Rebel xsi vs 30D

I realize no one has seen or tested the new Rebel xsi, but based on the

features and specifications, what are your thoughts about "upgrading" from a

30D?

 

Let me say that the ergonomics of the xsi are not a negative to me. I almost

always use a tripod or monopod with my 30D slr.

 

When I have seen images shot, using "L" quality glass, I have often been

surrprised that they were shot using a Rebel. Thus, I'm presuming that the IQ

of the new Digic III, 14 bit, improved sensor xsi will produce high quality

images with "L" glass.

 

The SD media vs CF makes no difference to me. I generally plug the camera into

my laptop and download the photos before the card is full, so the type of media

in the camera makes no difference to me. They are all very inexpensive.

 

Many say the MP don't matter but, 8mp 30D to over 12mp xsi is over 25%increase.

If noise is controlled,which I expect it will be, the added mp should improve

the IQ over the 30D.

 

With an initial suggested retail under $800 the xsi looks like a

good "upgrade " from my 30D. What do you think?

agree. xsi is a nice camera. would suggest considering waiting for the 50d, though -- that will be a very sweet body and should go for same $$ as the 40d

Are you not getting sufficient IQ from the 30D?

Correction:The MP difference between the 30D and the xsi is 50% not the 25% I originally stated. That is a BIG improvement especially at the price of the xsi.

Dan Mitchell asked: Are you not getting sufficient IQ from the 30D?

 

 

I recently purchased a G9,12mp P&S, and under the right conditions the little G9 does produce better IQ than the 30D. The 30D will produce better IQ under a broader range of situations but I can tell that an upgraded body, with some of the newer feateres, may improve the IQ produced using my "L" lenes.

Dave, the XSi may have 50% more pixels than a 30D, but that is horizontally and vertically. On a linear scale that's only a bit more than 20%.

 

I'm using a 5D, 10D and a G7. Qualitywise IMO the 5D is best, followed by the 10D. Although the G7 images are quite good they are no match to the 10D when it comes to noise which is in practice the first parameter that IMO affects image quality. I would be surprised if things were radically different between the G9 and 30D but YMMV.

My wife has a G9, normally for underwater use, that I borrowed recently for an essentially non-photographic business trip. Not bad, but I wouldn't rave about it (perhaps to make it look really good you have to compare it with a Leica M8, see the recent article on Luminous Landscape) - it does a good job on the easy shots, but it's no match for a DSLR on anything at all tricky.

 

Back to Dave's question - the 450D/XSi looks like a very nice package. I'm mildly irritated that the LiveView sensor-based AF isn't available on the 40D, but I can't think of any other reason why I'd actually prefer a 450D to my 40D. An extra 2MPixels certainly doesn't persuade me - if I want a 12MPixel image, I use my 5D. As between the 450D and the 30D, that's a more open question. One thing that would not worry me in the least is the move to SD cards, in my view a far preferable technology because it uses contact pads rather than pins. What I would like to see is a DSLR using two SD cards side-by-side, but that's not yet reality.

<p>Some time ago I made up a small graphic to illustrate the actual difference in size (at

same dpi) of sensors with different numbers of photosites. You can find it <a

href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2005/09/10/dslr-megapixel-count-

comparison/">here</a>.

 

<p>It is hard to say when or if moving to a sensor with "more megapixels" will make a

difference. With a qualification I'll mention below, I feel pretty certain that doubling the

number of photosites can make a significant difference. Increasing the number of

photosites by 50% may or may not make a difference in your photographs.

 

<p>One qualification has to do with how you reproduce your photographs. If you mostly

print at letter size or smaller and/or share electronic versions of your images on the web

or in email, going from 8MP to 12MP will almost certainly <i>not</i> result in any visible

improvement in your images.

 

<p>If you are making fairly large prints (at least 12 x 18 inches and perhaps larger) there

could be a difference that you'll notice. But even here I think that the difference is only

likely to be significant if you are using excellent lenses, and careful technique - perhaps

shooting from a tripod, for example.

 

<p>Other factors can also explain better image quality that you might feel you get from

the G9. For example, the in camera processing (sharpness, saturation, levels) may be

different and responsible for the difference. I think that is more likely, given the small

sensor in the G9, than that the higher photosite density is causing the perceived

improvement.

 

<p>I think the XSi sounds like a great camera. Whether you'll see improvements in your

photographic results with it is another question.

 

<p>I agree with Jos that the most significant difference in image quality could come from

moving to full frame - but again, only if you use your photos in a way where the

improvement will be visible.

 

<p>Dan

For me the decision is easy: I have a 30D and the XSi won't be out until April. I don't have a 24-70mm f/2.8L lens or a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens. I believe the latter two will make a lot more difference to IQ in my case as I am not regularly making enlargements bigger than 12x18". I'll stick with the 30D until I've got better glass - the body has not been a limitation and I like the ergonomics, PC socket. It must also mean that the 30D has larger photosites (8Mpx on a 1.6x crop vs 12Mpx on the same sized sensor) - no doubt the hardworking Digic III will regain this noise advantage. The Xsi looks like a very nice camera - but not for me (the K20D also looks good.)

The Rebel XSi is the first real temptation I've had to upgrade my 10D. I like the angle of view that my 24/2.8 lens has on the 1.6X sensor. I want at least an 11MP sensor to be able to produce uninterpolated 9" X 13.5" prints, and I don't want to spend more than $1500 on the camera. This is the best of all worlds. I may wait for the 50D, but I may jump on the XSi in April.

 

Michael J Hoffman

I ordered a 30D as soon as I read the 450D announcement (the 40D is out of my budget). I'm upgrading from a 300D, so I'm no stranger to the rebel line, but I think that my needs now exceed the capabilities of those cameras. There were a few things that tempted me on the 450D, but they were not enough to sway me from the 30D. The 30D has the advantage in three areas that are important to me: Usability, Image quality (low noise), and battery life.

 

1. The 30D's extra controls and more ergonomic layout mean a lot to me. I shoot about 90% of the time in full manual mode, and under those circumstances, the rebel cameras are cumbersome (i.e. holding a button plus moving the control wheel to change aperture or having to scroll through autofocus points.)

 

2. If you look carefully at Phil Askey's review of the 40D on dpreview, you will find that the 40D actually has slightly more image noise than the 30D. It's not by much, but it is significant in that it means that improvements in low noise signal processing are approaching physical limits. Despite its higher photosite density, the 20D/30D sensor had less noise than the 10D sensor because of signal processing improvements (and microlens design), but that trend cannot continue forever, and it appears that there are indeed diminishing returns in that area already. Consequently, I think that the 450D, with even higher photosite density than the 40D (and the same signal processing engine) will have even higher image noise.

 

3. The final big advantage of the 30D over the 450D is battery life. I know the 450D has a new battery, but it's still small and it's rating is about 500 shots per charge vs. the 30D's 1100.

 

These three things were priorities for me, but you have to decide what your priorities are and choose accordingly.

50D?

xsi? What's xsi precious?

Really? dpreview found more image noise in the 40D vs the 30D?

 

I may have missed something in the review.

 

The only direct comparison I saw in the review was in regards to a JPEG image: "If anything the EOS 40D looks slightly less crisp 'per pixel' than the EOS 30D, although there are some identifiable areas of the image which are marginally better defined because of the increased pixel count."

 

And Phil's tests do quantify an improvement in dynamic range; particularly in the shadow areas.

 

My money is on the XSi producing superior images to the 40D. I am not yet convinced that a "limit" has been reached.

 

- - - - - - --

 

But don't get me wrong: Buying a 30D on the cheap has definate "pros". It is a really nice camera by all accounts.

 

- - - - -

Now having said this: I have a S40 and a 6mp 10D. The S40 has the same sensor as the G9, but uses less noise reduction. I can tell you that images from the 10D blow the S40 out of the water. Yeah, yeah, the S40 has more "resolution"; but the S40 sensor is a noise fest at ISO 400. The images are just *better* out of the 10D.

XSI is new development tools or 40D sister but 30D have good durability body & nice for handling - best regard