40d vs xsi

[rob91]

About a 300 dollar price difference, and a quick look tells me they're about the same except that the 40d is 6.5 fps and 10.1 mp, while the xsi is 3.5 fps and 12 mp. Would it have really been that hard for the canon people to make the Xsi 6.5 fps at the same price?

 

[DavidSR]

I'm a beginner, but in my opinion is that if they did make the XSi at 6.5 fps than there would be no point in having a 40D now would there? The XSi is an entry level DSLR and a 40D is a few steps up in terms of build and I believe slightly better IQ. The XSi is a DSLR that is still entry level and that is why it has an entry level price

 

[rob91]

That's fine from a marketing standpoint, but common sense, no.

 

[DavidSR]

Well, common sense could be that most consumers might not need a 6.5 fps so instead of wasting and adding to the XSi they engineered it into a better camera that is geared more to professionals. Just my opinion.

 

[rob91]

I just think it's funny that 3 more fps is worth 300$. I'm actually more sad, because the 6.5 is one of the reasons I'm considering the 40d, would be nice not to have to drop the extra cash.

 

[DavidSR]

Here's a pretty good comparision between the XTi, XSi and 40D.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/canon_eos_xsi_vs_xti_vs_40D.html

 

[rob91]

Thanks, good reading.

The other big advantage is the 40d has iso 3200.

 

[DavidSR]

You're welcome. Yep, forgot about that.

 

[Dao]

Really ... it is not just the fps .... the 5D has less fps ... but it cost more. it is the overall package. They are targeted to different groups.

If you have limited budget, go with XSi with better lens.

Personally, I believe Good lens + XSi is better than crap lens + 40D in terms of image quality.

If cost is not an factor, I would go with Good lens + 40D or even 5D MKII.

:lmao::lmao: too bad ... I can't do that right now.

 

[Phazan]

I'm not sure it's smart to base what camera you buy on megapixels, and fps...

 

[rob91]

Really ... it is not just the fps .... the 5D has less fps ... but it cost more. it is the overall package. They are targeted to different groups.

Can you elaborate on this?

I'm not sure it's smart to base what camera you buy on megapixels, and fps...

Would you like to point out where I said this? And could you also explain why FPS isn't a legitimate concern?

 

[DavidSR]

I'm not sure it's smart to base what camera you buy on megapixels, and fps...

For sports photographers fps are a very big concern and a very big deciding factor.

 

[Txaggie08]

There's more to an XSI vs. a 40d than FPS and MP. Build quality alone is enough of a reason for the 300$ more...

 

[Village Idiot]

40D also has a bigger view finder, a max shutter speed of 1/8000 vs. 1/4000 on the xsi, an x sync of 1/250 vs. 1/200, a larger buffer that will shoot up to 75 jpg and 17 raw as 6.5 fps before slowing to 1fps as opposed to the XSI's 53jpg and 6 RAW at 3.5fps before slwoing to 1 fps, Kelvin white balance (meaning you can set the actual color temperture in degrees Kelvin), the control wheel on the back with the ability to change aperture with a dedicated control rather than having to press a button and then scroll the shutter speed wheel, top mount LCD, it takes CF cards vs. SD and higher capacity battery rated at 1100 shots vs 600.

All that was on the charts at the bottom of the Bob Atkins article that was posted. Oh...and it's a metal body vs. plastic.

Ed: And if the XSI is the same as the previous rebels, you have to actually use the camera's menu to change the ISO instead of being able to change it with a button press and the control dial. The 40D should has have a quicker AF. There's probably some more. Do some reading.

 

[Jeremy Lim]

A minor point, but a helpful when you shoot lots: the 40D series all have a scroll wheel.