k._j.

<p>I just received my Rebel XS/1000D from Airmiles reward. The XSi/450D was also available from Airmiles, but it would have taken me until about the end of the summer to earn enough airmiles to get the slightly more expensive XSi. In Canada, the XS kit sell for about $500 to $550 and the XSi kit is a about $729 to $750. I have compared the various reviews on the internet and the trade off between dollars and features is more than fair. You can't go wrong with either one. The differences in features between the XS and the XSi are not important to me. About the only XSi feature that I would really want is the bigger viewfinder (I still shoot occassionally with a manual Nikkormat and I just love the huge viewfinder). The 14 bit processing is better on paper but IMO I question if I would really notice the difference; I had to look pretty hard at the various reviews' sample photos to see any difference and some reviews found that the XS photos were better than the XSi (but to be fair probably just a bad sample). 10 MP is more than enough and the lower MP allows the XS to shoot continuously at 3.0 fps at an unlimited burst (514 frames for 2 GB card) according to Canon. I found that the XS will easily do 100 shots at 3.0 fps before the buffer just begins to slow. I called Canon Canada. They said that the XS should not slow down at all and suggested that a really fast SDHC should keep up (I use an ADATA 8GB Class 6). Canon says that if it cannot maintain the full continuous shooting even with a premium card, I can send in the camera for inspection and repair; I am not going to bother. The XSi is quicker at 3.4 fps with a rated 53 burst, but in real life, it will slow down substantially after about 16 shots; this is probably because of the higher MP. I don't see myself shooting 100 continuous shots, but I have shot 20 or so burst during my son's sports games. It is kind of nice not having the camera bog down in the middle of the action. The most impressive thing about the XS for me is the low light performance. I was shooting in a not so bright community arena and had set the ISO to 1600. The shots were very good. One day, I used the kit 18-55 IS lens. The pictures were relatively noise free and the IS was superb (my first IS lens). The background was very sharp even when I was shooting at about 1/20 s. Because the lens is slow, the athletes were blurry. The next day, I switched to my old 50/1.8 (Mk 1). Now I could shoot about 3 stops faster and freeze the subject's motion. Unbelievably clear and sharp photos at ISO 1600. The AF works very well. I do prefer to use the manual center AF point (focus and recompose), but during the sports I put it into AI servo and used the auto 7 point AF and just blasted away. I also used a custom picture setting with the standard sharpness increased from 3 to 5 and saturation at +1. I also bumped up the exposure comp to +.03 (my son's team jersey is white). Extremely happy with the XS. BTW, I also have a 28 - 105 and the 380EX flash which all appear to work with the XS. If I really wanted more features, I'm not sure I would have just gone to just the XSi. I would have made a bigger leap to at least the T1i or maybe the 50D (all with more substantial MP's, faster Digic 4 processing to handle the higher MP's, and the added video feature). But as long as the XS doesn't break, it has more than enough performance for me for a long time (too bad they don't build these new DSLR's like my old Nikkormat).</p>

<p>My 2 cents. From what I read anything over 6 MP is going to be very good for printing decent sized prints. Having more megapixels is an advantage if you need to crop severely. But having lots of MP is not the be all and end all. You have to see if the processor can process all those megapixels quickly and without noise. I am not familiar with Nikon products, but you should check out the various reviews on the internet. You should especially check out sample photos at the higher ISO, eg 800 and 1600. That is where the noise will become evident (more megapixels requires more processing to reduce noise at higher ISO). Also, more megapixels will also slow down the transfer rates and fill up the buffer, all things being the same. You will have to decide for yourself what you think is tolerable and whether the combination of megapixels and processing in the D40 or the D60 is acceptable to you. The good thing is that most camera companies are providing better and better image processing over time, eg Canon is going from DIGIC 3 to DIGIC 4.</p>

<p>IMO, any entry level DSLR can take fantastic photos. The technology has advanced enough that there are more than enough pixels, processing speed and noise reduction at the consumer level dslr. I think some of the new beginner cameras are as good if not better than some of the semi-pro cameras of 5 years ago. You can't go wrong with what you buy. With the massive and cheap memory available, I don't even think one has to be very good to get a good photo. You can shoot thousands of shots on the new memory cards. Just keep blasting away and from trial and error I'm sure you will find at least one or two good useable shots. Having said that, you may want to get at least one good prime lens. Sharper pictures aside, I thought I learned more by zooming with my feet, ie getting into a position to compose and taking a good shot as opposed to just standing in one spot and using a zoom lens and blasting away. And if you really want a challenge, buy an old manual film camera. They are cheap and readily available. I have an old Nikkormat. Having to adjust focus, shutter and aperture, really slows things down to a crawl (also burn less film than a more modern auto-everything film camera). But in slowing things down, you are forced to put some thought into exposure, composition and timing. The challenge is to try and get 36 really decent shots from one roll of film.</p>

<p>I am about to get my first DSLR (airmiles reward, waiting for delivery). <br>

Regarding shutter speed with 35mm film, I am aware of the 1/focal length rule for handholding shots. Eg. if lens focal length is 200mm, the suggested shutter speed is 1/200 s to get a steady shot. What about with the cropped sensor of a digital camera. A 200 mm lens is effectively 200 x 1.6 = 320mm. What would be the recommended shutter speed for a steady shot, 1/200 s or 1/320 s? (Ignore image stabilizer).</p>

<p>This is a great site on Nikkormats: <a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikkormat/index.htm">http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikkormat/index.htm</a><br>

I have an FTN. I bought it about 6 years ago. It came with a 1.35 v mercury battery in it. I don't use it much, but amazingly the battery still works. If it every runs out, I will use the 675 zinc oxide batteries. The camera is very solid. Being completely manual, it really slows down (in a good contemplative way) the whole picture taking process. You really have to concentrate to take a good photo. You also save money on film that way. With my auto-everything Canon Elan IIe, I would just switch on and shoot away. With the Nikkormat, I had to put more thought and energy into every shot. I would agree with some of the other posters; if you can get an FT2, you would be better off, up-dated meter (silver oxide battery), better focusing screen and includes hot-shoe. <br>

Now, of course, I shoot digital. I just keep shooting, reviewing, deleting and shooting until I get the picture I want. I will throw in a roll of B+W in the Nikkormat to go back to classic photography every once in a while.</p>

<p>I am about to get my first DSLR (I have cashed in a bunch of airmiles to get a Canon Rebel XS and am waiting for delivery). For me it is a no brainer to get a Canon because I had a 35 mm Elan IIe. The 35 mm equipment is about ten years old. About 7 years ago, I just stopped using an SLR altogether. Film, processing and printing just got too expensive. For the casual photos I was taking, I was happy to just to use a Canon digital point and shoot, shooting hundreds of photos on a weekend and storing them on CD's or hard drive; I think I have only printed 20 prints in the last 7 years.</p>

<p>Over the years, I looked into buying a DSLR but never was never quite motivated enough; early on it was a matter of high cost, low megapixels, slow performance, noise at higher ISO, etc at least in the consumer level DSLR. With the technological progress being made, it seemed to me that entry level DSLR's had almost become a disposable item; they became obsolete within about a year as the next bigger and better came along. Plus, I did not miss lugging around a big camera.</p>

<p>Recently, I noticed that I had more than enough airmiles to get one for "free" and that the DSLR's have reached a stage where even the lowest model of any brand will give amazing performance even in low light situation. IMO, at the entry level, DSLR's may have hit a plateau in terms of picture taking performance for the average non-professional consumer. They can jam in more megapixels, add video or maybe put in a phone or wi-fi, but pictures are not going to look a whole lot better at this stage, IMO.</p>

<p>If you are new into the game, I don't think you could go wrong with either Canon or Nikon (or Sony, Olympus, etc etc.). But I do have to say that I am very happy that I went with Canon ten years ago. Canon was very forward thinking when they designed the EF mount and it is nice to see that I will be able to use all of my old Canon film lenses (50mm/1.8 and 28 -105) on the latest digial camera. I believe that even my old Canon 380ex flash will still work with the new Rebel XS.</p>