dogbert Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 "In short, the 5D is far and away better than the XT " You should have added if you are into pixel peeping at 200%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd_caudle Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Only the first inset box is at 200%, genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_barbu1 Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 <p><i>Well, it's a sliver less than 36x24: 35.8mm x 23.9mm</i></p>Ah! ...I wonder to what tolerance 35mm film has been produced. I'd check with my negatives, but I don't have a micrometer handy. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 <p> <ul> <i> Well, the Canon has a variable maximum aperture of f/3.5 to f/4.5, whereas the Sigma has a variable maximum aperture of f/4.0 to f/5.6. Furthermore, both of those zooms are in the $500+ pricerange. For $100+ less, I'd rather use the Sigma 20mm f/1.8, because it's a little over three stops faster. Having a wide lens is certainly nice, but not if it's maximum aperture is too small for your lighting conditions. Having said that, personally, I'd probably choose the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM. I think it offers the best combination of versatility and quality, even though it would be nice for it to be a stop faster.</i> </ul> </p> <p> 1. According to <a href="http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_20_18/index.htm">PZ</a> and <a href="http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/17-40/index.htm">WC</a> tests the Sigma 20/1.8 does not get very sharp until f/5.6 or f/8. IMHO it is not too useful to buy a fast lens and face with a choice of either use it in medium apertures or get soft images. <p> <p> 2. The 16-35/2.8 is a great lens, at a price. </p> <p> Happy shooting, <br> Yakim. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_barbu1 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 <p><i>IMHO it is not too useful to buy a fast lens and face with a choice of either use it in medium apertures or get soft images.</i></p>That's a valid point. <p><i>According to PZ and WC tests the Sigma 20/1.8 does not get very sharp until f/5.6 or f/8. </i></p>What I see in the PZ results is that it's soft at f/1.8, considerably better at f/2.8, and that f/5.6-f/8 is the "sweet spot" (as you know, most wide aperture lenses have optimal sharpness in that range of apertures). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_dark Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Well, here's the thing. What are you using it for? Yes, its better quality, better build, bigger screen... But, at the end of the day, when you print out a 8x10 or post them on a website, is being able to pick out tiny details really worth the extra money for what you do? When you compare the same picture printed on an 8x10 from the two cameras, what are the differences? and are these differences worthwhile? Ive seem incredible photos taken on a Rebel XT, and terrible pictures taken on a 5D. Personally, I don't think a 5D is even remotely necessary unless you happen to have a lot of money sitting around, or photography is something you make a fair amount of money doing to warrant it. I personally own a Rebel XT, and it works just fine. Cropped sensor, non-fancy selector wheel, 8MP, small LCD and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
critofur Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 To all you 5D snobs, will anyone deny that the XT can deliver beautiful perfect shots? And isn't that what matters MOST in a camera? If I could afford it I would like the larger brighter viewfinder, the FF sensor, and lower noise high ISO (perhaps that more than any other single feature). But I think any kind of car analogy is poor. Either car will get you where you're going but it's not the case that either camera will JUST get you a picture. The XT is fully capable of producing stunning, flawless, beautiful shots. Yes, the 5D has improved features, but the XT is not junk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
refined_touch Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 David Bowens' statement about Rebel XT is balanced. You truly have to ask yourself what do you want to do with your photography equipment? If you want to impress people with larger screens and crop factors and have a better signature at the end of your messages on photography forums, yes, spend the money. But if you want to be practical, spend the money else where on L-lenses. The image sensor on Rebel XT is impressive enough to handle wedding photography to wildlife shots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now