Need feedback on selecting a Canon DSLR body

[bill_walters1]

I'm a former amatuer film photographer who decided to go digital. Thanks to some good feedback on a recent post, I

have now decided on my lens selection. (Canon primes... 200mm 2.8 L.... 100mm 2.0.... 50mm 1.4...Canon 1.4

teleconv.... Tamron 17-35 / 2.8-4) I'm ready to order next week, but I'm still unsure on which DSLR I want. I've

narrowed it down to the XT, XTI or XSI. With the cost of these lenses, I'd prefer a low priced camera. The XT is

$385! The reviews I've read on the image quality have been excellent. I hear its build & viewfinder (among possible

other things) are a drawback. I know the XTI is an upgrade, but is the image quality any better than the XT? The XSI

seems advanced. I like the idea of the 14 bit processor, but that seems like too many pixels for a small sensor? But

reviews seem great. The cost on these 3 are 385, 550 and 750. Right now, I'm leaning toward the XT. The price is

right, and it might be good for a first DSLR, and when I'm ready to move up, an SXI would be cheaper. My question

is... I'm investing in some nice quality lenses. Is the XT a good enough camera to get the most out of these lenses?

Or would it require an SXI to do so?

 

If it matters, my photo interests are portraits, nature, sports and street life.

[colin_james]

Bill, my apologies in advance, but to be honest, I think you're "all over the place" with your proposed selections & proposed camera choices.

 

If it were me, I'd drop the prime selection in favour of a couple of high-quality zooms (perhaps 24-70/2.8L and 70-200/4.0L IS) - mount them on a 40D - job done.

 

BTW, the Canon TC1.4 won't work with any of your lenses.

[jeff_bingham]

Hi Bill,

I'll second Colin on the two high quality zooms he's mentioned above. If the 40D is too much money, or out of your price range

than you can pick-up a 30D fairly cheap. The quality from a 30D is very good, it was my first dive into digital, and i still use it

and have not up graded to a 40D yet. When the replacement for the 5D comes out, maybe sooner than later you will see many

discount prices on the 5D as well.

Hope this helps,

Snakeman

[kari v]

XT is still very capable and 8Mp will do fine. Build isn't any worse than other Rebels', you can't hammer nails with it but for normal use I wouldn't worry. Sure, it doesn't feel very pro but it won't just break apart either. I suggest you try it with the battery grip though, changes the handling considerably. Viewfinder will be horrible after film cameras, same goes for XTi, XSi has a bit better one, more like xx-series bodies. Which reminds me, you could look into used 20D.

 

It will take some time adjusting to digital work and especially post processing to get most out of your lenses. Cheaper body should work fine until you want to upgrade. You seem to know what lenses you want and they're more important than minor image quality upgrades that newer Rebel body would bring.

 

Are you sure about the Tamron 17-35/2.8-4? Tamron 17-50/2.8 is very capable normal range zoom with constant fast aperture and it's not very expensive.

[kari v]

What's wrong with primes? They're all high quality and fast aperture. Zooms are nice but they're not f1.4-2.

[bill_walters1]

Thanks for the responses. When I reviewed camera bodies, the one I liked best was the 40D. When I checked it out in person, I just didn't like the size. I have large hands but preferred the smaller bodies. With the 40D combined with a zoom, it would be quite heavy to carry around. I should have mentioned, I prefer prime lenses as they have the faster aperture, thet're lighter and better quality. Thats a nice combination! One of the X series camera with the 100mm 2.0 would be very light and easier to carry than the 40D with a zoom. Although the Canon 24-70/2.8L would be wonderful, but its too expensive.

 

Jeff... Is the 30D the same size as the 40D?

 

Colin... I was under the impression that the Canon 1.4 teleconverter worked with the 200mm 2.8 & the 100 2.0 ? What kind of lens is the 1.4 tele suited for?

 

Kari... thanks for the advice... You said "Viewfinder will be horrible after film cameras" You're right. When I first looked thru a DSLR viewfinder, I said "Where's the split screen?"

[steve torelli]

If you're more comfortable with primes, go with primes. You have a very nice lens lineup there, and the extender will work with the 200 2.8. Rather than the XT, I'd go with a 20D or 30D if you don't want to spring for a new 40D. They're both very capable cameras and the control layout is better, the bodies themselves are made out of the same material the rest of the Canon lineup is made out of while the Rebels are all plastic bodies. The viewfinder is much better and the shutters are rated at twice the life of the Rebels. You can pick up a used 20 or 30 for little more than a Rebel XT. Good luck.

[William Michael]

> BTW, the Canon TC1.4 won't work with any of your lenses. <

 

This statement is incorrect.

 

 

 

> I was under the impression that the Canon 1.4 teleconverter worked with the 200mm 2.8 & the 100 2.0 ? What kind of lens is the 1.4 tele suited for? <

 

The canon x1.4MkiII will work on the EF200mmF2.8LUSM.

 

That Canon teleconverter will NOT work with the EF100F2.0.

 

I apologize if it was implied that it would, as you might have thought that form my response to your previous question.

 

The Canon teleconverters are designed to work with L series primes including FL 135L and beyond.

 

There are special circumstances for the zooms with which they mate.

 

WW

[kari v]

"When I first looked thru a DSLR viewfinder, I said "Where's the split screen?""

 

Actually you can get a split screen if you want. :) But It's $100 and XT vf won't get any bigger. :(

 

http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/cat--Canon-DSLRs--cat_canon.html

[William Michael]

> Is the XT a good enough camera to get the most out of these lenses? Or would it require an SXI to do so? <

 

IMO any of the three bodies you are deciding between will give good (and very similar quality) pictures with the lenses. I doubt if you lined the bodies up and shot comparisons, any of us could tell the difference on a 10x8 held at arm`s length.

 

Major factors in getting `better quality` out of the camera is: 1 correct exposure and; 2 knowledge in post production, especially sharpening, IMO.

 

WW

[bill_walters1]

Steve... I've checked completed items on ebay and the 30D is going used for $800 to $850. just too expensive. William.... thanks for the clarification on the 1.4 teleconverter.

 

Kari... Thanks for the suggestion of the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di. The reviews are great. I may just replace the shorter Tamron zoom and the Canon 50 1.4 with this one!

[chrisjb]

If you really ike the smaller bodies, I`d go XSi and leave the TC till later, also prefer the 17 50 than 17 35. The XSi has a bigger LCD and brighter VF than earlier rebels

 

My 02

[link]

I'm with you, I like lightweight and fast primes...

 

But it seems to me that your lens selection is more suited to a full frame camera. You do understand that these dslr's that you've listed will crop the

image from what you're used to from your film camera?

 

Ah, but then again you do have a 17mm in there, so I suppose you know:)

[g dan mitchell]

XT is OK. It can produce quite fine images as long as you are happy with its other characteristics.

 

I'm also not so sure about those lenses. A couple thoughts on this. One approach would be to think about what focal

lengths worked well for you on your 35mm film SLR and divide those focal lengths by 1.6... and then look for rough

equivalents. (e.g. if you liked a 50mm prime on your film SLR you'd probably like a prime with roughly a 30mm focal

length on the XT. If you liked 100mm on film SLRs something around 65mm would be equivalent - though hard to find.

The angle-of-view equivalent of the 200mm lens would be roughly a 135mm lens.

 

Another thought is that zooms might be a better bet. If your preference for primes is just because that's what you've

used... forever... on your old film cameras, modern zooms are much better and more affordable than the older ones.

 

The XSI does not have "too many pixels." I _does_ have some significant newer features that are missing from the XT.

If I were looking for such a camera today I would only consider the XT if _cost_ were a limiting factor - otherwise there is

not question that I'd choose the XSi.

 

Dan

[neill_farmer2]

Bill, I think you're on the right track. Most photographers start out with zooms and then find happiness in primes. I have a 70-200 2.8 gathering dust just because I enjoy using primes more, duno why,it's just so. I would choose a crop body with the best veiwfinder, XSi or 30-40D. I have a XTi and the view finder is terrible, after film every time I take a shot I feel as if the equipment I'm using is less than ideal, takes some of the enjoyment out of it. Enough to make me want to change cameras to a you know what.

Neill

[bill_walters1]

Chris, BG, G Dan, Neill... thanks. The 1.6 factor is something to consider with these primes. My thinking on the 200mm was this... When I shot film, I had a Canon 200mm 2.8 and a 300mm 4.0. I loved the 300, but rarely used it cause of its size. My 200 I used all the time, but often wished it was a longer length. I'm thinking here's a chance to have a 200mm (which I've handled before) but REALLY have a 320! With the 100mm 2.0, I'm thinking I'll use it a lot as a walk around lens. But this light lens will actually be a 160mm. Imagine 160mm in that small light package! Then again I could forget about the 100mm and 200mm and get that great 135mm 2.0. But then I wouldn't have my long tele or my very light walkaround. I do worry a bit about no IS in that 200mm, but I didn't have a problem with my old FD 200, so I think I can handle it. I also am comfortable with a monopod. A Question... when you look thru the viewfinder of one of these Cameras, what you see in the viewfinder, is that the full frame, or is that the actual view of the 1.6 crop?

[petr_tyll]

What about Canon 100 2.8 macro instead of normal 100 2.0? It´s a bit slower but it´s a macro.

[chrisjb]

is that the full frame, or is that the actual view of the 1.6 crop?

 

As all slr WYSWYG, a 50mm lens will appear as a 80mm lens FOV. tho bout 9x% VF, 100% view on LCD.. HTH

[mark u]

One thing that the generation of photographers who have never shot film with an SLR tend not to realise is that with a crop sensor you need a lens that is a stop and more faster as well as the more obvious 5/8ths the focal length in order to duplicate a full frame image for both framing and depth of field. This is why I regard fast lenses as even more imprtant for crop bodies.

 

The viewfinder view is nearly WYSIWIG - coverage is about 95% of the capture. However, the consequence is that the viewfinder image can look rather tiny - a bit like peering at a postage stamp down a toilet roll. This makes it quite difficult to assess details of composition, and almost hopeless for assessing focus in many situations (exacerbated by the type of focus screen) - you will have to rely on AF being right.

[john_hanlon3]

Hello Bill,

 

"I've checked completed items on ebay and the 30D is going used for $800 to $850."

 

You can get a Canon Refurbished 30D for $640 at Adorama, here: http://www.adorama.com/ICA30DR.html?searchinfo=canon%20refurbished&item_no=29 Ebay is the last place I'd go to buy used photo gear. I agree with Steve Torelli, you'd be a lot happier with a 30D than the XT/XTi/XSi. The 30D handles better and is easier to use.

[bill_walters1]

***One thing that the generation of photographers who have never shot film with an SLR tend not to realise is that with a crop sensor you need a lens that is a stop and more faster as well as the more obvious 5/8ths the focal length in order to duplicate a full frame image for both framing and depth of field. This is why I regard fast lenses as even more imprtant for crop bodies.***

 

Yikes! losing a stop is never good. You're right... a fast lens is a must! John... is that 30D the same size as the 40D? At this point, I'm still leaning toward the XT, but I did see SXI for $699. All this info is really appreciated. I've learned a lot from this post.

[bill_walters1]

***What about Canon 100 2.8 macro instead of normal 100 2.0? It´s a bit slower but it´s a macro.***

 

I've thought about that. Having the macro would be neat, but I know I'd use it very seldom. For my uses, It would be more practical to have the faster & lighter 2.0.

[robin_sibson1]

What Mark U says about the relationship between crop factor, depth of field, and aperture is of course correct, but my own

experience with reasonably long lenses is that I'm usually struggling to get enough depth of field, not worrying about having

too much. So although it has an excellent reputation for image quality, and is a manageable lens on FF (as you know from

your film experience) I'd drop the 200/2.8 from your line-up in favour of the superb and very flexible 70~200/4 IS, because

at the FF equivalent of 320mm, for me at least IS constitutes a must-have. Unusually among zooms, the 70~200/4 IS works

extremely well with the Extender 1.4x, for when you want some real reach, and the remark about IS is even more applicable

at the FF equivalent of 448mm!

 

Of course, if you are thinking of getting the Extender 1.4X, then you'll want to get best value from it by having more than one

lens on which it is useful. Have you thought about the 135/2L? Stunningly good on its own, short enough even on 1.6-factor

that IS is less of an issue, very narrow depth of field when wide open if narrow depth of field is what you're after - and it

works really well with the Extender 1.4x to give you a combination (189/2.8) that is pretty much the equivalent of the 200/2.8,

in quality as well as specification, although AF would be a bit slower. However, it has to be admitted that 135+Extender2x is

not a good combination, whereas I assume that 200/2.8+Extender1.4x isn't too shabby.

[g dan mitchell]

"Most photographers start out with zooms and then find happiness in primes"

 

I really don't think that your generalization is true these days. Just look around and see that the vast majority of

photographers are primarily using zooms, particularly if they don't have a ton of lenses. Many, like me, do have some

primes that they trot out when necessary, but zooms are the primary tools in our lens arsenals.

 

"One thing that the generation of photographers who have never shot film with an SLR tend not to realise is that with a crop

sensor you need a lens that is a stop and more faster"

 

Nonsense, except _maybe_ in the case of the very small number of photographers for whom the very narrow DOF of a f/1.4

(for example) lens isn't enough - quite a tiny number of photographers.

 

". when you look thru the viewfinder of one of these Cameras, what you see in the viewfinder, is that the full frame, or is that

the actual view of the 1.6 crop?"

 

It is the actual view, to the extent that it is in almost any SLR or DSLR. You see more or less what the sensor "sees." As

pointed out earlier, it is typical (and this is not limited to DSLRs, nor to Rebels) that you see slightly less than the full

captured image - in other words, if you frame very tightly your photograph will have a bit more of a margin around the subjet

than you saw in the viewfinder by a very small amount.

 

Dan

[james_ollinger]

The XSi is getting phenomenal reviews. If it were me, I'd get that one, figuring that because its the newest and has the best features, it'll last the longest before you feel a need to replace it with someone else. Nothing like buying a camera that's marginally good enough when you buy it, and a couple years later you wish you'd spent the extra money for features in a better model.

 

I would take lenses out of the equasion. Lenses *tend* not to age the way camera bodies do; i.e. chances are if you keep care of your lenses, you'll keep them longer and they won't become obsolete over time (unless Canon changes the mount again). Most non-pros don't feel the need to replace a lens unless it breaks.

 

I think the extra $ for the XSI is a good investment.