With the
Rebel XT's popularity, it's understandable that
Canon has made their
XTi update plenty familiar to its predecessor, but they've also mixed in some snazzy enhancements that should suite the budget DSLR crowd quite well. Camera Labs was quick on the draw with their review, and they definitely seemed to like what they saw. For starters, the new 10.1 megapixel CCD surpasses Canon's own higher-end
EOS 30D for resolution, but if you've already go a Rebel XT you probably won't notice the bump in resolution, and Camera Labs recommends perhaps springing for a new lens instead. The XTi continues its impersonation of the 30D with an identical nine-point auto focus system and easily readable 2.5-inch LCD, and again surpasses the pro-DSLR with its fairly extensive anti-dust features. There are notable differences, however, since the XTi maintains the relatively "cheap" and small feel of the XT, along with lacking a few other pro features. The new Rebel also lacks anti-shake of its arch-rival, the Sony Alpha A100 -- you'll need to spring for an expensive Image Stabilized lens to gain the feature. Overall the XTi brings speedy shooting, nice pics, low noise and a good price to a highly competitive budget DSLR market, and just might come out the winner.
[Via
Digital Photography Blog]
posted September 4th 2006 10:40AM
I still don't see how this will not completely kill sales of Canon's 30D.
Quote:
I still don't see how this will not completely kill sales of Canon's 30D.
As a 350D owner, and sometime user of a friend's Nikon D200 (which costs almost 3x the price), there are still some very noticeable differences between it and a "pro" SLR like the 30D
For one, the ease of changing settings such as ISO speed, aperture size, etc. With the 350D, you need to go through menus on the rear LCD screen to make selections, while the 30D (and other pro SLRs like the Nikon D200) have two mode selection wheels letting you adjust more or less everything at a flick of two fingers.
Secondly, it's really light. That's a good thing for sure, but a heavier camera also does help to dampen your hands and arms' vibration if you are shooting without a tripod.
The 350D and certainly this new 400D are just amazing cameras for mid-range users like myself, compared to even the best smaller semi-pro integrated cameras. But the pros will still always want pro tools, and this does not really qualify. Backup camera, maybe. Main one, not likely.
"For starters, the new 10.1 megapixel CCD surpasses Canon's own higher-end EOS 30D for resolution"
Not to be a stickler, but it's a CMOS sensor, Nikon uses CCD's
"The new Rebel also lacks anti-shake of its arch-rival, the Sony Alpha A100 -- you'll need to spring for an expensive Image Stabilized lens to gain the feature"
This is how it has always been and I feel this is the best way to it. As investment is always to the lens. The body is always being updated. Putting the technology in the len means you wont have to spring for new glass everytime a new body rolls out.
Money should be spent on glass not the body. That is where you will see the biggest difference.
I have a little feeling that they have to bring out a successor of the 30D. I wanted to buy the 30D but know that the 400D is out it won't make any sense. The dust remover is a very big step and I would miss it in a 30D... so lets wait and hope Canon will bring out a new one!
My credit card is just waiting until this is available. Everyone said September, but sites like Amazon say mid-October. Only thing I'll miss about having a point-and-shoot camera is the size, but I need quality for work. I'm going to have to start carrying a man purse now -- wonderful.
Fishes,
narco.
They already had one of these on display at Best Buy. I was able to pick it up and hold it, though the battery was dead, so I couldn't turn it on. It feels a little nicer, a little more solid, than the regular XT, though only in a minor way. It's still not as large or as durable as the 30D, and there will always be people who will go for the 30D just for that solid alloy body. But you could just side-by-side tell the LCD screen was larger, and the thumb rest and hand grip was slightly altered a little more thought out, so it's a more user-friendly camera than the XT.
"Not to be a stickler, but it's a CMOS sensor, Nikon uses CCD's"
Not in all their cameras. The D2X uses CMOS and th D2H uses a LBCAST based sensor.
It seems to me:
* Canon has incremented the entry DSLR
* The D30 will see an increment to keep it "above" the XT
* as for stability, this camera is sold to photographers not yet ready to "invest" in lenses for the most part, so any feature in the body is a plus
* having two control thumb-wheels would have been a compelling feature -- a pity they left it off
* personally, I haven't experienced a DSLR to compare to the out-going 350 in terms of the quality of photograph possible for an amateur, so the 400 ups the ante
* personally again, I happen to have a bag of Canon lenses (no "digital" lenses) so this makes sense to me, but I'm still tempted to "liquidate" my lenses and start again at the entry-level for pro-sumer bodies and maybe need only two or three good lenses and that could happen with only minimal dollars to step up.
* I don't see anything in the 400 to command full price (first kid on the block) purchase versus the discounting on the quite recently released 350 or even the 300.
* By the way, an 8mp+ camera on a tripod makes a great scanner ... especially for wide format documents like blueprints -- this would be an "alternative" example of when the new 400 could be good value for multi-purpose iamge/document professionals.
"My credit card is just waiting until this is available. Everyone said September, but sites like Amazon say mid-October."
You can find it now. I have been in the market for a DSLR and decided to wait for this one. I picked it up on Sept. 1st at my local Circuit City. So far I have been very impressed with it.
To me i would like to update to the 400 but The new Nikon d80 is tempting me more. I've been doing some work for at concerts and the solidness of the Nikon is much better for those conditions. a tripod is not an option. Maby a vertical grip on the 400 would do the trick? But apart from feel the two are as good as each other. hmmm...Thoughts?
I have to agree with a previous poster about the glass being the most important aspect of the camera. I went on safari to South Africa last winter with my Rebel XT and L Series lenses, while a fellow traveler had a new Canon 5D with a midrange lens....you should have seen his face when he tried out my L lens. I ruined his whole trip! He realized that he was running a Ferrari on a Ford engine. Yes, I was handing my lens over every five minutes! Spend your money on the lenses, you will be happy in the long run!
I am completely torn about which camera to get as my first SLR. Originally I was looking at the Olympus Evolt 500 in comparison to the Rebel XT. Now I am completely thrown off base with the new XTI and Nikon D80 released. But I am also looking into the Sony A100 now, because of its image stabalizing system, which Canon and Nikon do not provide. But since it's Sony's first SLR, I don't know if I can trust it. I also heard that the Nikon has an ISO of up to 3200 with a boost. But I am not sure what this "boost" means or why it's necessary to have at all. I need help. Also, the Nikon doesn't have a dust cleanser, which I think is appealing considering that these cameras are so similar. To me, the Canon seems like a trustworthy product especially with its lower price. But I hear a lot of complaints about the way it feels. Will somebody please tell me the pros versus cons of these tempting SLRs. I can't take it anymore! Which one do I buy?! ... Also, what's the difference between a CCD and CMOS sensor, is one better than the other? Somebody please help!
I think that is a very good point. To me The Canon has a better track record in most areas, if only minor but with the dust reduction and the price difference the canon should be the way to go. I've held the 350 with a vertical battery grip and it improved the feel heaps. and they don't cost much. I also hear the 18-55
lense that comes with the 400 is pretty good. At least to tie over.
Joey said:
"Money should be spent on glass not the body. That is where you will see the biggest difference."
I agree that spending your money on high-quality lenses will get you better photos. But why should you have to spend more money to buy the same anti-shake technology in EVERY lens you buy? If the IS technology is built into the body then you can keep the same high-quality lenses while upgrading the body. So the cost of the lens goes into the optics, not into IS.
Implementing the IS in the lens is like building a car and implementing 4WD in a car's tires.
By that, are you saying the sony would be a better buy than the canon or nikon? Is that the only camera that has the anti shake body? I'm still learning! :)
You guys debating IS in lens vs. IS in camera should listen to what the pros say. They prefer it in the lens. There are various technology and photo quality issues, as well as who makes more money if IS is in the camera, or the lens.
As far as whether Sony, Canon, or Nikon is a better camera buy? You have to consider the entire system, including lenses, flashes, etc. At this point, Sony wouldn't even be in the contest.
Hmmm, Sounds right to me, I Was having enough trouble picking the canon 400 over the D80 without thinking about the sony!
There isn't enough for nikon to get me on board for it's price compared to the canon 400. Throw on a vertical grip and size issue solved...canon for me! unless of course someone can talk me into the nikon..haha
Canon EOS 400 vs Nikon D80 the undelevered baby! Its just an impossible issue to dicuss unless we consider the previous reputation of each Brand name!
its a war like Mac and Windows. Windows has a loads of features ahead of Mac, the freindlyness and accesebility where Mac useres enjoy the inner beauty of it! One of my great photographer friend who got a desk full of Nicons and Canons! Says, its nikon gives you everyhting in a Click, easy like counting your fingure... and a canon gives you a quite good image(which you'd like to make a wall paper)with a bit more effort! And People like us, never sure which one to choose! Raise yoour hand to merge them together and make a whole new CanKon!
I'll go for the IQ (Image Quality) without any hesitation.
Can someone summarise the advantages of the Canon EOS 400D over other Canon's and the Nikon?
Also how much did u pick it up for?
The problem with having the stabiliser in the lens is that everytime it is updated or changed then a whole new body has to be released, also stabilisers can often produce a slighty softer image on wide angle lenses which is why it is nicer to have it in the lens...
Sorry meant to say stabiliser in the body in the opening line of my last comment
I am also trying to decide which digital slr to buy. Do I go for some nice lenses ( like the 17-85 is usm and 70-300 is usm) matched with the 400D (good value with Canon's only dust management system) or Nikon's D200 (from what I understand a much more capable camera) with the 18-200 lens (which I have read can experience some distortion under trying conditions)? Any help would be appreciated.