Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 17, 2007, 2:01 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

Well since that realm might require low shutter or zoom and moderate shutter....

You might consider the Pentax K100D (or K10D) with its internal (any lens) IS

As well as otherwise very nice DSLR's
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2007, 9:16 PM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 12
Default

Sorry I couldn't get back to anybody but I've been away at a wrestling tournament for the last few days. After hearing what you guys have to say and due to the great low aperture lens available (50mm f/1.8 for $75) I've all but decided on the XT pending a final trip to the store to compare the feel vs. the D50.

The only thing is, somebody here meantioned upgrading to the XTi. On Amazon the price of the XTi body is $680 which is $190 more than the XT ($490). Is the upgrade worth the extra money? Will the quality really be visible in the pictures? Or would my money be better spent getting a nicer lens?

Also, while at the tournament one of the photographers meantioned that the lower end Canon cameras tend to have trouble at the higher ISO's. Is this something that I should worry about or is simply what happens with entry level dSLR's?

Lastly, I can't remember the name but I've read about some sort of camera show coming up in the next few weeks where it's possible that new camera models will be anounced. Would it be smart to wait until after the show to get my camera or will prices most likely stay the same for the next few months?

Once again, thanks for all the help.
fLthMsc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2007, 10:09 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 734
Default

fLthMsc wrote:
Quote:

The only thing is, somebody here meantioned upgrading to the XTi. On Amazon the price of the XTi body is $680 which is $190 more than the XT ($490). Is the upgrade worth the extra money? Will the quality really be visible in the pictures? Or would my money be better spent getting a nicer lens?

Also, while at the tournament one of the photographers meantioned that the lower end Canon cameras tend to have trouble at the higher ISO's. Is this something that I should worry about or is simply what happens with entry level dSLR's?

That photogrpher does not own a Canon camera, all current Canon cameras have the most impressive high ISO, go to Canon forum and see for yourself.

"...Is the upgrade worth the extra money?" Yes if you have that extra money.

The XTI is easy to use, all key features can be done with just one click, especially to switch from color to b&w. The AF is fast even in low light, you'll be surprised.

10MP, just takea snap shot on the street and crop as you like on your screen you'll see people face, car license platefar away street sign...you'll get hooked

The optional battery grip add weight to balance the camera when use long zoom, using two dedicated batteries last forever.

The sensor is anti-static coated, if you work in the microelectronic industry using a microscope daily, you can see a non-anticoated parts with dust on it, mostly small piece of hair, that's whyclean roomtechnicians wear a cap.

What camera give you all those flexibilities for $680? Talking on the net is different from handle the XTI in real life shooting shot by shot with an XTI.


Attached Images
 
coldshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2007, 12:01 AM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 6
Default

Corpsy wrote:
Quote:
...If I were to take my K100d to a concert, I'd probably take my 135 f/2.5 as well as a 50mm, unless I was rather close to the stage. Does Canon have a comparable lens?
Uhhh... doesn't *every* maker have a 135mm 2.8-or-faster?


- Steve S.

Steve-S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2007, 12:37 AM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 6
Default

coldshot wrote:
Quote:
fLthMsc wrote:
Quote:
The only thing is, somebody here meantioned upgrading to the XTi. On Amazon the price of the XTi body is $680 which is $190 more than the XT ($490). Is the upgrade worth the extra money? Will the quality really be visible in the pictures? Or would my money be better spent getting a nicer lens?

Also, while at the tournament one of the photographers meantioned that the lower end Canon cameras tend to have trouble at the higher ISO's. Is this something that I should worry about or is simply what happens with entry level dSLR's?
That photogrpher does not own a Canon camera, all current Canon cameras have the most impressive high ISO, go to Canon forum and see for yourself.

"...Is the upgrade worth the extra money?" Yes if you have that extra money.

The XTI is easy to use, all key features can be done with just one click, especially to switch from color to b&w. The AF is fast even in low light, you'll be surprised.

10MP, just takea snap shot on the street and crop as you like on your screen you'll see people face, car license platefar away street sign...you'll get hooked

The optional battery grip add weight to balance the camera when use long zoom, using two dedicated batteries last forever.

The sensor is anti-static coated, if you work in the microelectronic industry using a microscope daily, you can see a non-anticoated parts with dust on it, mostly small piece of hair, that's whyclean roomtechnicians wear a cap.

What camera give you all those flexibilities for $680? Talking on the net is different from handle the XTI in real life shooting shot by shot with an XTI.
I'll vote for sticking with the XT (350D) over the XTi (400D). Sure, the MP's are nice to have when you want or need 'em (tight crops, large blow-ups) but that won't be all THAT often, and the 8MP's of the XT are entirely-respectable.

Here's why I think fLthMsc should stay with the XT: extreme-ISO (1600 - 3200). I think you'll find the XT regularly out-performing the XTi here. All the 10MP models suffer from high-ISO problems, and Canon's is no exception.

Is the upgrade worth the money? I don't think so, not at all. In fact, for a low-light shooter, I'd argue the XT is worth *extra* money over the newer XTi.


coldshot added, "what camera give you all those flexibilities for $680?"

Well... Sony's a100, for one ($670 @ B&H or Adorama, as I write).

All those advantages you mention, PLUS in-body IS??? Sweeeet. Where else can you get Sigma's 30/1.4 ... Tamron's tack-sharp 90/2.8 macro... an F'ing *Zeiss* 135/1.8 or 85/1.4 fer cryin' out loud... All _with_ IS? If you're seriously looking at the Rebel XTi, I'd *seriously* look at the other 10MP cameras.


Today, I'd shortlist 3 of the 10MP models:

- Nikon D80 - probably the best ergonomics of the bunch (but that's a personal call, and just because *others* find it fits their hands/workstyle better, doesn't mean YOU will). Also, Nikon has the only 18-200 superzoom that's decent, so the D80 gets you into THAT game, too.

- Sony a100 - The first 10MP at sub-$1000, with in-body antishake; may be getting a bit long-in-the-tooth, but still the least-expensive way to get in-body antishake (without hitting used & discontinued).

- Pentax K10d - more $$$, but ooo those weatherseals -- /and/ in-body antishake.

No, the XTi doesn't make my shortlist; I like the older XT for its low-light, but the XTi has no substantive advantage.



- Steve S.

Steve-S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2007, 1:44 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Frogfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai, China
Posts: 2,774
Default

Steve, I was checking out those camera prices on-line just yesterday and all three (D80, A-100 and K10D) can all be had for US$800 - 900. So obviously all are sub US$1,000 now.

In fact there is a great kit for the K10D on Ebay that includes 2 lenses to get you started plus many other add ons, for around US$1,080. I'm sure a search would find similar packages for the D80 & A-100 too.
Frogfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2007, 1:51 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 734
Default

That's technically on paper, in real life shoot out I can manipulate the XTI faster than those cameras you mentioned, I can move from one lighting to a different with one click, from b&W to color back and forth also with one click, those tricks not mentioned in the XTI manual. TheXTIset up info is on the back LCD I can see clearly in sunlight thanthe XTwith a small window, other cameras on the top recieve full refection, when I turn the subject for backlight I blind all of them.:-)


coldshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2007, 3:16 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

Steve-S wrote:
Quote:
- Pentax K10d - more $$$, but ooo those weatherseals -- /and/ in-body antishake.
Only slightly more dollars and Far less than either Canon (30D) or Nikon like competition.

As to the seals great for this salt air or spray environment... or for that matter leave it sitting on a bar and someone spills a drink on it.... no big deal. :roll:
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2007, 9:24 PM   #19
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 12
Default

Steve-S wrote:
Quote:
coldshot wroteI'll vote for sticking with the XT (350D) over the XTi (400D). Sure, the MP's are nice to have when you want or need 'em (tight crops, large blow-ups) but that won't be all THAT often, and the 8MP's of the XT are entirely-respectable.

Here's why I think fLthMsc should stay with the XT: extreme-ISO (1600 - 3200). I think you'll find the XT regularly out-performing the XTi here. All the 10MP models suffer from high-ISO problems, and Canon's is no exception.

Is the upgrade worth the money? I don't think so, not at all. In fact, for a low-light shooter, I'd argue the XT is worth *extra* money over the newer XTi.
I've looked at the XTi since it was the next model up from the XT but due to financial constraints I'm not looking too seriously at other 10MP cameras. Is their a particular reason why 10MP cameras perfrom poorly at higher ISO's? One of my main priorities for the camera will be low light concerts so I will definetly want a camera that will perfrom well at the higher levels.

Also, I went over to try and get a feel for the different cameras. The Canon 20D felt quite heavenly but is most definitley out of the budget for now. The XT and XTi both felt similar which was on the smaller end. Even though I am really leaning towards the XT/i I decided to give the Nikon D50 a feel. At first I seemed to like the feel more as it seemed to be much fuller and fit in my hands a bit better. The thing is, I'm worried that even though it feels better for the moment that if I'm walking around carrying and holding the camera for a few hours at a time that I may prefer the smaller feel of the XT/i.

Also, from what I've read online that both the XT and the XTi are supposed to shoot at 3 FPS, however, when I was testing them out in the store the XT definitley did not feel like it was shooting as fast as the XTi. Now that I've written this out I'm assuming that it most likely had something to do with the shutter speed on the XT? Though I would still want to confirm with somebody about the speed of the XT before I buy it.

Thanks again for all the help.
fLthMsc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2007, 10:57 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 822
Default

"however, when I was testing them out in the store the XT definitley did not feel like it was shooting as fast as the XTi. Now that I've written this out I'm assuming that it most likely had something to do with the shutter speed on the XT?"

More than likely that's the faster autofocus of the XTi. One of the key improvements in the XTi is that they essentially gave it the autofocus sytem off of the 30D. It will focus both more quickly and both more accurately than older entry level models like the 300d or 350D. The K100D is very accurate, but notably slower.

Too much emphasis is someimes given to per pixel ISO noise at high ISO (like ISO 1600). While lower noise is useful in low light, other factors like bright lenses and fast low light focus can also be important. While per pixel noise is slightly higher on recent 10MP dSLR models than on older 6MP and 8MP models, overall image noise isn't any worse, and is maybe even better on some of the newer models. Print images, or view them at full screen instead of 100%, and you will see that image quality has generally improved.

In the small sensors in todays point and shoot cameras, I think the older 6MP models can often deliver even better image quality than recent 10MP models. I really haven't seen that yet in a dSLR.

It may be that in low light shooting, the extra MP doesn't help much. But I don't see it as a disadvantage. The other advantages of the 400D, the improved autofocus, the dust cleaning system, the improved menu and controls (no more extra set button to push when changing settings), may still make it worth the additional cost. Whether it's worth the roughly $160 dollars more may depend on the individual budget.


kenbalbari is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:59 PM.