Jump to content

frank g.

Members
  • Posts

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by frank g.

  1. <p>I had the 40D and 24-105 and got extremely sharp images. As stated before adjust the sharpnes in the camera and shoot in raw. The 24-105 is a $1100 L lens and not a cheap kit lens. Proper technique is vital to using this lens and all lenses. You can also use your live view for critical manual focus and the see what you get.</p>
  2. I must tell that as a previous xti owner and a 40d owner, the 40 d is better. It is nice to have a pc sync built in, fast auto focus, faster shutter speed, iso 3200 wich looks like the xti's 1600. You have a flash sync of 1/250 and just a nicer overall package. There is nothing wrong with the xsi either I am sure it is a good camera.
  3. I would look at the Tamron 28-75 2.8 or the 17-50 2.8, a Canon 50 1.8, and an 85 1.8. I have all of the lenses and think all of them are awesome and you will have three great lenses under $1,000 instead of just one. This is just my 2 cents.
  4. I own the Rebel xti and I still feel the 40d is a better value at twice the price. 3in monitor, the ability to shoot at 3200 as opposed to 1600, 14 bit will give smother gradations, fits better in my hand, pc sync (which is important if you want to fire the camera with pocket wizards) live preview and a host of new features. I would have gotten this instead of the rebel xti as I waited for the replacement for my 1d mk II. Even with this said the xti is a good camera with great image quality.
×
×
  • Create New...