Help with Canon Rebel XT

[tylerwind]

I'm a serious amateur photography who loves to take photographs of a

very wide range of subjects. I've been looking into buying a digital

SLR. I've always used Canon and have had my eye on the XT. Can

someone please give me some pro's and con's of this camera and let

me know if you feel it is a good choice? If not, do you have any

suggestions as to other cameras I should consider strongly? Thanks!

[phule]

Tyler,

 

Please do not cross-post.

[trothwell]

The XT is a great starter digital SLR. The picture quality is essentially the same as the more expensive 20D. But...

 

If your other Canon cameras (film, I presume) were of the more professional sort (e.g., EOS 3 or Elan) rather than the more amateur sort (e.g., film Rebels) then you might be disappointed with the build of the XT. It's rather small and feels plasticky. I personally would rather go with the 20D/30D for this reason, but you may prefer how the XT feels.

 

If at all possible, try going to a camera store to see how the Rebel XT feels in your hands compared to a 20D. No photo store locally? Even the Best Buy here carries both the XT and 20D (and even the 5D, as of a few weeks ago), and they let you handle the cameras in the store.

 

If you're looking to spend more money, the 5D offers full-frame coverage, which is a very nice feature.

 

Alternately, Nikon may have something to your liking, if you don't already have a large investment in Canon lenses (or want to spend even more money, this time for more lenses). A friend of mine bought (I believe) their most entry-level DSLR, and it seemed to be more solidly built than the XT, and takes excellent pictures.

[ryan mcgill - trm photo st]

I have not used the XT, but I own the 6.3 Digital Rebel. I have enjoyed it tremendously. My only complaints are dark viewfinder and no flash compensation. The noise levels are suppose to be much improved on the XT. The Canon XT will have less noise than the Nikon D70. Of course, you will have the cropping factor. So, if you are using film and have wide angle lenses they will not be as wide on the XT.

[affen_kot]

<p>i have an XT, and it has been a wonderful, surprisingly full featured first

DSLR for me. everything that is said about 20D image quality is true of the

XT. put some good glass on it and it will create stunning images limited only

by your technique and ability to post process. sometimes the good glass isn't

even a requirement if your vision is interesting enough; but i digress.</p>

<p>that said, i came from nikon film bodies, all of which had grips on them; this

made the size of the XT's grip seem awkwardly small to me, and i subsequently

bought the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007WK8LC/002-7964564-8384031?v=glance&n=502394" target="_blank">BG-E3

battery grip</a> for it (which is a useful piece of portraiture kit and very

well built. if only the XT could have been so sturdily built). problem solved,

but if i had known that i would have been springing for a BG-E3, i would have

possibly just saved a little more and gone with the 20D. if you can save a couple

hundred more dollars and get a <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002XQI2E/sr=1-2/qid=1143065283/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-7964564-8384031?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=photo" target="_blank">new

20D</a> before they're all snapped up, that would offer you much better ergonomics,

as well as a longer lasting shutter (among other things that aren't as important

to me...i do fine art - the <em> fine</em> part is subjective - not sports).</p>

<p>i have nothing against the XT. at the time of purchase (march 2005), it was

the best bang for the buck dslr in my estimation. now, that title might belong

to the 20D while it can still be found new. cheers</p>

[the lone ranger]

My mom has a Rebel XT, and I'd say that picture quality wise on ISO 100-400 are simliar to the 20D, but anyting above the 20D is clearly better at noise in shadow areas.

 

I also prefer the 20D because the layout makes it much easier to change aperture, ISO, WB and all those other settings at a quick flick of the dial, whereas with the XT you have to hold down a button and then turn the switch to change aperture, and have use to LCD in order to change ISO and WB. Not to mention that the XT gives me handcramps from the small size. Both are a good deal, just depends on what your price range is.</p>

 

<a href="http:/www.rwongphoto.com">www.rwongphoto.com</a>

[geoffm]

The significant differences are mainly in the ergonomics. I came from an EOS 50 - biggish camera, rear control dial etc. The XT is smaller, has no RCD, and has a smaller gloomier viewfinder. However, I got used to these changes really quickly, and now I really appreciate the compact size of this camera. The finger-thumb trick for changing aperture in manual mode isn't so hard to do, and as for having to change ISO on the LCD - just being able to change ISO is a wonder in itself (incidentally, you don't have to drill through menus to change things like ISO, WB, AF mode etc. - there are "hot keys" for these.)

 

Whenever I pick up my 50 now it feels big and awkward by comparison to the XT. (Until I look through the viewfinder - that's the one thing I regret. However nothing short of a 5D will fix that, and that's too much of a sacrifice in size, weight, and $$. And most of the time it isn't that much of an issue. I'm vainly hoping that viewfinders will be the Next Big Thing in crop cameras - fat chance, I guess!)

[gdanmitchell]

I like my 350D a lot. From my experience and judging from tests I've read their is no

observable difference between its image quality and that of the 20D (and likely the 30D).

 

The control layout is different but that may or may not be an issue for you. It really isn't

for me. Once you learn the menus the operation is second nature.

 

I regard the smaller body as an asset since I do most of my photography while hiking or

backpacking. The smaller dimensions and the 1/2 pound lighter weight are Good Things. I

have large hands and while I was initially concerned that the smaller body would be an

issue I have to tell you I don't even think about it any more - except when I read that I

should in the photo.net forums... ;-)

 

The burst rate is a bit slower than the 20D and the buffer holds fewer shots, so if you are

big time burst mode shooter you might have a reason there to go for the more expensive

body. It isn't an issue for me.

 

I really think the 350D may ultimately be regarded as a Canon classic. If I were to upgrade

from this camera it would not be to the 20D/30D - it would be to the 5D, which arguably

may produce significant improvement in image quality, something you won't get with the

20D/30D.

[bennyboy]

The thing I think will make a BIG difference for you is the tiny viewfinder, it's practically useless for manual focusing. AFAIK the 20D is marginally brighter because it uses a pentaprism but I'm not sure if it's larger.

 

Other things I can see a 20D beating a 350D (European name for XT) on are ergonomics, the controls are laid out better - but you get used to the one that you buy so it's not a biggie.

 

People rave about the build of the 20D, I honestly don't know why, it's not weather sealed, if you drop it then it's goosed just like a 350D. I've 'fondled' the 20D and it just feels like a slightly larger hunk of plastic, I'd still want the BG-E2 grip on a 20D (I have the BG-E3 on my 350D).

 

The one thing I like a lot about the 20D is the much quieter and shorter shutter/mirror noise. It's hard to be clandestine with the XT unless you're in a noisy environment.

[affen_kot]

<p>hi tyler. a lot of claims were thrown out in this thread, many of them being

incorrect; in the effort to provide you with correct information, i've contrasted

them with the those of one of p.net's well-known canon gurus, bob atkins - as

expressed in his reviews and writings (<a href="http://bobatkins.photo.net/photography" target="_blank">bobatkins.com</a>).</p>

<p>all "bob" quotes were taken from bob atkins' <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/eos_digital_rebel_xt_review.html" target="_blank">review

of the 350D</a>, <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/eos20d.html" target="_blank">review

of the 20D</a>, and page <em><a href="http://bobatkins.photo.net/photography/digital/eos_digital_rebel_xt_vs_20d.html" target="_blank">Canon

EOS Digital Rebel XT (350D) vs. EOS 20D - A Comparison</a> </em>... </p>

<p><strong>1a. richard: </strong>"...picture quality wise on ISO 100-400

are simliar to the 20D, but anyting above the 20D is clearly better at noise

in shadow areas..."</p>

<p><strong>bob:</strong> "My conclusion is that both cameras produce images

of essentially the same quality, both at ISO100 and at ISO 1600. Color and noise

levels were very similar indeed. Without doing scientific tests, they look identical,

even at 200% enlargement. Any fears about higher noise or lower sharpness than

the EOS 20D seem totally unfounded...If there are differences, they're too small

to matter."</p>

<p><strong>1b. richard: </strong>"...I also prefer the 20D because the layout

makes it much easier to change aperture, ISO, WB and all those other settings

at a quick flick of the dial, whereas with the XT you have to hold down a button

and then turn the switch to change aperture..."</p>

<p><strong>bob (or moreso a graphic of the 350D on his site):</strong> the 350D

has hot keys for ISO, WB, AF, etc. - as well as Av mode, which allows one to

change aperture at a flick of the front dial.</p>

<p><strong>2. dan: </strong>"...and the (350D's) buffer holds fewer shots..."</p>

<p><strong>bob: </strong>"Both have buffer which holds 6 RAW files"</p>

<p><strong>3. ben: </strong>"The one thing I like a lot about the 20D is

the much quieter and shorter shutter/mirror noise. It's hard to be clandestine

with the XT unless you're in a noisy environment."</p>

<p><strong>bob: </strong>"(about the 20D...) A faster shooting rate means

the mirror also has to move faster, and a faster mirror carries more energy

so it <em>makes a louder noise when it stops</em>! The difference in <em>shutter

noise is quite noticeable </em>to someone used to the 10D." bob also has<a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/eos_digital_rebel_xt_review.html" target="_blank">

audio samples of the 350D and 20D shutters activating</a> (1/4 down the page),

which show the 20D shutter to be noticeably louder. "...Quite a few people

have commented on the difference in shutter sound of the Digital Rebel XT and

EOS 20D..."</p>

<p><strong>4. ryan: "</strong>...and no flash compensation (on the 350D)..."</p>

<p><strong>bob: </strong>"...Here are some of the main features of the Canon

EOS Digital Rebel XT...<em>flash exposure compensation</em>..."</p>

<p>good luck in your quest, tyler.<br>

</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

[ryan mcgill - trm photo st]

I own the 300D and it has flash compensation issues. I am not sure if this has been fixed with the 350 XT...

[savas_kyprianides]

If you might like to try studio flash, you will need to get a 20D minimum, I believe.

[bennyboy]

Affen, from personal experience of taking shots with both cameras, the 20D is noticeably 'less noticable' noise wise - if that makes sense. I'm talking about single activations here, drive mode will always be noisy as it's sustained noise. Go try it out if you don't believe me.

 

As for bobs comments about energy, well I just dont agree, noise will be mitigated for with differences in design and materials, and we know these cameras do not share the same mirrors or shutters and likely dampening. Until someone actually goes and does a scientific test that proves otherwise, I hold firm on the 350D being much more 'noticeable' than the 20D.

[bennyboy]

I forgot to mention, it's the longer high pitched whine of the 350D that makes it much more noticeable for me, and for my friend who owns a 20D. Perhaps it's subjective but it does make a difference.

[jason_vieitas]

Check out some sites and read about both cameras, such as www.dcresource.com or www.dpreview.com, I own the XT and that sucker is small, so if you have big hands it may be a little uncomfortable, but then less to pack, pro's and con's to everything. One thing I really like about it (compared to others in it's class) is that it is very operatable at cold temperatures, the plastic body compared to that of some metal one's helps. Just my 2 bits.