Skip Navigation

Canon Digital Rebel XTi

Travel Forums Travel Photography Canon Digital Rebel XTi

Page
  • 1
  • 2

Last Post

1. Posted by Brendan (Respected Member 1824 posts) 10y

Just released not long ago was the: Canon Digital Rebel XTi

* Canon EOS 400D (Europe / Asia / Elsewhere)

  • Canon Digital Rebel XTi (North America)
  • Canon EOS Kiss Digital X (Japan)

Anyone have any experience with it? I have read some reviews and I don't see much difference from say the 30D. Mostly cheaper. Any thoughts/opinions?

2. Posted by Anzxio (Budding Member 69 posts) 10y

It depends on what you want to do :) I could never have a 400D as it's just to small and will be unbalenced. There are several advantages for the 400D over the 30D, more MP (debatable advantage) and the dust thing. However, there are much better advantages for the 30D, it's a normal size, better ISO performance, spot metering, and it's much faster.

Bsically you need to work out what you want to use a camera for, and then find the camera most suitable for that application. Let us know what you want to do, and we'll be able to say why the 400D or 30D would be best.

3. Posted by Brendan (Respected Member 1824 posts) 10y

Thanks for the reply - well I want to take shots I can enlarge (poster size), and really something that is going to last. I like to take lots of macro shots that's why I want an SLR over a point/shoot. I didn't realise the 400D was smaller than the 30D, kind of odd. I am also planning to take longer distance telephoto wildlife shots.

4. Posted by Jase007 (Travel Guru 8870 posts) 10y

Quoting Brendan

Thanks for the reply - well I want to take shots I can enlarge (poster size), and really something that is going to last. I like to take lots of macro shots that's why I want an SLR over a point/shoot. I didn't realise the 400D was smaller than the 30D, kind of odd. I am also planning to take longer distance telephoto wildlife shots.

Brendan,
The 400D or the 'Rebel' as it's called in some markets is aimed at the first timer into the world of SLR's and is built on a budget. As a result there are things you might want to know.

They both uses the smaller COSMOS sensor (i.e. it is not a full 35mm image size therefore the image has a magnification of approx 1.5 times). You can use the 'S' series of EOS lenses as well as the higher spec ones, but remember to account for the magnification.

The 400D a little more solid, than the regular 350D, though only in a minor way. It's still not as large or as durable as the 30D (the 30D has an alloy body).
A good comparison of the two.
it's a matter of personal choice and that includes your budget. Physically the size will make a difference, I bought my 20D over the then 300D for many reasons, but size was also one of them.

5. Posted by Q' (Travel Guru 1987 posts) 10y

As mentioned already. The Rebel is entry level consumer, 30D is mid-level pro, and 1D is top of the line pro.

The differences are in things like toughness of the body, accuracy of the meter, noise level of the sensor, size of buffers, size of the view finder, erogonomics of the control, etc. etc. A rough guide for your own needs would be to look at your knowledge & experience level. And also what you want to do with it. Canon has consumer feedback from thousands of users which have helped them tailor their products, and you should try to take full advantage of that by considering the above.

Another aspect with DSLR's you shouldn't forget is the quality of your lenses. I have a cheap body (equivalent to a 350D), but I've got a $1500 lens that can give you clear, full frame, pictures of animals leaping through the dark forest 150m away.

6. Posted by Brendan (Respected Member 1824 posts) 10y

All really good information - thanks! I Imagine the same holds true for all brands across the market? Speaking of which, Canon seems to have the name behind it - would something else be better though? Say Pentax.

7. Posted by Brendan (Respected Member 1824 posts) 10y

I'm kind of confused Jase, that comparison you linked almost makes the 400D sound better.

8. Posted by Sander (Moderator 4835 posts) 10y

Given that that comparison starts with "The megapixel [sic] alone, a jump of 1.9 megapixel is worth noting.", you can safely ignore any of the prose. The author also seems to have forgotten to highlight advantages of the 30D like not-quite-but-still-spot-metering (okay, so I'm biased with my D200's 2%) ;) and 5 frames per second (that is, to me he seems biased to make the 400D seem better; probably because like most of us photography enthusiasts, he feels the need to justify his own purchasing decisions by convincing others to go the same route).

As for which to get - go to a real world camera store, pick them both up, and take some pictures. Pay attention to how they feel, how they operate. Chances are you'll have a very clear winner right there. (And that could go either way, based on personal preferences.)

Also, since I need to validate my choice to buy into Nikon ;), have you thought into looking into a D50 or a D80? They can be placed just below a 400D and in between the 400D and the 30D respectively, both in price and in features. (Actually I think the D80 even tops the 30D in some aspects, although opinions on that will vary.) Pick them up when at that camera store as well, just to get to feel the difference in ergonomics. :)

9. Posted by Q' (Travel Guru 1987 posts) 10y

Quoting Brendan

Speaking of which, Canon seems to have the name behind it - would something else be better though? Say Pentax.

What do you mean by better ?? There are theoretical better sensors. The Foveon sensor in the Sigmas are the theoretical best but have low pixel count. The Fuji sensors have more dynamic range, but again low pixel count. I can tell the difference between a Canon and Nikon sensor shooting the same thing. I like the look of Nikons images, but somedays I like the Canon look. Pentax has good all round but cheap stuff. But if you know what you're doing, you almost never buy Pentaxes because of the compromises. Minoltas have vibration reduction in the body, which aren't as helpful as the lens base technology that Canon and Nikon has in some situations. Leica has good lenses from what I understand, but you pay through the nose for them. Sony I've never liked their proprietary memory sticks, but they're suppose to be good too. And so on.... you get the idea.

Unfortunately, there's never a clear cut easy guideline. Some people tell you the camera doesn't matter, it's the eye/skill of the photographer which matters. Which is true to some extent. But it's tough to break the laws of physics no matter how skilled you are, and sometimes your gear just runs out of steam. But of course those same people just tell you you shouldn't take the image...ok but....And so on.....

My advice. Consider all the same DSLR's eqivalent, get the cheapest and spend the leftover money travelling to where you're going to take the pictures. ;)

10. Posted by Brendan (Respected Member 1824 posts) 10y

Hmm, so much to think about. I'll certainly hit a camera shop near hear soon to check them all out.

My advice. Consider all the same DSLR's eqivalent, get the cheapest and spend the leftover money travelling to where you're going to take the pictures

Good advice!