Canon XSi - Review

[bill_fouche]

Here's the very favorable conclusion to the recent review by AnandTech:

 

http://www.anandtech.com/digitalcameras/showdoc.aspx?i=3304&p=11

 

My apologies if this has already been posted.

[._._z]

Interestingly, they gloss over comparisons to the D80 (which sells for <b>$70 less</b>), which I think is a better camera overall.

[yog_sothoth]

The lack of in-camera shake reduction makes this camera makes it a non-starter for a lot of people. I know that Canon doesn't want to make their IS lenses obsolete with a shake-reducing body, but put the shake reduction on the camera so things like the 50mm 1.4 can get some IS. Just have the camera turn off the in-camera shake reduction when an IS lens is mounted.

[dogbert]

Stephen

 

I could not agree more. In body IS would make the Canon system great. Its clear from Pentax, Sony and the like it is cheap to do. At the moment other systems look pretty attractive.

 

Canon's attempt to put cheap IS in the 18-55 and 55-250 is a defensive strategy in the area of the market that is most competitive, but it is ultimately unsustainable in a business sense to persist with what the market percieves is an inferior approach.

[george_schafer]

Agreed. I have seriously considered making the jump from Canon to Pentax (as I already have an ME Super and a fairly nice set of lenses to go with it) or Nikon (via the Fujifilm S5) because they already have in-body shake reduction.

[digitmstr]

I don't agree that in-camera IS makes it a deal breaker.

 

First of all, in-body IS has far LESS effective reduction than in-lens IS - in addition, with lens IS you actually get to SEE the image stabilized in the viewfinder! As a photographer, I MUCH prefer to SEE the image as it's being recorded by the sensor.

 

With in-camera IS you won't see the effect until your review your pictures (either on the small camera LCD or the computer).

 

Horses for whatever but, it's a pretty defined difference between the two philosophies.

 

At some point, we may get a choice of BOTH but, in the mean time optical IS wins for me.

[dogbert]

Giampi

 

Bob Atkins has tried the in-body IS and says it is bascially as good for lenses up to 300 mm in focal length, which probably covers the majority of users.

 

Seeing the image stabilised is nice but I don't think it matters that much for lenses below 300 mm as seldom is the image jumping about that much that you can't frame your photo.

 

With IS in the body you get the latest version of IS every time you upgrade your body. With IS in the lens you are stuck with that generation until you upgrade you lens. Canon is still selling the 28-135 IS plus several other 10 year old designs, which are only good for two stops, when the in-body IS crow are claiming 3-4.

 

IS in lens may be technically superior and some may be prepared to pay, but IS in body is more useful on the whole for many people when you consider Canon isn't offering it in their wide zooms, and all of their primes under 300 mm. That is a lot of Canon lenses that aren't stabilised.

[kari v]

"First of all, in-body IS has far LESS effective reduction than in-lens IS"

 

It would be interesting to see an article about this.

[digitmstr]

>>in-body IS crow are claiming 3-4.<<

 

I have never heard of those specs, certainly not from the manufacturers.

 

Still, IMO one cannot fault Canon for its philosophy: they started optical IS long before any one else in the photo biz and it was aimed at pros, not consumers.

 

Now that others have entered the IS arena it was much easier for them to come up with an in-camera system because...they had nothing to begin with! Now, it has become a marketing point, like megapixels count. But, in reality...if one constantly needs a certain feature then, one would make a decision based on that main need. Every thing else won't matter.

 

To say that the 1Ds MKIII, 1D MKIII, 5D, 40D, XSi, etc... are lesser tools (or non-starters) because of the lack of in-body IS doesn't make sense.

 

There are many factors involved in the choice of a work tool. And even for amateurs, occasional shooters, etc... they should make a decision based on what they intend to do with their camera, what's most important to them, etc... In-body IS should NOT be the ONLY criteria, as it's implied above. Nor should we give the impression that it is...

 

IQ, noise performance, lens selection, features, accessories, etc... all MUST come into play when buying into a camera system, IMO.

 

Personally, I believe that many times we end up wanting something, just to have it when in reality we may need it rarely. Again, if it's a necessity then, lens IS is superior (by all accounts to date). If it's not a necessity then, it's a moot point...

 

But, at some point, i am sure Nikon and Canon will come up with an in-body IS that can be switched on/off... I don't think they don't know how to do it, I believe it has to do with marketing and maybe patents?

 

One point of interest (or maybe not) on the subject. When I unpacked my new XSi there was a nice little tag that said "in lens image stabilizer" - Clearly, Canon is trying to play the marketing game for new buyers.

 

I would like to have both! But, I wouldn't buy a camera ONLY because of in-body IS because if IS was vital to me I'd use the optical version.

[nic_brown]

Could the reason that Canon don't offer it in their primes or wide zooms is that you

don't need 3-4 extra stops when you have a lens capable of f1.4 or 2.8?

 

I have an 85/1.8 and have shot extensively with a 70-200 f2.8L IS for the past year,

and the big zoom doesn't come close to the sharpness and pure WOW of the prime,

despite it being hands down the best IS zoom lens made by Canon, if not the best

zoom made by any camera manufacturer*.

 

IS is just one more thing to go wrong, and one more thing in between you and the

perfect image. IS lets you hand hold or monopod longer lenses in low light, but

frankly doesn't make up for crummy glass no matter what the conditions and the

advantages are negated by moving subjects. Learn camera handling, breath control

or get a tripod.

 

I will take a cheaper camera over one with in body IS. In truth, I would pay more for

a solid simple body over the latest and greatest feature bloated low end DSLR. I

purchased a 40D over a 450D because I can get it out of my bag and start shooting

in variable light conditions TENS of seconds faster.

 

(*In spite of the 70-200 being whupped by a prosumer prime at an equivalent focal

length, it is still top of my 'to buy' list as it is a stunning and versatile lens).

[george_schafer]

This is a fascinating discussion, but there is a sore lack of real data on the topic.

 

If, as it has been submitted, and ttl-IS is better overall, but on-body is still great for any and all lenses up to 300mm, wouldn't it be better to put IS in the body with the ability to turn it off when using a 300+mm lens with ttl-IS.

 

I've only used IS on in-store displays (Pentax k200D, 40D w/IS lens) and even at moderately slow hand held shutter speeds, I haven't noticed much more than a vague improvement in the image.

 

I'd still rather use flash.

[Michael Eckstein]

I guess the proof may be in the sales figures. I'll wager Canon & Nikon combined sell

30 or more bodies for every one that Pentax and Sony sell.

[yog_sothoth]

Sales figures are often a dubious measure of quality, if not often an inverse measure. Do you consider Mariah Carrie to be the greatest singer of all time?

[anov]

I thought Kevin Federline is the greatest singer of all time.

[nnenov]

You are missing one vital difference between the two IS approaches:

 

ttl IS systems focus and meter upon the stabilized image, while in camera IS is focusing the shaking image. This is especially important when shooting dynamic subjects with medium and long range lenses.

 

This difference alone makes for me the ttl IS the clear winner.

[george_schafer]

Nikolay Nenov-

Please explain more. I'm interested to know why this is so. At the moment, I use neither.

[yog_sothoth]

AF has no issues with camera shake as far as I can tell, it locks on independent of the shutter speed well before you take the photo.

 

Also, even if lens based IS is superior, camera based works for non IS lenses. Have the camera-based IS turn off when an IS lens is mounted. If cheap point and shoots can have camera-based IS, why not pro-level canon bodies?

 

Canon wants to sell expensive IS lenses, so they are dragging their feet on in-camera IS. We will see if this winds up biting them in the butt or if their brand name will let them keep selling hobbled bodies. It reminds me of the G7 the couldn't shoot in RAW mode. I want the best camera they can make, not something designed to take my money in the most efficient way.

[dogbert]

"I want the best camera they can make, not something designed to take my money in the most efficient way."

 

How true. Unfortunately Canon want to take as much of your money as they can while offering you as little as possible, short of you switching to another brand.

[joey_conta]

If I'm not mistaken the Canon Point and Shoots use Lens Based Stabilization as Well... Its In camera yes, but they move a Lens not the Sensor.

[jim_larson1]

Personally, I don't need or want 3-4 stops of IS in a 28-135.

 

Two stops means I can take "sharp" images down to 1/30th of a second at 135mm.

 

Four stops means I can take "sharp" images down to 1/8 of a second at 135mm.

 

Unless your subject is set in stone. . . .a shutter of less than 1/30th is not very useful. Can't even take pictures of flowers at 1/20th unless the air is still. Don't get me wrong. . . 4 stops beats 2 stops. . . but as a practical matter, I will bump up the ISO before taking super slow shutter speed images.

[dogbert]

I agree the first two stops of IS are the most useful, but I have a slightly different take on the usefulness of 3-4 stops of IS.

 

Given IS is no gaurentee but just increases the chances of you geting a sharp shot, the 3-4 stop IS really gives you more certainty that when shooting at 2 stops below you will get a sharp shot.

 

I found the old IS system good for anything between about 1-3 stops but plenty of times you would not necessarioly have confidence of getting a good one even at 2 stops. With a 3-4 stop IS, it is rare to have a shot spoiled at 2 stops below.

 

And given that I am printing often at 13x19, I find the more advanced IS units giving sharper picture even at 1-2 stops faster than recommended minimum shutter speeds.

 

I suppose I don't see IS as a tool to shoot at super low shutter speeds so much as to give greater certainty of keepers from anything around 2 stops below to 2 stops above recommended shutter speeds.

[mikem77]

This picture illustrates why I would want IS in the body. Note that the 18-55 IS is the *kit* lens.

[dogbert]

Yes the ability to stop down further is also important to me.