 levels), or in most normal situations, really only 7-bits (128 levels).  All the remaining bits are doing is splitting what you _can't see_ an additional 64 or 128 ways.  

The face detection stuff sounds neat, but unless it's going to track eyeballs consistently so that I can snap off photos at f/2 or larger apertures consistently in full auto AF mode, I'd still need to manually select AF and park one on an eyeball.  Just detecting faces is nice, but that's not good enough at larger apertures.  If they advertised eyeball detection technology, I'd take notice. :mrgreen:  Nikon is doing this in the D3 now, for 5-grand.  The D300 doesn't cut it, but a few generations from now this will probably trickle down into the consumer level cameras.



Village Idiot said:


> Camera bodies do matter up to a certain point. If they didn't, the pros would all be using entry level cameras and there would be no point in D3's and 1D's.


If you're covering the war in Iraq and Afghanistan then by all means get a D3 or 1D.  You can literally beat the crap out of those, use them as a hammer to beat the stakes for your tent into the ground, and they'll just keep on going.  Michael Yon has a Canon 1DII, but even he shot with a D70 and a $100 50mm f/1.8 lens for his first year or so in Iraq.  One of his most famous photos was the TIME magazine photo of the year, taken by the D70 _in combat_!  Similarly, if you're running around chasing celebs all day and getting knocked down, pushed into walls, or having your foot run over, yes get something rugged there too, LOL.  Ditto with photojournalist work shoving others around to get in and get the shot where you'll get knocked around too, and where the weather might not be the best and you need a fully sealed body that'll also handle getting beat around.

What does this have to do with a typical beginner's needs?   Nothing.  

I think Tiberius47 said it best...



			
				Tiberius47 said:
			
		

> The best marketting is that which you do yourself. Think about what you need, and then get a camera that gives you that. And when a new camera with shinier buttons and more megapixels comes out, ask yourself, "Given that my current camera has served me so well and is still serving me, do I need the shiner buttons? Do I really need two more megapixels?" Answer those questions honestly, and you'll realise that most often the answer is, "No, my current camera is fine for me."


+1


----------



## TamiyaGuy (Apr 29, 2008)

Mav said:


> a LOT of stuff


You, sir, are my new god.


You are just perfectly right. I own a D40 as well, and was actually quite worried what with everyone else having stunning Nikon D300's and D3's, I thought my pictures would only turn out marginally better than my 3.2mp compact. But I still got it, and I have taken some really quite fantastic photos so far (not meaning to blow my own trumpet too much ) considering my physical limitations. I took a photo of my cat at ISO 1600 without flash, and I was in love with it. Did it have noise? Not that much, but yes. Would it have been better with a Nikon D300? Most likely, yes. Would it look worse than the D300's pic on a 30" x 20" print? Probably. But the point is I'll never print it out 30 x 20, and even if I did, I would still be perfectly happy with it, and I'm sure people who looked at it (and loved cats ) would like it too.

All these new cameras like the XSi, D60 and others, seem a bit... well, to put it harshly, pointless. They have gimmicky additions that really won't make much of a difference to your photos if you don't have skill. And if you really want to get the absolute best out of your camera, just move up to the D80 or 400D!!! Sure, they're more basic in fancy features, but the image quality is far better (of course, no where near the amount that skill contributes to a photo).


And, above all, it's really quite saddening to see that the DSLR market has become completely spec-obsessed. I have a Nikon F301, I have no bloody IDEA how to use it, it's expensive to run, my D40 will produce better pictures, it weighs an absolute TON, and I can only take 24 photos at a time, but I still use it. Why? Because it's *fun.* I enjoy doing it. I don't care a bit that it doesn't have image stabilisation, I don't care that the lens weighs more than my D40 plus a lens, hell, my F301 doesn't even have a _shutter priority mode_!!! But I love it because it gets me out there doing something I adore.


Phew, OK, rant over. I got a bit carried away :lmao:


----------



## Mav (Apr 29, 2008)

LOL thanks. :lmao:  

I actually disagree with you on a couple of points though.   I can make very good arguments that the "overall image quality" of my lowly D40 is actually _better_ than that of my D80.  I hardly even use my D80 anymore despite the fact that it out-paper-specs and out-features my D40 in almost every aspect.  The BS stops when the green flag drops, and this dinky little camera is no joke.  I love it, and a lot of other Nikon shooters that have had far nicer cameras are blown away and love theirs too.  And 6MP is perfectly capable of making outstanding looking 3-foot wide prints.  I've done some from both my D80 and D40 and they all look great.  You don't need a full 300 dpi on 3 foot wide prints because you don't look at them nearly as close as you do with a 4x6 or 5x7.  You're back a bit, in which case even 100 dpi is just fine.  And if you really want to print that big or bigger on a regular basis, you should be thinking more about going to a larger format camera for superior sharpness and resolution than you should about even more megapixels stuffed onto a still small sensor.  35mm film is still ultimately better, or if you're really hardcore and serious you can put together 4x5" large format systems very cheaply.  The only real benefit extra MP's has ever given me is that you have a lot more leeway for cropping.  If you're shooting a soccer game with too short of a lens, or you're trying to get that bird with only a 300mm, 10MP has the clear adantage since you'll still have enough image left after cropping heavily for a pretty good sized print.  But since I hardly ever crop, that's not important to me.  If I shoot birds, I'll definitely take my D80 with me though.

The key point is that there are both pros and cons to having more megapixels.  People are brainwashed by marketeers into thinking that more megapixels are _always_ better, but that simply isn't the case.  Semiconductor device physics cannot be ignored, and fancier noise reduction algorithms can only buy you so much.  For beginners just starting out with commonly very limited budgets (this is the beginners forum after all) this is important to know.  The same is true for almost anything else.  One year a car has 190hp and it's great.  The next year they come out with a 222hp model which everybody thinks is going to be soooo much faster, except they conveniently hid the fact that the weight went up by 200 lbs, torque didn't increase by any meaningful amount, and that overall the newer "more powerful" car is actually slower than the old one.  Or for fuel economy, they specifically design the car to kick ass on the EPA tests so that it does better than the old one, but in real driving it's actually less efficient and you're screwed again.  This kind of crap happens a lot.  Yes, things _do_ improve.  Just look at the Canon 1DIII or Nikon D3.  Huge jumps like that are the "real" improvements.  The other little things they tack on later tend to be the BS whose only real purpose is to keep sales moving.  That said, some companies have far better track records as far as making real improvements vs just making marketing BS improvements than others.

And just to show that I'm not unfairly attacking Canon, I think the Nikon D40x and D60 are both "marketing BS" cameras" too , mainly to keep sales moving or for people who fall for the megapixel hype and won't buy a 6MP D40 because their last crappy point and shoot had 7 or 8.  I'm not nearly as familiar with Canon stuff obviously so I'm not going to claim this about Canon too, but in some ways the D40x and D60 by Nikon are actually a step _backwards_ from the D40 believe it or not.


/book


----------



## Village Idiot (Apr 29, 2008)

A lot of the things you're dismissing as "marketing tricks" are what make cameras better. 

Just because you don't use certain features and can't see the difference in things doesn't mean that others can't.

I'm not saying you should upgrade with every single generations, but there are some things that are obviously better, like newer image processors and faster smarter AF. Some things are gimmicks, like dust reduction. Not everyone's needs are filled with a d40. Sports photographers would laugh at a camera like that. Faster FPS and AF are almost needed in certain situations...And more MP doesn't always mean a worse image. Some of it's hype, but with newer sensor designs, cameras with more MP's can end up with less noise than their older counterparts without.


----------



## TamiyaGuy (Apr 29, 2008)

Mav said:


> Another loooooooong post


Yeah, I completely agree with you there, the D40's amount of noise is certainly way WAY less than in the D40x, and that's a good camera when it comes to image noise. I guess I just went on a bit of a rant, but I agree with everything you're saying. I've actually got a couple of 30 x 20 prints from my '40, and they do look really great. Sure, they would have looked better on a pro-grade D300, but then you pay pro-grade prices for it as well.


Great posts, Mav. Yet again you truly prove your worthyness to be on this forum 
:hail:



Village Idiot said:


> A lot of the things you're dismissing as "marketing tricks" are what make cameras better.
> 
> Just because you don't use certain features and can't see the difference in things doesn't mean that others can't.
> 
> I'm not saying you should upgrade with every single generations, but there are some things that are obviously better, like newer image processors and faster smarter AF. Some things are gimmicks, like dust reduction. Not everyone's needs are filled with a d40. Sports photographers would laugh at a camera like that. Faster FPS and AF are almost needed in certain situations...And more MP doesn't always mean a worse image. Some of it's hype, but with newer sensor designs, cameras with more MP's can end up with less noise than their older counterparts without.


 
I do agree with you there, but if a sports photographer "laughs" at a D40, then surely they would zoom straight past the D60/XSi and get a D300/40d. The D60 only has a very slightly increased FPS from the D40 and the same AF system, yet it's about £190 more.

I totally agree with you that people's needs aren't filled with a low-end camera like the D40, but if that's the case then their needs wouldn't be filled by a D60 either, or, sometimes, even a D80. They would go to the high-end models. And if they got a '60 or '80 then their wallets certainly wouldn't be filled either.

And going back to the "marketing tricks" section, I agree with you there as well... partly. Stuff like extra megapixels, better sensors and lower noise all make the camera better, but the kind of things on these "sort of like a semi-pro ameteur camera but cheaper kind of" cameras really do not.

For instance, the D60 has an active D-lighting option on the camera. Sure, it's nice to be able to see the D-lighting while the photo's being taken, but the D40 has a PP version of D-lighting that works just as well and takes about the same time (once you account for going through the menu trying to find the A D-lighting feature). So not much, if anything, gained. Sensor cleaning comes on the D60 as well. If you get a D40 for £190 less, you can spend £7.99 on a Giottos Rocket Air Blower that will work better than the built-in sensor cleaning ever will. Yet again, it might be the tiniest bit of hassle to raise the mirror and blow it, but it doesn't use up any extra battery power, and is it really THAT bad doing it yourself?

And the D60 also has the ability to make stop-motion movies. 3 words. Windows Movie Maker.


----------



## MACollum (Apr 29, 2008)

I was excited when I heard about some of the new features but then realized that the memory is different, the batteries are different, and there's less buffer space. Not that I think it will be bad though, I'm sure many people will love it.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Apr 29, 2008)

Ya, even tho I love my XTi, im probably going to get a 40D (or later model in the future) or a 5D (or later model in the future)

Oh cool, how long has the 5D been available with a kit lens?
EF 24-105L


----------



## Mav (Apr 29, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> A lot of the things you're dismissing as "marketing tricks" are what make cameras better.
> 
> Just because you don't use certain features and can't see the difference in things doesn't mean that others can't.
> 
> I'm not saying you should upgrade with every single generations, but there are some things that are obviously better, like newer image processors and faster smarter AF. Some things are gimmicks, like dust reduction. Not everyone's needs are filled with a d40. Sports photographers would laugh at a camera like that.  Faster FPS and AF are almost needed in certain situations...And more MP doesn't always mean a worse image. Some of it's hype, but with newer sensor designs, cameras with more MP's can end up with less noise than their older counterparts without.


You're dead wrong about sports photogs and the D40.  All I need to say is 1/500s flash sync and high ISO performance that holds its own and you've instantly got a great budget sports camera or backup rig to a pro body.  Not even the pro bodies do 1/500s flash sync. 

On the broader point though, I don't disagree.  But if you buy a 2007 model year car and the next year in 2008 they come out with something slightly better, does that mean that you must instantly trade-in your 1 year old car at a significant cost to yourself just to have those minor improvements and that your "old" car is no longer good enough?  Car companies and camera companies are no different really, just with cameras it's on a smaller scale monetarily.  Yes the newer car is "better", but there's no sense spending a ton of money on immediately upgrading if there's nothing there that's going to seriously improve your photography, or enjoyment of your car.  And for the most part, the little improvements won't.

After pushing tiny little DX sensors in their pro bodies for years while asking top dollar for them despite being inferior to anything Canon had, Nikon finally comes out with the 1D killing D3.  Hell yeah, upgrade away!  It opens up possibilities never before seen in a DSLR.  After pushing their "underpowered" 3.0L Inline-6 engines for years in the face of 300hp 3.5L class V-6 powered Japanese cars that were really starting to make BMW look stupid, BMW finally comes out with a truly brilliant twin-turbo engine that both develops more overall power than the Japanese V-6 engines while also solving a lot of the old turbo engine quirks in terms of driveability and efficiency. And it'll put a **** eating grin on your face unlike any of their previous Inline-6 engines short of an M3.  Hell yeah, upgrade away!  I don't have either a D3 or a twin-turbo Bimmer, unfortunately.   But that's the kind of stuff I go for, the things that will make large and very noticeable improvements.  I recognize the "BS little stuff" for what it is, although if there's one very specific feature that you truly need that they add, like spot metering, well then guess what?  They've got you. :mrgreen:

Maybe to make it a bit more clear, I view things in terms of "classification".  Once you make the upgrade from a P&S to a crop body DSLR you've "jumped class" and any other camera within that class is really going to perform about the same.  The minor feature changes are insignificant in the grand scheme of things.  Jumping up to a full frame sensor like a 1D, 5D, or D3 is another "class jump" and anything in that class is going to kick the ass of anything below it, providing you can use it correctly.  Sometimes just jumping up from the bottom of your "class" to the top if you're satisified with the optical performance but just need more FPS or sealing or a "pro-like" feature set can make sense though.  Like jumping from a D40 to a D300, or an XTi to a 40D.  But for the most part the Rebel, XT, XTi, and XSi are all the same.  There's almost no point in serial upgrading.  I consider the D40, D50, D70, and D80 all pretty much the same.  An XTi to 40D jump makes sense if you can make good use of all of the features, but the overall photographic quality is still going to be about the same.  Same thing with jumping from a D40 or D80 to a D200 or D300.  More features, but really similar overall photographic capability.  The 5D and 1D cameras are in different leagues.  So is the D3.  Beyond that if you really want to take serious photos, the 1D and D3 will both get their butts kicked by medium format digital or large format film (4x5") if you want maximum resolution and sharpness like with pro fashion photography or landscape photography.  In the grand scheme of things, small format DSLRs are still for amateurs, although very handy for photojournalist type pros that need the portability and convenience which is why they're used.


----------



## keith204 (Apr 29, 2008)

Mav said:


> You're dead wrong about sports photogs and the D40.  All I need to say is 1/500s flash sync and high ISO performance that holds its own and you've instantly got a great budget sports camera or backup rig to a pro body.  Not even the pro bodies do 1/500s flash sync.



He's not dead wrong, in fact he has some good points.


----------



## Mav (Apr 30, 2008)

There are sports photogs out there who would _KILL_ for 1/500s flash sync capabilities, and the D40 is the only DSLR on the market right now that can do that that I'm aware of.  So no I don't think they'd consider it a joke.  That was my only point on that.  Yes it still shoots slowly for sports, but that's not always the most important factor.


----------



## TamiyaGuy (Apr 30, 2008)

Well, I would have to disagree with you partially for the first time, Mav, about the class-jumping thing. I think that amongst all of the "main" classes (webcam, P&S, crop DSLR, full-frame DSLR), there are many sub-classes (ameteur, semi-semi pro [D60, XSi], semi-pro, pro) that, depending on the circumstances, can make minute or colossal differences.

For instance, if I upgraded to a D300, I think my photographs would improve quite a fair bit (but of course, not as much as skill would improve them) from stuff like the improved FPS (better for my RC photos), more pixels (RC photos again, but being able to crop more) and less shutter lag (OK, I'm not exactly hating my D40 for its 90-millisecond shutter lag xD), whereas if I upgraded to a D80, they would improve a little bit.

If I "upgraded" to a D60, however, I get the feeling my photography skill might go DOWN from pi**ing about with tiny little features like live view and Active D-lighting. Sure, they're sometimes handy, but it takes away from what photography is really about: you taking a great photo.


----------



## JerryPH (Apr 30, 2008)

Wow, has this topic ever strayed off the beaten path... lol.

Is the XSI better than a XTI? Yes.

Is it worth it to sell an XTI and get the XSI? If YOU feel that the improvements that it offers are targeted in the areas that would assist you in getting better results, yes. If you have the money to blow, yes. 

If I was in this situation, are the features earth shattering enough to warrant an upgrade from an XTI to the XSI? Not really, but I am a hard case. If I upgrade, I want a true upgrade without needing the pressure of succumbing to marketing hype to upgrade with each generation.

It's not exactly the same, but I have a D200 and will not upgrade to a D300, and there are some pretty significant improvements there.  I do not feel it is worth the money at all.  If I upgrade, it will possibly be to a D400 or more likely a D3.

When I upgrade, I *upgrade* for my money... lol.


----------



## Village Idiot (Apr 30, 2008)

Mav said:


> There are sports photogs out there who would _KILL_ for 1/500s flash sync capabilities, and the D40 is the only DSLR on the market right now that can do that that I'm aware of. So no I don't think they'd consider it a joke. That was my only point on that. Yes it still shoots slowly for sports, but that's not always the most important factor.


 
Actually, the Canon 1D OG, Nikon d40, d70, and d50 can all sync 1/500. In fact, they can sync 1/8000 or whatever their maximum shutter speed is limited too.

But depending on the sport, flash sync doesn't mean anything. High shutter speed often means a lot. 3fps vs. 5fps vs. 10fps. That can really matter.


----------



## Mav (Apr 30, 2008)

TamiyaGuy said:


> Well, I would have to disagree with you partially for the first time, Mav, about the class-jumping thing. I think that amongst all of the "main" classes (webcam, P&S, crop DSLR, full-frame DSLR), there are many sub-classes (ameteur, semi-semi pro [D60, XSi], semi-pro, pro) that, depending on the circumstances, can make minute or colossal differences.


That's true.   Yes if you need to capture action at a precise moment or need to completely change up your shooting mode very quickly like at a wedding, then the 8 FPS and all of the direct access controls of the D300 along with shooting banks that you can pre-program can make a huge difference for sure.  From a D40 to a D300 though, these cameras are really all in the same league in terms of the overall quality of photos that they can produce.  If you're not particular to needing specific body based capabilities like those though, there's not much reason to spend twice or even three times as much on a D300 over the lower end stuff.  The money would be much better spent on some lighting equipment, or some nice lenses, all of which will hold their value a lot better than camera bodies will anyways.


----------



## Mav (Apr 30, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> Actually, the Canon 1D OG, Nikon d40, d70, and d50 can all sync 1/500. In fact, they can sync 1/8000 or whatever their maximum shutter speed is limited too.
> 
> But depending on the sport, flash sync doesn't mean anything. High shutter speed often means a lot. 3fps vs. 5fps vs. 10fps. That can really matter.


That's why I said "_on the market right now_".   Either can matter a lot.


----------



## asfixiate (Apr 30, 2008)

Isn't d300 full frame and d40 cropped? Isn't d300 weather sealed and d40 not? Isn't d300 pro body and d40 amateur?


----------



## Village Idiot (Apr 30, 2008)

Mav said:


> There are sports photogs out there who would _KILL_ for 1/500s flash sync capabilities, and the D40 is the only DSLR on the market right now that can do that that I'm aware of. So no I don't think they'd consider it a joke. That was my only point on that. Yes it still shoots slowly for sports, but that's not always the most important factor.


 


asfixiate said:


> Isn't d300 full frame and d40 cropped? Isn't d300 weather sealed and d40 not? Isn't d300 pro body and d40 amateur?


 
No. The D3 is. It's $4000


----------



## Mav (Apr 30, 2008)

Nope, it's still 1.5x.  The only full-frame DSLR Nikon makes atm is the D3, although a Canon 5D equivalent is expected within a year or two, probably starting at north of $3000 (US).  The D3 is $5000 (US)


----------



## asfixiate (Apr 30, 2008)

Mav
Since you are minimalist why do you own the d80 as well as d40?


----------



## Mav (Apr 30, 2008)

How I ended up with two bodies is a bit of a long story, but to make a long story short, I really don't need two, and if I were to sell one of the two it would be the _D80_, leaving myself with just the D40.  It's smaller, cheaper, lighter, sharper, faster, easier to adjust, has faster flash sync, cleaner high ISO, and I'd never miss any of the "extras" on my D80 that for the most part have been completely meaningless for my type of photography.  I'd sell my D80, but its used value has depreciated enough by now that it's no longer worth it to me to sell it.  Might as well just keep it.  A year ago I could have gotten $800-900 whereas today it's only worth $500-600.  I could have bought some kickass glass last year if I'd sold it for $900, and the glass would still be worth the same $900 today rather than dropping to $500-600 like my D80 has.  Glass is always the much better investment.  I do shoot corporate events and weddings from time to time, and occasionally shoot in harsh conditions where you really don't want to be switching lenses.  For that stuff, having a 2nd body is a huge help, and that's really the only reason I'm keeping it.  My D40 is my _primary_ and my D80 is my backup. 

I'm only a minimalist when it comes to bodies.  After getting my first pro lens, now I'm ruined and I want MORE.  I see that Keith got the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS.  I wonder what he thinks of it?  I bet it's awesome.  Forget bodies and get some kick ass lenses instead.

A buddy of mine is a true minimalist.  He has a D50, an 18-55 kit lens, and a 50mm f/1.8 and takes tons of great photos with that setup.


----------



## MACollum (Apr 30, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> High shutter speed often means a lot. 3fps vs. 5fps vs. 10fps. That can really matter.


 
When my dh found out about the xsi he asked if I was interested in an upgrade from the xti. After explaining the specs I told him that it wasn't worth it...for me. If I was just now looking for my first DSLR, I would strongly consider the xsi. However, the buffer is too small for my liking, the rest of the specs aren't a big enough improvement for me to justify the price tag (after buying the xti a only year and a half ago at $900 with kit lens), and changing to new batteries and memory is a problem for me.

I'm sure anyone who decides to buy the xsi will be as happy with their camera as I am with my xti. But if I were going to upgrade at this point, I'd certainly pass on the xsi and get a 30D or 40D. 

JMO


----------



## asfixiate (May 1, 2008)

How big of an impact is memory and batteries though? I got my 8 gig card for 100 bucks.

Chances are the next big brother to the XSi will have the same change.


----------



## jg123 (May 1, 2008)

One thing I have noticed is that because the XSI is so widely available and at a discount in a few places, the used prices of XTI's has gotten a bit more reasonable.


----------



## JerryPH (May 1, 2008)

TamiyaGuy said:


> And the D60 also has the ability to make stop-motion movies. 3 words. Windows Movie Maker.


 
I have 3 words there too... Crappy Quality Movies.  comparing the motion video from that camera to an average video cam is like comparing a 1998 1MP Kodak to a D3.

When I want motion video, I sure as heck do not look to my digital picture camera, but my Sony 100GB HD Handycam.  Video has its place in my hobby, but not in my SLR.  It's more of a convenience, not something that I would think useful to a serious photographer.


----------



## jg123 (May 1, 2008)

I always thought a stop-motion movie was a few gazzillion still shots placed one after another to give the illusion of motion video.


----------



## JerryPH (May 1, 2008)

jg123 said:


> One thing I have noticed is that because the XSI is so widely available and at a discount in a few places, the used prices of XTI's has gotten a bit more reasonable.


 
Thats the same with all manufacturers. As the new stuff comes out, the old/discontinued stuff gets discounted to clear out stock. Used prices also plumet rediculously. A used D200 in excellent condition and low shutter counts is worth about $500 to a dealer as a trade-in value in Canada... rediculous, and adds the cherry to the sunday to confirm another reason why I won't upgrade but just buy the next camera outright and make the D200 my backup body. A 66% drop in value over 4 months... amazing, thats worse than automobiles!


----------



## Village Idiot (May 1, 2008)

asfixiate said:


> How big of an impact is memory and batteries though? I got my 8 gig card for 100 bucks.
> 
> Chances are the next big brother to the XSi will have the same change.


 
Spare batteries are useless and I think it would be hilarious trying to watch you fit that 8gb CF card into the XSI's SD card slot.

I upgraded from a 300d to a 30d. I lucked out, they use the same batteries.


----------



## asfixiate (May 1, 2008)

LOL...I just pictured that.  I'm just saying its not like I'd have to go spend 1,000 dollars to switch memory or batteries.

70 bucks for a battery and 100 bucks for a card.


----------



## BoblyBill (May 1, 2008)

As it is the case with so many of the threads here in the BF, it SEEMS to me that it really comes down to what you NEED and NOT what you want. As a storm chaser, I come across some very interesting situations. I shoot panoramics (usually auto bracketed) of the storms that I chase and two things that are a selling point for me are: fps, and continous shooting. Last year when I went out on storm chases, I would shoot with my D30 (3fps for only 8 shots). I still got the shots that I wanted but panos where hard to stitch, because 1. after 8 shots I had to hold (tripods take too long to setup most of the time) my camera in the same spot until I was able to take the next shot, 2. in tornadic supercells those clouds are moving FAST so I would have noticable differences from picture to picture. So, the 40D had big selling points to me because now I can almost get a whole 180 degrees while autobracketing before the camera has to buffer, and since I push 12-bits to the max (in some of the chases the clouds alone can have over a 3-6 stop difference not even conscidering that fact the ground is even darker in some cases) I have found 14bits usefull but not esential (autobracking helps but is a pain blending the shots sometimes). I never thought that I would ever use Live View but I love it. It makes it a whole lot easier to focus with it, still have problems when it's shooting ligthning but that's just because it's mostly guess work on where that's going to be anyways (focusing to inifinty doesn't quite cut it most of the time). That's my 2 cents... ok more like half of a cent. All that to say... if those extra features are worth the extra $200 bucks FOR YOU, then by all means buy an Xsi, but if the Xti has most if not all the features that you want don't spend the extra $200 dollars for Xsi.


----------



## Mav (May 1, 2008)

asfixiate said:


> LOL...I just pictured that.  I'm just saying its not like I'd have to go spend 1,000 dollars to switch memory or batteries.
> 
> 70 bucks for a battery and 100 bucks for a card.


That's a lens right there!


----------



## Mav (May 1, 2008)

BoblyBill said:


> As it is the case with so many of the threads here in the BF, it SEEMS to me that it really comes down to what you NEED and NOT what you want.


The biggest problem among beginners though is trying to determine the difference between the two.


Storm chasing sounds fun! :stun:


----------



## BoblyBill (May 1, 2008)

Mav said:


> The biggest problem among beginners though is trying to determine the difference between the two.
> 
> 
> Storm chasing sounds fun! :stun:


 

Very true... I makes the "which camera" questions so hard to answer because there are so many features that really I never use on my camera (which is probably true for most photographers). But without going out and shooting, I would never known that fps and continuous shooting would be that big of a selling point. I have no need for 1/500 flash sync as I would use that maybe once a year if that (just thinking about using a flash on a tornado makes me laugh).

If you are ever in the Arlington area... PM me... I'll take you out on a chase.


----------



## asfixiate (May 1, 2008)

Mav said:


> That's a lens right there!


True Mav. I'm just saying that its not as huge as if the lenses didn't work with it.

I wouldn't upgrade from XT to XSi...but if I didn't have a camera I would have no issues getting XSi.

My next camera would be big brother to Rebel with Rebel as backup.

Probably 5d no less than 40d


----------



## prodigy2k7 (May 1, 2008)

Yes it is as good as it sounds, but it doesn't sound very good to me


----------



## asfixiate (May 1, 2008)

both of us have rebels so we know what they are capable of...looking at what changed doesn't sound crazy...if we dind't have rebels i'm sure it would sound a lot better.  Rebel is always a good start and even can be  used professional so I'm sure Canon is selling a lot of them.


----------



## jg123 (May 1, 2008)

Since I am a beginner it is a tough choice, I know the XTI gives a lot of value for the money but there are a few features that appeal to me on XSI which might make it easier on a newbie like me.


----------



## asfixiate (May 1, 2008)

Totally your decision. Like I said before probably there's nothing wrong with have the latest and greatest. Even if its not tha tmuch more than the XTi...its still is a better camera...is it better enough to get me to switch?...no because I want to upgrade to 40d or 5d next.  is it something I would recommend to a newbie?...Yes because its a great starter...


----------



## iluvphotography (May 1, 2008)

So from reading all the posts I gather that if you have XTi you don't get much by upgrading to XSi.  But what if I have the first generation Rebel? the one before XT?  Should I get a used XTi or a new XSi?  What is the difference between the XTi kit lense and XSi's kit lense that everyone is talking about?


----------



## jg123 (May 1, 2008)

As I understand it the XSi kit lens comes with image stabilization


----------



## iluvphotography (May 1, 2008)

And what is image stabilizer?


----------



## jg123 (May 1, 2008)

Btw here is a good article/review on all the changes with lots of details


----------



## asfixiate (May 2, 2008)

Not to change the subject but you can get a new 30d for the same price as an XSi.


----------



## aliciarai (May 2, 2008)

Well I must say after reading this thread I'm actually happy that I got the XSi.  I've been taking pictures for years with my Nikon digital camera and have loved every minute of it.  But after reading many reviews and research about DSLR's I figured for the money and the use of the SD card that my best option was the XSi.  So for my birthday my husband surprised me by buying the XSi for me and I must say this is an awesome camera.  I have two friends who have Canons, one has a 30D and the other has a 35mm SLR.  I let them both play around with the XSi with there lenses and they love this camera.  However, if you already have the 30D or 40D then I wouldn't upgrade.  After taking shots with there cameras I'm happy with my purchase but I understand that its really all about the lenses and what you know about your camera. 

So I guess what I'm trying to say is...if this is your first DSLR spend the extra money and get the XSi.  However, if your thinking about upgrading...just go buy another lens with that money and go out and take some awesome pictures! :mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:


----------



## TamiyaGuy (May 3, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> I have 3 words there too... Crappy Quality Movies. comparing the motion video from that camera to an average video cam is like comparing a 1998 1MP Kodak to a D3.
> 
> When I want motion video, I sure as heck do not look to my digital picture camera, but my Sony 100GB HD Handycam. Video has its place in my hobby, but not in my SLR. It's more of a convenience, not something that I would think useful to a serious photographer.


Oh, yes certainly. I don't use Windows Movie Maker at all, but when I do make stop motion movies (and I do), I use the $140 Stop Motion Pro. I used to use Movie Maker for stop-motion movies, and they looked alright, but I would never use a DSLR camera to make a claymation; there would be too many limitations.


Edit: I'm not sure you're talking about Stop-motion movie there. A Sony Handycam is good for movies, but a picture camera is better for stop-frame animations, where you put a sequence of frames together to make a movie (like Wallace and Gromit). If you used a video camera for that, the quality would probably degrade for the same reason as you wouldn't use a digital camera for movies (cameras suck at making movies and camcorders suck at taking pictures)



aliciarai said:


> So I guess what I'm trying to say is...if this is your first DSLR spend the extra money and get the XSi. However, if your thinking about upgrading...just go buy another lens with that money and go out and take some awesome pictures! :mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:


Exactly right there. The XSi is a great starter DSLR (as is the D60) because of its handy features like Live View and Image Stabilisation. It helps the beginners (no offence) to get to grips with using a digital SLR for the first time, and lets them have fun doing it.

However, for people that are "used" to using DSLRs, they will find the XSi to be somewhat boring as it's nothing they haven't seen before.


----------

