The XT is amazing. The string comes fairly exciting so you can immedietly edge with the camera (thank you Canon!) I've already shot about 200 films with it and the sequence hasn't died yet.
I can't give you a comparison between the XT and the 20D as I harbor't owned a 20D, I can tell you a few gear you may want to know before retail.
This camera, is TINY. Extremely tiny. I'm a lady in my early twenties and I have small hands. The camera fits just right in my hands, but honestly, I don't see how superstar with superior hands would be 100% comfortable asset this. If my hands were any bigger, they would be slipping off the foot.
I had tried asset a 20D at a camera storeroom once and it felt too large in my hands to grip. The camera extent is faultless for me, but just beware if you have superior hands. You may want to look into the battery grip, or suffering out holding the camera at a gather before you order it. See the picture I uploaded above to get a dimension relation and how the camera fits in my hands.
For somebody who is migrating to this camera from a benchmark instant and whiz digital camera, you cannot trick the view you are about to take using the LCD conceal on the back. You must look through the viewfinder. The LCD divider is soley for menu use and preview means after the picture has been full, nothing more.
Something I've noticed is the camera makes a ratteling sound when enthused around. I couldn't presume out what the heck it was, and then I lastly reazlized it's the hinges from the pop-up spark. It sounds like they are free when the explode is clogged. I went to Best Buy and looked at their present archetype, and yep, it has the same tricky. Well, it's not very a *drawback* but frankly something ratteling around like that sounds cheaply made to me. My Canon misted SLR doesn't make that sound.
I use a 420EX Speedlite twinkling with my SLRs so the popup moment doesn't item me, but it was something I noticed and thought I would segment.
I darling that Canon gave the decision to have a black finish over a silver one.
The startup time is instantaneous which is absolutely wonderful. The burst fashioned is admirable with 3 fps. Its awfully ease.
The persona featured is brilliant. You can get photo feature prints at 20x30, and even then I bet you could advance it mega.
I truly can't elaborate more then what other reviews have said. If you are looking for a movement into the digital SLR world, this is the permit. Or you can even trial out the newly summary primary Digital Rebel, but for the extra hundred bucks or so, I would just get the XT. You will not be regretful.
Two upgrades I would make right away: Get a Speedlite update and the Canon 28-135mm lens.
Also, I don't know why people are submitting bad reviews grading Amazon on shipping for the Rebel XT. When I preordered the XT from Amazon (not from another 3rd gang), it said it would be free March 20th. I got my Rebel XT in the post yesterday (the 22nd) which if you ask me, is appealing repair good. Want something right away? Then walk into a store and buy it instead of ordering from the internet.
The Nikon D80, destined to exchange the standard D70 string, is a great camera for Nikon fans who craving to upgrade from their D50s, 70s or 100s. It's also attractive enough possibly to get a few people to flinch vessel!
Here's the highlights:
1) 10.2 megapixel. A substantial upgraded from the 6mp of the adult cameras, performance should be very comparable to the vastly regarded D200 camera;
2) 11-instant AF structure. Similar again to the D200 in performance (though not as tranquil to change);
3) Large viewfinder (.94x magnification). Again, taken from the D200, this is a release improvement over the earlier cameras. Spec clever, this is also better than all the competition, even still other, private preference factors poverty to be considered (such as outline of LCDs and focusing points).;
4) 2.5" LCD. Not only is it better, it can also be viewed at a, much wider outlook--particularly versatile when locked to a support.
The camera is small for Nikon (about like the D50), but has a good, solidify grip for those with avenue to better hands. Controls are well thought out--cool to get to and use. Dampening of mirror sound is better than its competition.
Nikon's use of the SDHC layout should be commended. These small cards will have no true disadvantage to the elder CF hards once the HC versions shrink beating the shelves, and should relieve the danger of "bent pins."
Things you've liked about prior Nikons have been retained. The D80 uses inexpensive wireless & wired remotes, and it still allows the built-in flair to power other Nikon Speedlights remotely.
Comparing to the competition, the Canon Rebel XTi and Sony Alpha 100, the Nikon starts a bit in the lair, considering it's the most classy camera (by $200 and $100, respectively). The XTi offers a pleasant "unwilling-dust" hardware & software liquid; while the Sony offers in camera stablization. Both use the rear LCD for figures category. While many may favor the traditional LCD on top (like the D80), the rear LCD does have the help of being considerably larger textbook for adult eyes (and on the Alpha, rotates when you rotate the camera for verticals). Too bad the D80 doesn't give you this option as well.
The XTi is lesser and lighter, maybe too small for many people. The XTi also does not propose wireless capability with the built-in blaze (like D80/A100). It's sequence (thus volume) is a bit smaller.
The Alpha 100 being Sony's first novel digital SLR means the getting lenses and accessories my be a bit more difficult (even though it uses a lot from the older Maxxum cameras). It's also a bit noiser in its operations.
The D80 adds more AF selections than either of the above cameras, has careful enhancements like grid shape and bend exposures. It also comes with a protective include for the rear LCD.
Lens wise, they wholly outnumber those offered by Sony, particularly in any considered "Pro" grade. While Canon can compete in "Pro" grade with Nikon (particularly in longer strip lenses), Nikon has a bit of benefit in wider angles for digital. Nikon only offers one volume digital sensor, where, as Canon must agreement two series (for 3 different damage sizes).
Is the D80 value the money? For somebody with Nikon lenses, undoubtedly. My recommendation for everyone with Canon EF or Minolta Maxxum lenses: look at those cameras first...But be effective to look at the D80 before you buy.
Lens check: Tremendous! The Nikkor 18-135 gives everyone what they want, an affordable lens with above ordinary worth.
First, the 18-135 reach is excellent for a kit lens, equivalent of a 27-200 in 35mm photography. It looks great, zooms smoothly, and balances well. The Silent Wave focusing motor hush, astute and level, and allows immediate guide focus (no hunting for switches). The inner focused is great for anybody with polarizing filters, and allows for a more effective tulip shaped lens hood (full).
Second, the aura property is very good. The opening is of usual size, so don't guess imagery to skip out like large slit lenses, but worth is good throughout the scope.
Third, Nikon forever includes a better than standard 5 year warranty in the US on their lenses.
The only unhelpful is that I always prefer a metal lens mount to a plastic one, although the later keeps both the substance and price down.
3. Very tightly autofocus swiftness. Nx10 is parallel panasonic, it's world best .
4. AMOLED conceal is very cleary and sharp than universal LCD.
5. High resolution viewfinder and show.
6. 30mm, 20mm pancake and 20-50mm very slim compact zoom( samsung chart retail in june)
7. High fabricate attribute, payment buff,vintage mean,"feel luxury"
8. Finally , much cheaper all have above all spec.
Nevertheless Nx10 has only one demerit.
NX10 APS-C Sensor technology plummet behind few years ,
especially Canon's up-to-the-miniature APS-C sensor. NX10's high ISO blare is a lot. I hardened NX10 and Canon 550D sensor. (Nx10 : 14.6M Pixel)
ISO 100- ISO400 is very sunny.
ISO 800 is beautiful good.
Nevertheless ISO 1600,3200 is estimated.
( Canon 550D : 18M pixel)
ISO 100-ISO 1,600 very vindicate.
ISO 3200 is some ballpark.( NX10 ISO 800 is better than 550D ISO 3200)
But ISO 6,400 is trying. Nx10 sensor accident behind " 1.5 close plug" Canon 550D.
Nevertheless Canon 550D is NOT Hybrid DSLR, so It's Much Bigger than Nx10.
If you want i-phone like slim light camera with Dslr Picture eminence. I Highly recommended NX10.
The 1D mk III was my first 1-chain body. Before that I had, in hitch order, a 5D, a 20D, and 300D. Each rung along the way was nicer and nicer. I couldn't dream a better camera than my 1D mk III, but now I have it.
Over time (typically through recital about the camera) I cultured that my mk III had deprived autofocus. I had an early account with the defect, but also because the mk III apparently did not live up to the autofocus of the 1D mk IIn. I had the defect permanent, and my vehicle focus was better, but still not as good, or so I had read, as the mk IIn autofocus. I can prove that I surely felt frustrated with the mk III autofocus on a recurrent origin.
I harbor't been to a sporting outcome yet, so I can't chat to that kind of focusing, but in good light with a stationary theme my gut hunch is that, yes, focusing is better in the mk IV than it was in the mk III. I can also testify that in near darkness conditions, such as, when I can't even see my topic (and a 1.2 lens), the autofocus is astounding. Astounding there is relative; in this basis I mean it often acquires focus, which is rather a feat in near entire darkness.
This camera is 16MP instead of 10MP, but so far I asylum't noticed much of a different in quality from the smaller photosites. Canon said the microlenses were an improvement, and I'm extremely ready to judge them. My ReallyRightStuff L-bracket from my mk III hysterics rightly, which is a trivial bonus. It uses the same batteries as my mk III was well. The mk IV doesn't come with a block adapter like the mk III did, but I have a mk III so it wasn't a terrible harm for me.
The array life is supposedly down with the larger antenna. Canon claims something like 1200 shots I think, while the mk III supposedly got 1900. I know I commonly got 7000 per string if I drained a series over a few months, or about 12000 if I shot a foremost result in a lone day. While the string performance still seems good (I didn't establish with a green sequence, and I've been out in the cold a lot with it), it is definitely not as long-lived as in a mk III body. The string smart-reason only understand shutters, and doesn't keep pursue of sheet, so shooting movies will play havok with matching up a shot consider to the array life.
The aesthetics of the menu structure are much better. It is mainly the same menus as the mk III, but they feel more polished now.
The high iso is, well, high. I won't lie to you: at H3 you get something barely above rubbish out of the camera; but you get something! It's absolutely astounding to be able to injure in that much darkness. H2 is beautiful bad, and H1 is nearly all-right. And I port't found something that needed any of the H modes; 12800 has been more than adequate for singing around in. I'm pretty cheerful with the exended ISO, and blare at that turn is something I estimate. The camera could be pressed extend with H3 than I even pushed B&W video, and the outcome are very good for the circumstances.
When you shove to ISO 12800 or reduce the results are quite spectacular. My gut reaction was that 12800 is about as good as 3200 on the 1D mk III, but I hadn't specifically compared them to see. I've uploaded a comparison picture to Amazon viewing two shots that balance the ISO. The mk IV 12800 definitely seems to be better than the mk III H1 (6400).
I like the new rotation-selectable AF points. I like the new place brightening options.
The capture I've barely played with. Auto focused in record sucks, so you ought to physical focus. The need of a flat charge on audio-in is a staid deficiency. The record does look good still. I've barely played with it still, and I've never owned a videotape camera (I've only owned a film-based movie camera), so I'm not steady what I can say about it. I do know that it takes a long time to upload a minuscule of Full HD to YouTube.
with EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Standard Zoom Lens
The Canon 40D is the most camera for the money that Canon has ever provided. The highlights:
- The new improvded Autofocus: Yes, it's still 9 peak, and I was skeptical about how enhanced it would actually be, but having worn in the sphere on numerous photo shoots, I was able to contrast it precisely to my Canon 5D, and the AF on the 40D was noticeably more accurate and aware to clever differences within the Depth of Field. The new approach performs especially well with my 135mm 2.0L, and my 70-200mm 2.8L IS. Nevertheless this is what is advertised about it (i.e. better performance with lens w/ Maximum apertures of 2.8 and better).
- The 3.0" LCD: Once again, comparing this to my 5D, which has a 2.5" exhibit, the incline reproduction is noticeably more accurate. Initially I thought that the flag were being captured differently by the camera, but when I realized they were very alike once I looked at them on the notebook, it became plain the difference was in the parade on the camera. Also, the pageant on the 40D is brighter. I have not yet noticed as dramatic a difference as Canon has made it look in their findings specify when viewed in sunlight, but especially in darker settings, it is noticeable that there's a difference.
- The entice price and defense volume: The enlarged memory is very apparent, in particular at the low rapidity continual location (3 fps), where the quickness at 3fps seems closer than the 3fps on the 5D easily because it can stay shooting (seemingly endlessly). In the high pace continual manner (6.5fps), the alacrity is psyche-boggling. I have not had a risk totally to analyze this out yet (look for an outlook correct to this).
- The viewfinder: The extent and brightness are noticeably and dramatically better. The look through the viewfinder is so better over my old 20D, they almost can't be compared. It's not pretty as big as the 5D, but not far-off each. And it's just about as happy as the 5D, if not as tidy.
- The AF badge on the back: Although I still use the reliable half drive on the secure fasten the lead of the time, I have found the rear AF badge to be very helpful at epoch. At certain epoch, the way in which I clasp the camera makes with the traditional half advance much easier. However, as a tip, I have found that in focus-recompose situations, the rear AF badge is invaluable, as it is MUCH easier to prolong property down the rear AF Button while recomposing and then shout the shot, while with the traditional everyday, it is more difficult to recompose without accidentally releasing bulldoze faintly on the shutter and having to try again (or accidentally taking the shot after it refocuses to a question you didn't want).
The menu procedure: The new tab based menu practice is much more intuitive and much better than scrolling through one big slant. If you've ever seen the menus on some of the more current Powershot minuscule situation and shoots, it's like that (related specifically to my education to the SD630, as that is the one I own).
Battery management: I worn this camera at the Redskins/Dolphins home tough last week, and I have a routine of where, and how much I take cinema, and how often the camera is on. My camera came in the day I had a photo squirt with an example later, so I put in an array I had already exciting to use with my 5D, and left the class new series to indict at home. So, I was with one of my old batteries, in other words. This was not a long photo hurry with this classic, I shot possibly 50 cinema of the develop with the 40D. I never changed the string before the sport and what was noticeable was that the indicator did not decent off "satisfied" pending the end of the fourth billet, right before they went into OT. Since I was shooting with a new 40D as divergent to my old 20D I was shooting more, also - possibly 33% more than natural. And with the 20D, if the battery had just been electric and no other use, it would have been down from "ample" by halftime, slightly beforehand. The camera is clearly managing the weight consumption better. (NOTE: The one improvement that did not make the 40D, disappointingly, is a better battery indicator - it's still the same trying little 3 bars, of which 2 forever go away when it drops from rotund, so certainly a two bar indicator).
- The speed of scrolling through films: I know this has to be a significance of the DIGIC III processor. It's absurdly better than the 20D or the 5D. If you scroll the knob really fleeting to zip through a bunch of pcitures, it's there in trice or less. The best way I can describe it is the difference in a computer that you'd been operation 256MB RAM on and you just upped it to 1GB. It makes the "Jump" badge appear almost unneccesary, however, I'm happy that it's still there!
- Picture Style Button: This is very convenient. I hated looking for that through the long menu.
- Flash management: I don't have the new 580EX II yet, but with the 580EX, it's still noticeable that when with the E-TTL repeated style, it does a better job of managing the crop, with a junior output at epoch when I know it would have overfired or drained more dominance on the 20D, and the result is you can get more good shots closer. NOTE: I was using the outdoor faculty hoard also. Nevertheless I'm making my assessment based on use of the power haversack with the speed when using the old camera as well.
- Visible ISO on the display on top. And better, though still regular, landscape on the top display.
Assessment: In terms of specs, this camera is amazingly close to it's new big brother the 1D Mark III, more than gone models have been. This is a big benefit to those of us who don't have a wealth to finish on the top of the line Canon cameras. The icon attributed of this camera is not noticeably different from that in the 5D, though there is a slur difference when you look sensibly. And of course it isn't sated scaffold, which is a minus in certain applications, and a boon in others. The improvements between the 20D and the 30D were negligible, to say the least - it was clear Canon was just extending the lifecycle of the 20D, and the 30D should have been called the 20D Mark II. However, the 40D has many dramatic improvements over both of these before models, and scrapes at the heels of the 5D in all the areas where the 5D once had a clear plus - let's hope for a 5D Mark II (or 7D, or anything it will be called) quickly. I've been recital rumors that it will be the 1st billet of next year. I will admit that when this camera was first announced, and the Nikon D300 announcement came a few time later, Nikon immovable my interest big time. Nevertheless obviously, with all my investment in so much Canon tackle, it was a no-brainer to persist with Canon. Even to own both brands would be a considerable additional investment for that one body, as I have no Nikon lenses. At this summit I will preach the gospel of "L." To indeed appreciate how good Canon photography can be, you essential to own at least one "L" lens (although it will become more than one once you do, LOL). I own the highest rated (and still fairly "affordable") L lenses, the Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM Lens for Canon SLR Cameras, the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Image Stabilizer USM AF Telephoto Lens and Filters and 5 Year Warranty and Accessory Kit(both previously mentioned here), the Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras and the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras, which I asylum't used on the 40D yet, as I fancy the idea of using it on the filled casing 5D for the wider angles it provides. I retreat't used the 100-400 on it yet just because I asylum't had a chance or the right opportunity. They're all worth every money, and I would document that the 135mm 2.0L might be the best lens, point. It's defintely my best one, although the 70-200 2.8L IS comes close.
Once again, the 40D is the best body for the money that Canon makes.
The new Digital Rebel XTi camera should charm to an eclectic mixture of users: those wishing to upgrade from a situation and whiz digital, or those wishing to enhance leading their first generation digital SLRs. Features and cherish make this a 5-star camera, but it won't be everybody's cup of tea.
Comparing to the earlier Digital Rebel XT, important improvements are:
1) 10.1 megapixels. In digital camera circles, this is like proverb a car has more horsepower than an elder car. While this lonesome doesn't mean "better" films, in veracity, joint with other improvements in hardware and software, the results typically are better.;
2) 2.5" LCD panel. This alone has more than one advantage. The palpable first one is that our pictures look better in appraisal. The trice, and for somebody approaching 50 (like me), is that the LCD is now worn for all the camera's facts (secure zoom, space, shots left, etc.). It's much easier to read than the small LCD typically located on the top of the cameras. It might use up the batteries earlier, but, heck, if you can see the word this much easier, then so be it. One objection, it does not occur that the facts rotates when you do verticals (like the Sony Alpha 100).;
3) 9-aspect AF. The number of points are superior from 7, but the truly key here is that it's the practice from the 30D, which had a, much elevated grade of accuracy than the before Rebels.;
4) Picture Styles. I didn't really appreciate them at first, but plainly put, this is like the being of coat, when we could use a "likeness" skin or "landscape" covering. For those that don't like to do a lot of processor work, these can be VERY versatile in getting the right look in the camera.;
5) Dust cleaning order. OK, I think the dust drawback will perhaps be a little magnified, now that Canon offers a liquid, but it is an unfeigned, if not great, risk. Additionally, built it is moment to nobody. The first is through hardware. An ultrasonic filter could merely shake the dust off. Second is through software. If you pustule a severe section that won't shake off, you can do an allusion shot, and have the dust impassive by software on your computer.;
6)The grip has been better a little. The rubber on the grip is improved, and a defiant-steal strip has been placed on the back where the right thumb goes.
Most all other gear Canon know for exists. The camera focused rapidly and gently. Camera operations are agile and painless to locate and use. Pictures look great.
Now for the other surface. This is a bizarre time in that all the big players are comming out with a 10 megapixel camera at the same time, so the Canon has some stiff competition. Here goes a minimal comparison.
1) Compared to the other two cameras already untaken, the Sony A100 and Nikon D80 (both also 5-star cameras), the XTi is considerably lesser, and somewhat lighter. Some will like this, even some with average to middling-large hands. Nevertheless most people with larger, and some with somewhat smaller hands may fancy the other two choices.;
2) The array is somewhat smaller than rival's, and may drain a bit faster due to the LCD being used for data all the time.;
3) Functionally, the rear LCD is not as careful as the Sony's. The Sony's rotates, can be set to enlarge mode (50+ consumer again), and the structure that turns it off as your eye approaches also starts the AF on the Sony. [Although many like the top LCD, the Nikon way of needing to press a close on the back, then crest over the top to see what your location is not as good].;
4) No in camera stabalization. The A100 can turn the sensor to help eliminate camera shake. Nikon and Canon involve you to grip fairly pricey lenses to get the defiant-shake.;
Also, quickly to be added to the competion will be the Pentax K10D. Specs are imprecise right now, but it appears to be enter the competition as a 10 megapixel camera with built-in defiant-shake (much like their K100D).
Of these 3 currently on the market, the Canon is the slightest luxurious; hence, it's up to the other 2 to show they value more, a very strenuous task, really.
When I set out to buy a digital SLR I was first looking at the Nikon D40 ($499) and the Canon Rebel XTi ($599). I was crooked off by the D40 due to it's 6MP feeler and require of JPEG (fine) + Raw capabilities. I ended surface on the Canon Rebel XTI because of the complaints about the low-condition kit lens which would've added overheads afar it's original assess tag.
Looking in diverse photography forums I discovered the Sony Alpha being recommended to other people looking in the same assess vary I was. It had a 10.1MP sensor, a good lens and was in the same value extent as the Rebel XTi. I'm really exultant with the purchase. Picture attribute is excellent with the kit lens (SAL-1870). I also purchased the SAL-55200 telephoto lens and it is also a very fussy lens for the money.
The array life on the camera is excellent. The sedan-focus is super abstain and delving into the manual a bit will reveal many mighty configuration options (I don't think a lot of the Nikon and Canon fans who are crucial of this camera ever did that because I've seen claims made on forums that just aren't actual).
Some of the myths I've heard:
*No Shutter Lock (not stanch, just set the camera to "Manual" style)
*Limited and dear lens variety (Sony has a pretty moderate selection on it's own but this camera can also use many Konica-Minolta lenses dating all the way back to 1985).
*Can't use rank flashes (while the Alpha does have a proprietary hot shoe which is lame, there are good adapters out there.
Lack of live preview a snag (this comes up a lot and apparently these people have never shot film before. Most professionals I know do not necessary or use live preview)
There are many Pros but some that place out in particular for this panache are:
*Great bundled software (commonly bundled software just sits in the box but the programs that Sony's included are actually totally good)
*3200 ISO (this is awfully singular in a camera in this value range)
*In camera copy stablization
*Dynamic Range Optimization
All in all this camera is actually more in the taste of the Nikon D80 as far as image quality goes but at virtually half the estimate.
.jpg)
