Last week all the Nikon
fanboys supporters were out in full-force
critiquing the D5000, so we couldn't let another week slip by without giving Canon advocates (and haters, we don't discriminate) a similar chance with the
T1i. Hitting the market at just about the same time, this well-specced entry-level DSLR packed a few niceties than alternative units simply did not: 1080p video, a 15.1 megapixel sensor and a price tag below $1,000. That said, there are still some areas that we reckon Canon could've improved upon, and if you feel the same way, we'd love to hear about it. Are you kosher with the 20fps 1080p mode? Is the image quality up to snuff? How's that stock lens treating you? Cut loose, won'tcha?
posted Jun 13th 2009 12:41AM
Make it a Sony
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/sony_releases_new_stupid_piece_of
Yea because Sony is sooo great huh?
One day you will learn that just because everyone of your friends buys something - that does not make it good.
Ever hear of the word sheeople?
Squint hard enough, and you might just see my /sarcasm tag =p
Shut up, jason51873! My Furby is just as awesome as the day I bought it!
Jason is OFFICIALLY A MORON!
Put a Nikon logo on it since Canon blows...
So does Sony & Olympus, by the way.
I'd make it a Nikon, but only because I already have a Nikon and I'd love to use the lenses I have with this awesome camera!
amazing camera for the price
Make it smaller,lighter,cheaper,better,faster,stronger
Simply looking at the specs, I'd agree. I don't think I'd ever use the 1080p video at only 20fps, but the fact is, It's a very capable camera for the price. Certainly, there are better models out there, but they cost MUCH more. If I had the money, I would definitely consider buying.
The lens is crap... I'd wish they'd bundle in the 18-105MM lens instead of the 18-55MM.
@holycow:
Canon makes no such lens (Nikon does, though). Perhaps you're referring to the 28-105 USM? While being a terrific lens, its MSRP is $100 more and it does not include image stabilization.
Lens if perfectly fine as a starter. With these you're going to buy your own anyways. It's a gateway drug into lens buying addiction.
seriously 1080 @20fps!? Oh well at least theres still 720p@ full 30fps How about dropping the price by $100?
yeah... would it have been that hard to make it 24?
its not exactly an HD camcorder, and the actual photos produced compensate for the price
Seriously, just give me 4 more frames per second and I'm good.
I agree. I would buy this camera if it did 24pat 1080. That said they should have also added an option for 24p at 720 lines of resolution.
Lower price plus a lager sensor surface area = win.
I would add 24 fps of video recording instead of the completely useless and non-standard 20 fps. I am sure the hardware can do it, and if it can't, 720/24p or 720/30p are still more preferable than 1080/20 fps.
"its not exactly an HD camcorder"
That line is beginning to blur and Canon should know this better than anyone.
Even us 5D Mark II users don't get 24p yet. I really am not sure why Canon is making the videos record at these weird framerates.
I would like to see "macro" keys that let me change all the settings, with a push of a button. I could REALLY use 3. 1 for portraits or HDR, 1 for landscapes, and 1 for birds in flight.
I hope to upgrade my XSi in a couple of months. The XSi cameras have held their worth pretty well. I know that I like the 18-55 lens on it... and I think the t1i uses the same lens. For me, the higher ISO settings are key. As others have said, 30FPS 1080p, or even 30fps 720p.
A couple pics from my XSi:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3561799210/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3605120536/
After looking a bit more, I realized that 720p runs at 30fps... so I am good on that account. :-)
I would make the video focus a bit faster. It takes too long for the camera to focus in Video mode.
The video is very good even at 20 fps.
I would change the body from Plastic to Magnesium. Make it a bit heavier. (Yea yea, it'll be almost like the 50D but will have video mode.)
well its probably more up to the lens as to how fast it can focus. when im recording through my lens with a USM inside, it focuses almost instantly.
I have a USM lense also....
It's not always slow. BUt most of the time it's slow for my liking.....
The kit lens is very limited and cheaply built. However, I purchased it to go along with my 30d because of the video feature. The 720p video is very good.
Still its way better than the old kit lend, believe me. The image quality of the present kit lens is very very good, almost on par with L lenses. Build quality of course is plastic.
I bet you haven't tried a single L lens... LOL
I think it could use a wheel/direction pad combo just like the G10. Probably make the 1080p at 30fps as well. That being said, I love my 500D...
make its cost $100 more and i'll think about it
wait no i won't
Umm...How about building a camera that fits an adult size hand? I wish Canon would get off this tiny crappy grip kick. Basically I have to buy a 50D for $500 more just to be able to operate the thing efficiently.
Come on, Canon, build the grip bigger!
I know, its designed for the soccer-mom market. But if I want a small entry level device, I'll buy a G10. (no, not really, I would rather have the new Oly Digital PEN with micro 4/3 and exchangeable lens). Maybe Canon should build the replacement of the G10 like that!
This is true. The old Nikon F100 had a nice grip and size. Bring us something that size. I'd also be into a slightly extended viewfinder for us Americans with bigger noses.
My philosophy for cameras has always been that either it should be an ultra-compact point and shoot so it can actually fit in your pocket and go with you anywhere or it should be a properly-sized, full-featured D-SLR that makes no pointless attempts at "portability." If it's already an SLR form factor, then it's not going to squeeze into my pocket, so make it comfortable to hold and heavy enough to be steady.
Heavy is credit to photographers!
"Basically I have to buy a 50D for $500 more"
You just answered your whole rant right there.
I own the Canon XSi (which I assume is similarly sized).
I am 6' 3". I weight 310 lbs. I have huge ham hands.
My hands fit wonderfully on the camera.
No idea what your talking about.
Yea, I lost all cred with my Olympus (EVolt 500) about a year ago. All the Soccer Moms have DSLR's now. The funny as fuck thing about it tho, after they show it off to the others for a few games, and realize that they have no idea how to use the damn thing.
All the pics look like crap, so they go back to their little elph's.
My wife scored a real nice Rebel Xti from her Mother (just last week) that went back to her W series Sony Cybershot after a couple of months of bad pictures and utter feature frustration.
I dunno if this was targeted at the Mom's... maybe they just managed to fit A LOT of features in a small body
Lovin' mine, grip is the only gripe too small, kit lens is alright, but go out and buy a 50mm lens first off. You will see this camera shine. Video is great for the price and 20fps looks lovely, as long as your shooting low motion and no major pans. 720p is great. The display is really top quality, and lots of great features built in, time lapse, bracketed expo, so on.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people spout off the old "buy a 50mm" line - even when it does not apply and is very outdated.
50mm *used* to be a pretty standard focal length on 35mm film (and by extension "full frame" digital, like the 5D or 1Ds). Even then it was ever-so-slightly longer than a true mathematical normal lens for that medium, but it didn't matter because it was so popularized and was generally such a great value lens. Good 50mm lenses are still great on those size films or sensors.
However on today's crop sensor digital cameras, which are the kind 95%+ of consumers actually buy, 50mm is much too long for a true general purpose lens (it's about a short/medium telephoto, good for portraits and other moderate telephoto applications). Not to mention that a halfway decent zoom will trounce most of the current 50mm lenses for practical use (still with great results!) by amateurs. The most recent Canon kit 18-55 zoom (the one with image stabilization) is actually a surprisingly decent performer in many image quality respects.
One valid reason to suggest a 50mm is NOT to replace the kit lens, but for the absolute best value from an aperture perspective (they're the "cheapest fastest" made by the big 35mm-format companies). Canon and Nikon also both make a "nifty fifty" which is about as dirt cheap as they can possibly manage, but with sharp image quality and a wide aperture. So it almost becomes a question of "why not" at those prices (Canon's is about $90).
Still, that's a world away from replacing a general purpose (18-55) zoom.
Most of your criticisms of the 50mm are just, but they don't diminish the importance of a lens like the 50. It's impossible to underestimate the importance of a lens that can shoot as fast as a 1.8> lens - and except for a 1.8 35mm Nikkor, there aren't any alternatives. Shooting at night with a 1.8 or lower is exceptional and makes the lens invaluable it a variety of situations (not even mentioning its incredible portability). Although we lose some to the crop factor of a Canon (1.6x) and Nikon (1.5x), for how cheap they are and how sharp photos are, they can really show a cameras worth. And I'm sorry, the 18-55 is very underwhelming lens (dpreview agrees).
So, the extra sharpness from a prime and the low light abilities will no doubt make an entry level Rebel user realize the benefits of an DSLR, and I personally have no issue recommending such a lens.
It's interesting to note that many people I know (fellow teenagers still in college) who bought a DSLR are stuck with a kit lens. They almost never upgrade due to budget constraints or losing interest by the time they actually have the cash to splurge on a better/additional one.
These kit lenses aren't bad at all. But it's just not utilizing the full potential of most bodies these days.
My 2 cents.
@ MONKEY:
dpreview of the 18-55mm IS kit lens says:
"Indeed overall it's an extremely well-behaved little lens, with very few nasty surprises for the user, and a remarkably good image stabilisation unit; indeed Canon's main concern may ultimately become whether users have as much incentive to upgrade to more expensive optics as they did before."
...
"In summary, this lens is a very welcome addition to Canon's range, and gives new dSLR owners a level of optical quality in the basic kit lens which was previously lacking; the addition of IS also goes a long way to increasing its flexibility. It makes an ideal lightweight general purpose-starter lens, and as such can only be recommended."
Read that last line?
>gelbec
I wasn't saying to replace the kit lens with a 50mm, just drop an extra 100 bucks and pick one up.
>monkey
yes, yes and yes
The kit 18-55mm IS is more than usable. If that's all you got, go out and use it well. You can still make great artistic photographic work using it, though obviously pros in many applications would find it lacking.
I liked stock 50mm a lot on film - so I grabbed the 28mm f1.8, which translates to 43mm on the 1.6x crop 500D. Hardly cheap at $400. Though I already have lots of experience with primes from Photo I, I still find the really fast aparture useful at night and at controlling depth of field. It can also zone focus, a lifesaver at night.
For me the kit is valuable for its 17mm wide angle - travelling, landscapes. Though I'd love to get some better glass - the 17-55 f2.8 has everything but is big and expensive; the 17-85mm isn't that much better, the Sigmas and Tamrons don't have IS. I'm in love in the 17-40mm L, but the range seems a bit short and it doesn't have IS either.
Okay in all seriousness, despite shooting Nikon now, Sony WAS my first own-purchased DSLR. And I started with my dad's old 350D Canon.
And what this new 500D needs, is what Sony did right: They put alot of features of into an entry level cam. Built-in IS, Wireless flash spec... all very good value for money. Where Canon still reigns and I wouldn't change is its ease of use balanced with speedy access to configuration changes (compared to the Alpha line imho).
What would I change? Lower the mgpx spec.
"They put alot of features of into an entry level cam. Built-in IS, Wireless flash spec... all very good value for money."
Note that Olympus does the same. And that was one of the reasons I actually picked the brand for my first DSLR. Idea was that I can check out many features, without forking out any serious money. Buying into Canon is either very expensive or very very @#$% expensive. I can afford Canon brand, but I wasn't sure that I would use larger DSLR as much as I used smaller/more portable P&S.
The thought was that after checking out the DSLR features, I could drop cheaper brand anytime I would find its quality not satisfying.
P.S. Canon needs more better faster zooms. That's what my colleague, Canon 1000D owner, says. Analogue of Oly ZD 12-60 is highly desired: e.g. EF-S 24-120mm f/2.8-4.0 USM IS with the same/better IQ, optionally with longer/faster tele-end, and priced about $1000.