Rebel XTI

So Im thinking about getting the rebel xti as my first dslr...i can get new

lenses and I hear its a great camera. I think 6 mp will be enough also.

 

Any reason I shouldnt get it?

 

 

Thanks,

 

KY

The XTI is a ten megapixel camera.

Yes it's a good camera, but it doesn't suit everyone. Go and have a look at some different reviews (ie www.dpreview.com) and read carefully. Then go to a shop and phsyically handle one. Some people find the size off putting.

 

If your still happy then buy one.

 

People coming from a non-slr backgound seem to have more problems understanding what the camera is doing, and blame the camera for the problems they encounter.Be prepared to put the time in to learn you gear.

 

P.S its 10Mp

Great camera ... I have one. I think it's a quality entry DSLR. It feels much better with a vertical battery grip.

Well, first, if you've never owned an SLR, then maybe a cheaper, potentially used camera would be a better first step. But, your post sounds like you already own a slr of some sort.

 

There are two really good reasons you shouldn't get the XTi unless you really want it.

 

The Rebel (300D) and Rebel XT (350D).

 

You can get a 6mp 300D for a very good price used these days, and the 8mp 350d comes new for quite a bit cheaper than the XTi right now. I have a Rebel XT and it is more than enough camera for just about anybody. I'd save the money and buy a Rebel XT, personally, but I'm not so excited about the XTi. I wish I could have gotten mine for what they are selling them for now.

The dust control system in the XTi seems like a big improvement over the other digital Rebels, which don't have it, so if you are going to buy a new digital camera consider that issue.

I got an XTi a few weeks ago as my first DSLR (I've had perhaps a hundred film SLRs, and I agree with the advice above that if you're not an SLR user a DSLR doesn't necessarily make sense). I finally got to the point that I felt it was necessary to have the same capabilities in terms of image quality and interchangeable lenses, etc, that I have with film.

 

I had narrowed my choice down to the Canon XTi or the Olympus E-500. This may seem like an odd choice, but I'm a longtime OM user and I don't like Nikon's self-incompatible lens mount and confusing compatibility charts. I can use my Nikon lenses on either the Canon or the Olympus better than I could on a Nikon. I also like the self-cleaning image sensor, which both the XTi and the E-500 have.

 

I decided that, despite the higher price, the Canon was the better choice for me. I think reports of its too-small size and "plasticky" feel are both overblown.... to me, it seemed just as easy to handle and to have as nice construction as the Olympus, which got higher marks in both areas in the reviews I had read. The Olympus lenses may be a bit better, but I don't like the 'power focus' that they have instead of real manual focus.

 

I have not been disappointed. In fact, I have been impressed with the Canon's handling, its image quality and its flexibility. I didn't expect the 2.5" LCD to be important to an old film burner, but it is very handy for assessing sharpness in a shot. I also like that the bit LCD automatically turns off when you put the camera to your eye (or let it hang against your body on the strap), reducing distraction and saving battery power. The Canon was also criticized for short battery life, but it seems quite reasonable to me... maybe I haven't used it enough yet for that to become an issue.

 

I have bought a Nikon adapter (for $8 on the Bay), which gives me a large set of manual focus lenses from 28 to 400mm to use with the camera, in addition to the kit lens. I don't feel the kit lens is as bad as the reviews suggest, either... it's certainly adequate for most uses and doesn't compare badly with some of my Nikkors. It isn't very heavily built, though, and I'm thinking of adding some 'real' EOS lenses some day when my bank account recovers from the shock of the camera.

 

For me, $800 is a whole lot to spend on a camera.... especially one made of plastic that needs batteries to run and whose images probably will never survive to the future generations that will find my film negatives. For that kind of money I could have bought a Leica M3, a Rolleiflex or a Hasselblad.... professional quality cameras that will outlast me no matter how hard I use them. But among digital SLRs that's a pretty cheap price and I have found the Canon (so far) to be a really excellent performer..... I think you'll get your money's worth.

"...feels much better with a vertical battery grip..."

 

Get a 30D instead - sans the grip.

>> Any reason I shouldnt get it?

 

 

No.

 

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

Great choice. I have one and I am still learning about everything mine could do. Never go backwards on the megapixels. Always move forwards where possible. 10.1 MP are available now. That's what you should get especially if you buying the camera new. Insist on 10.1 MPs. Enjoy the camera.

I will take a contrarian view.

 

1) As posted above, NEVER short yourself on megapixels. More is always better, all else being equal. Now. . .is it worth paying MORE for anything beyond 6mp. . .that is a different question. But bottom line is a 10mp camera for $800 is better than a 6mp camera for $800.

 

2) Your first SLR *should* be digital. Digital helps you learn. I say "BAH" to anyone who says that you should learn on film. I never learned a dang thing shooting film. The time lag between picture and result was too long (and too expensive).

 

3) Put the camera in your hand. Do you still like it? For $800 -> you need to love it.

 

4) Unlike film cameras. . .digital cameras are not long term investments. After 5 years. . you WILL want to replace it. Digital cameras are toys for most.

 

5) dSLRs are **NOT** point and shoot devices. They take care to use properly. Pictures will look dull straight out of the camera. You need to be computer literate.

>> As posted above, NEVER short yourself on megapixels. More is always better, all else being equal.

 

Right, but rarely all else is being equal.

 

>> But bottom line is a 10mp camera for $800 is better than a 6mp camera for $800.

 

According to B&H the XT is 520$ (600$ with kit lens) and XTi is 700$ (780$ with kit lens).

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

I do think the XTi is worth the extra cost over the XT.... in addition to the extra 2 million pixels, the anti-dust system for the sensor is good to have.

after read lots of reviwes and lots of opinions, I decided to with REbel XTI. I was a DSLR lover, but a point-n-shoot user. I knew a bit of DSLR, just a bit. I can tell, If u have the $$ to go all the way to XTI, no doubt, go for it. If u buy a new camera, a just (not THAT recent) released camera, u'll have more time to learn and more time before buy it. Do some research first. Go out and find how iso, lenses, exposure works, and I'm sure you will love your camera.

 

Note: I was in doubt, XT or XTI. XTI, no doubt. Digital, no doubt.