Is the new Rebel XSi really as good as it sounds?

[Village Idiot]

Sometimes more is not always more. I call it spec creep. Little things they can do for next to nothing that will do a lot more for propping up sales than they ever will for truly making better photos.

More accurate AF can also mean it takes longer to think. Lower noise can also mean less detail from more NR trickery. I think you'd be hard pressed to see the difference between 14-bit and 12-bit RAW, and now you have a larger file to deal with. My D80 has a much larger viewfinder than my D40 does (0.80x vs 0.94x) and I never notice. So I doubt I'd notice the 0.80x to 0.87x difference between the XTi and XSi. They're all tiny and dim compared to what you used to get on film cameras. And I never use spot metering. :greenpbl:

Save your money and get a nicer lens instead is what I'd say. Zillions of features on camera bodies don't do much for me, but I like NICE glass. Speaking of which, I'd be far more interested in the 18-55 IS lens than any new feature on the camera. I like walking around cities I'm visiting at night or in the early AM catching the good light. I currently use a pro 17-55 f/2.8 which is big and heavy. I've been meaning to order a Nikon 18-55 VR. If that can make up for its lack of speed with the VR and gives me results that are as good, I can save myself the trouble of carrying my heavier lenses around with me.

Lower noise is from the Digic III processor, the upgrade from the Digic II in the XTI and 30D units and not from NR trickery. There have been comparisons between the 5d and the 40d...a lot of them...and you can notice richer colors from the 14bit processor in the 40d. More accurate AF could mean that the processors are now faster and can think a lot faster. The view finder is getting larger and that's what matters. I can tell the difference between my 300d and my 30d. Spot metering is the only metering I use and is something a lot of the rebel owners that knew what spot metering is were complaining about.

Camera bodies do matter up to a certain point. If they didn't, the pros would all be using entry level cameras and there would be no point in D3's and 1D's.

 

[jg123]

Thanks for all the input so far.

From a logical stand-point I understand that none of the 'upgrades' are earthshattering on their own but surely they all add up to a major difference?

say if you just gave each little improvement a 5% bonus to the xti you would end up with 30-40% in improvements?

Here are the ones that peak my interest.

- 20% bigger lcd
- 30% brighter lcd
- Better kit lens
- higher end sensor
- 20% higher pixel count
- higher continuously capturing
- auto light optimizer
- live view

The package comes in around $250 higher than the XTI

 

[asfixiate]

if you are going to be making a purchase and your budget can include the XSI as well as a decent lense there's nothing wrong IMO in buying the latest camera model Canon offers. Obviously its BETTER than the XT and XTI. Unless you have to crank it to get it running I'm sure its a good purchase you won't regret.

I bought an XT because of the XTI vs XT issue but my budget was VERY tight at the time.

You can still get new XTs and XTIs as well so you don't need to look in used department.

 

[prodigy2k7]

Bigger LCD, same resolution I hear, so less DPI.. Kinda a downgrade in my book but hey! probably wont notice

 

[Mav]

I still don't see how not being able to notice differences dismisses the advantages to the differences.

I'm not trying to call you out MAV but your constant argument of not being able to notice it is a bit cheesy.

Would you tell the customer that I could have used the best way but I figured you wouldn't notice so I did it this way?

The differences are stated in factual manner. Whether the camera comes with a guy that edits your photos to get rid of noise or the camera does it the fact is thre's less noise, better AF, and better tone.

I could use fire to heat my cave but I like bundling in wooly mamoth fur.

I could use the wheel but I'd rather get 4 of my friends to drag it along.

Final result is the final result...get there the easiest

If that's how you truly feel about the XSi vs your perfectly good XTi then by all means go get an XSi! :lmao:

Don't let me stop you from wasting your money with my "cheesy" views that you don't ALWAYS need to have the latest and greatest camera with all of the latest and greatest little specs no matter how insignificant they may be. Geez, it's as if whenever a new camera comes out that suddenly the perfectly good XTi is no longer capable of taking brilliant photographs. Here's another thread where the consensus seems to be that the XSi isn't that big of a deal.

<set sarcasm level 10>

Here's a photo that I took very recently with my little D40, the lowest and most stripped down camera in Nikon's entire lineup. Oh dear heavens, I only had an 0.80x viewfinder which is smaller than both the XSi (0.87) and my D80's "giant" (0.94x) so it's a miracle I was able to see anything at all to compose. And it only has 3 AF zones vs the XSi's 9 and my D80's 11. But even worse, I was using a lens that didn't even have autofocus support on the D40 because it lacks Nikon's old screw drive motor which is how a lot of Nikon's lenses have focused for the past 20 odd years. I had to manually focus! And because of the horrible matrix metering in some of Nikon's newer cameras, I had to make religious use of the exposure compensation button. On some shots I was down to as much as -3.0! And because my camera doesn't have super duper high ISO performance like the 5D or Nikon D3, I shot at a whopping 1/8s so that I could shoot down at iso400, with NO VR, on a high rise balcony, in the freezing cold, with a lot of wind. And OMFG, it's only 6MP! TEH HORRORZ!

Oh yeah, I shot and processed that one from even cheesier 8-bit JPEG files too. :mrgreen:

</sarcasm>


Stop worrying about every little spec on your camera and get out and take some great photos instead. The sooner you do that, the sooner you'll realize that the biggest factor in your photos is YOU and that all of these tiny little specs are insignificant in the end. If you're brand new and have the money, sure get the XSi. But if you already have a perfectly good XTi then seriously, you're not missing much. Yeah it's a "fact" that there are improvements on the XSi. But it's also a fact that some of these "facts" are blown out of proportion, misleading, irrelevant, or pure BS. That's the camera marketeer's job - to hype up specs no matter how irrelevant to convince you to keep buying their stuff. And you're reading and repeating that as if it's all etched in gold. I had a meeting with the director of marketing and communications at my company last week and was joking about some of the BS going around at the office. She joked to me that I was at "BS central" in the marketing department. I'm not knocking the XSi. I'm sure it's a great camera, but there's nothing here that makes this a quantum leap "must have" upgrade over the XTi IMHO.

So yeah, feel free to sell your perfectly good XTi, perhaps to this guy here who's down on his luck at a loss of several hundred dollars to yourself, and then buy the XSi for several hundred more. Don't let me stop ya.

 

[Tiberius47]

To put things in perspective....

Back in 2000, the Rebel XT/350D would have been the best camera on the planet and would have been worth around $10,000.

It's all the fault of marketting really. When a new camera comes out, they do their best to convince you that this is the only camera you'll ever need, that it's the best and will serve you well for eternity. Then a newer model comes out and all of a sudden, everything except the new camera is rubbish, even that camera that they tried to convince you that you needed a year ago.

The best marketting is that which you do yourself. Think about what you need, and then get a camera that gives you that. And when a new camera with shinier buttons and more megapixels comes out, ask yourself, "Given that my current camera has served me so well and is still serving me, do I need the shiner buttons? Do I really need two more megapixels?" Answer those questions honestly, and you'll realise that most often the answer is, "No, my current camera is fine for me."

 

[asfixiate]

Once again I was stating what's better with it and that theres nothing wrong with buying it. I never once said that the XT would no longer work nor did I say I was going to get the XSi.

I love my XT but within the next 3 years I'm going to upgrade to one of its big brothers. The XT would still be in my bag always as a backup.

 

[Mav]

Lower noise is from the Digic III processor, the upgrade from the Digic II in the XTI and 30D units and not from NR trickery. There have been comparisons between the 5d and the 40d...a lot of them...and you can notice richer colors from the 14bit processor in the 40d. More accurate AF could mean that the processors are now faster and can think a lot faster. The view finder is getting larger and that's what matters. I can tell the difference between my 300d and my 30d. Spot metering is the only metering I use and is something a lot of the rebel owners that knew what spot metering is were complaining about.

The Digic III processor is the NR trickery. The imaging processor is not the sensor, which is where the noise comes from. My guess is at best Canon improved the efficiency of the individual photosites just enough that they could now squeeze 12 million of them into the same physically sized sensor without increasing absolute noise levels. That's at best. So if the output is even cleaner than before and it's due to the Digic III, it's due to "NR trickery" because that exactly what the imaging processors do at high ISO. Put the same Digic III sensor on an older 6 or 8MP sensor which has theoretically better noise performance to begin with and you'll have a truly outstanding high ISO performer at very low cost. That's what I love about my Nikon D40. Only 6MP so it has nice big photosites in the last rev of that sensor while also getting the very latest image processing engine at the time. It does great at 1600, and is passable at 3200 too. Blows my D80 right out of the water. As for color, that would have everything to do with the color ramps they have programmed in and little to do with the fact that it runs internally at 14 bits. You can't even see that. What your eyes see at best are the most significant 8-bits (256 levels), or in most normal situations, really only 7-bits (128 levels). All the remaining bits are doing is splitting what you can't see an additional 64 or 128 ways.

The face detection stuff sounds neat, but unless it's going to track eyeballs consistently so that I can snap off photos at f/2 or larger apertures consistently in full auto AF mode, I'd still need to manually select AF and park one on an eyeball. Just detecting faces is nice, but that's not good enough at larger apertures. If they advertised eyeball detection technology, I'd take notice. :mrgreen: Nikon is doing this in the D3 now, for 5-grand. The D300 doesn't cut it, but a few generations from now this will probably trickle down into the consumer level cameras.

Camera bodies do matter up to a certain point. If they didn't, the pros would all be using entry level cameras and there would be no point in D3's and 1D's.

If you're covering the war in Iraq and Afghanistan then by all means get a D3 or 1D. You can literally beat the crap out of those, use them as a hammer to beat the stakes for your tent into the ground, and they'll just keep on going. Michael Yon has a Canon 1DII, but even he shot with a D70 and a $100 50mm f/1.8 lens for his first year or so in Iraq. One of his most famous photos was the TIME magazine photo of the year, taken by the D70 in combat! Similarly, if you're running around chasing celebs all day and getting knocked down, pushed into walls, or having your foot run over, yes get something rugged there too, LOL. Ditto with photojournalist work shoving others around to get in and get the shot where you'll get knocked around too, and where the weather might not be the best and you need a fully sealed body that'll also handle getting beat around.

What does this have to do with a typical beginner's needs? Nothing.

I think Tiberius47 said it best...

The best marketting is that which you do yourself. Think about what you need, and then get a camera that gives you that. And when a new camera with shinier buttons and more megapixels comes out, ask yourself, "Given that my current camera has served me so well and is still serving me, do I need the shiner buttons? Do I really need two more megapixels?" Answer those questions honestly, and you'll realise that most often the answer is, "No, my current camera is fine for me."

+1

 

[TamiyaGuy]

a LOT of stuff

You, sir, are my new god.


You are just perfectly right. I own a D40 as well, and was actually quite worried what with everyone else having stunning Nikon D300's and D3's, I thought my pictures would only turn out marginally better than my 3.2mp compact. But I still got it, and I have taken some really quite fantastic photos so far (not meaning to blow my own trumpet too much ) considering my physical limitations. I took a photo of my cat at ISO 1600 without flash, and I was in love with it. Did it have noise? Not that much, but yes. Would it have been better with a Nikon D300? Most likely, yes. Would it look worse than the D300's pic on a 30" x 20" print? Probably. But the point is I'll never print it out 30 x 20, and even if I did, I would still be perfectly happy with it, and I'm sure people who looked at it (and loved cats ) would like it too.

All these new cameras like the XSi, D60 and others, seem a bit... well, to put it harshly, pointless. They have gimmicky additions that really won't make much of a difference to your photos if you don't have skill. And if you really want to get the absolute best out of your camera, just move up to the D80 or 400D!!! Sure, they're more basic in fancy features, but the image quality is far better (of course, no where near the amount that skill contributes to a photo).


And, above all, it's really quite saddening to see that the DSLR market has become completely spec-obsessed. I have a Nikon F301, I have no bloody IDEA how to use it, it's expensive to run, my D40 will produce better pictures, it weighs an absolute TON, and I can only take 24 photos at a time, but I still use it. Why? Because it's fun. I enjoy doing it. I don't care a bit that it doesn't have image stabilisation, I don't care that the lens weighs more than my D40 plus a lens, hell, my F301 doesn't even have a shutter priority mode!!! But I love it because it gets me out there doing something I adore.


Phew, OK, rant over. I got a bit carried away :lmao:

 

[Mav]

LOL thanks. :lmao:

I actually disagree with you on a couple of points though. I can make very good arguments that the "overall image quality" of my lowly D40 is actually better than that of my D80. I hardly even use my D80 anymore despite the fact that it out-paper-specs and out-features my D40 in almost every aspect. The BS stops when the green flag drops, and this dinky little camera is no joke. I love it, and a lot of other Nikon shooters that have had far nicer cameras are blown away and love theirs too. And 6MP is perfectly capable of making outstanding looking 3-foot wide prints. I've done some from both my D80 and D40 and they all look great. You don't need a full 300 dpi on 3 foot wide prints because you don't look at them nearly as close as you do with a 4x6 or 5x7. You're back a bit, in which case even 100 dpi is just fine. And if you really want to print that big or bigger on a regular basis, you should be thinking more about going to a larger format camera for superior sharpness and resolution than you should about even more megapixels stuffed onto a still small sensor. 35mm film is still ultimately better, or if you're really hardcore and serious you can put together 4x5" large format systems very cheaply. The only real benefit extra MP's has ever given me is that you have a lot more leeway for cropping. If you're shooting a soccer game with too short of a lens, or you're trying to get that bird with only a 300mm, 10MP has the clear adantage since you'll still have enough image left after cropping heavily for a pretty good sized print. But since I hardly ever crop, that's not important to me. If I shoot birds, I'll definitely take my D80 with me though.

The key point is that there are both pros and cons to having more megapixels. People are brainwashed by marketeers into thinking that more megapixels are always better, but that simply isn't the case. Semiconductor device physics cannot be ignored, and fancier noise reduction algorithms can only buy you so much. For beginners just starting out with commonly very limited budgets (this is the beginners forum after all) this is important to know. The same is true for almost anything else. One year a car has 190hp and it's great. The next year they come out with a 222hp model which everybody thinks is going to be soooo much faster, except they conveniently hid the fact that the weight went up by 200 lbs, torque didn't increase by any meaningful amount, and that overall the newer "more powerful" car is actually slower than the old one. Or for fuel economy, they specifically design the car to kick ass on the EPA tests so that it does better than the old one, but in real driving it's actually less efficient and you're screwed again. This kind of crap happens a lot. Yes, things do improve. Just look at the Canon 1DIII or Nikon D3. Huge jumps like that are the "real" improvements. The other little things they tack on later tend to be the BS whose only real purpose is to keep sales moving. That said, some companies have far better track records as far as making real improvements vs just making marketing BS improvements than others.

And just to show that I'm not unfairly attacking Canon, I think the Nikon D40x and D60 are both "marketing BS" cameras" too , mainly to keep sales moving or for people who fall for the megapixel hype and won't buy a 6MP D40 because their last crappy point and shoot had 7 or 8. I'm not nearly as familiar with Canon stuff obviously so I'm not going to claim this about Canon too, but in some ways the D40x and D60 by Nikon are actually a step backwards from the D40 believe it or not.


/book

 

[Village Idiot]

A lot of the things you're dismissing as "marketing tricks" are what make cameras better.

Just because you don't use certain features and can't see the difference in things doesn't mean that others can't.

I'm not saying you should upgrade with every single generations, but there are some things that are obviously better, like newer image processors and faster smarter AF. Some things are gimmicks, like dust reduction. Not everyone's needs are filled with a d40. Sports photographers would laugh at a camera like that. Faster FPS and AF are almost needed in certain situations...And more MP doesn't always mean a worse image. Some of it's hype, but with newer sensor designs, cameras with more MP's can end up with less noise than their older counterparts without.

 

[TamiyaGuy]

Another loooooooong post

Yeah, I completely agree with you there, the D40's amount of noise is certainly way WAY less than in the D40x, and that's a good camera when it comes to image noise. I guess I just went on a bit of a rant, but I agree with everything you're saying. I've actually got a couple of 30 x 20 prints from my '40, and they do look really great. Sure, they would have looked better on a pro-grade D300, but then you pay pro-grade prices for it as well.


Great posts, Mav. Yet again you truly prove your worthyness to be on this forum
:hail:

A lot of the things you're dismissing as "marketing tricks" are what make cameras better.

Just because you don't use certain features and can't see the difference in things doesn't mean that others can't.

I'm not saying you should upgrade with every single generations, but there are some things that are obviously better, like newer image processors and faster smarter AF. Some things are gimmicks, like dust reduction. Not everyone's needs are filled with a d40. Sports photographers would laugh at a camera like that. Faster FPS and AF are almost needed in certain situations...And more MP doesn't always mean a worse image. Some of it's hype, but with newer sensor designs, cameras with more MP's can end up with less noise than their older counterparts without.

I do agree with you there, but if a sports photographer "laughs" at a D40, then surely they would zoom straight past the D60/XSi and get a D300/40d. The D60 only has a very slightly increased FPS from the D40 and the same AF system, yet it's about £190 more.

I totally agree with you that people's needs aren't filled with a low-end camera like the D40, but if that's the case then their needs wouldn't be filled by a D60 either, or, sometimes, even a D80. They would go to the high-end models. And if they got a '60 or '80 then their wallets certainly wouldn't be filled either.

And going back to the "marketing tricks" section, I agree with you there as well... partly. Stuff like extra megapixels, better sensors and lower noise all make the camera better, but the kind of things on these "sort of like a semi-pro ameteur camera but cheaper kind of" cameras really do not.

For instance, the D60 has an active D-lighting option on the camera. Sure, it's nice to be able to see the D-lighting while the photo's being taken, but the D40 has a PP version of D-lighting that works just as well and takes about the same time (once you account for going through the menu trying to find the A D-lighting feature). So not much, if anything, gained. Sensor cleaning comes on the D60 as well. If you get a D40 for £190 less, you can spend £7.99 on a Giottos Rocket Air Blower that will work better than the built-in sensor cleaning ever will. Yet again, it might be the tiniest bit of hassle to raise the mirror and blow it, but it doesn't use up any extra battery power, and is it really THAT bad doing it yourself?

And the D60 also has the ability to make stop-motion movies. 3 words. Windows Movie Maker.

 

[MACollum]

I was excited when I heard about some of the new features but then realized that the memory is different, the batteries are different, and there's less buffer space. Not that I think it will be bad though, I'm sure many people will love it.

 

[prodigy2k7]

Ya, even tho I love my XTi, im probably going to get a 40D (or later model in the future) or a 5D (or later model in the future)

Oh cool, how long has the 5D been available with a kit lens?
EF 24-105L

 

[Mav]

A lot of the things you're dismissing as "marketing tricks" are what make cameras better.

Just because you don't use certain features and can't see the difference in things doesn't mean that others can't.

I'm not saying you should upgrade with every single generations, but there are some things that are obviously better, like newer image processors and faster smarter AF. Some things are gimmicks, like dust reduction. Not everyone's needs are filled with a d40. Sports photographers would laugh at a camera like that. Faster FPS and AF are almost needed in certain situations...And more MP doesn't always mean a worse image. Some of it's hype, but with newer sensor designs, cameras with more MP's can end up with less noise than their older counterparts without.

You're dead wrong about sports photogs and the D40. All I need to say is 1/500s flash sync and high ISO performance that holds its own and you've instantly got a great budget sports camera or backup rig to a pro body. Not even the pro bodies do 1/500s flash sync.

On the broader point though, I don't disagree. But if you buy a 2007 model year car and the next year in 2008 they come out with something slightly better, does that mean that you must instantly trade-in your 1 year old car at a significant cost to yourself just to have those minor improvements and that your "old" car is no longer good enough? Car companies and camera companies are no different really, just with cameras it's on a smaller scale monetarily. Yes the newer car is "better", but there's no sense spending a ton of money on immediately upgrading if there's nothing there that's going to seriously improve your photography, or enjoyment of your car. And for the most part, the little improvements won't.

After pushing tiny little DX sensors in their pro bodies for years while asking top dollar for them despite being inferior to anything Canon had, Nikon finally comes out with the 1D killing D3. Hell yeah, upgrade away! It opens up possibilities never before seen in a DSLR. After pushing their "underpowered" 3.0L Inline-6 engines for years in the face of 300hp 3.5L class V-6 powered Japanese cars that were really starting to make BMW look stupid, BMW finally comes out with a truly brilliant twin-turbo engine that both develops more overall power than the Japanese V-6 engines while also solving a lot of the old turbo engine quirks in terms of driveability and efficiency. And it'll put a **** eating grin on your face unlike any of their previous Inline-6 engines short of an M3. Hell yeah, upgrade away! I don't have either a D3 or a twin-turbo Bimmer, unfortunately. But that's the kind of stuff I go for, the things that will make large and very noticeable improvements. I recognize the "BS little stuff" for what it is, although if there's one very specific feature that you truly need that they add, like spot metering, well then guess what? They've got you. :mrgreen:

Maybe to make it a bit more clear, I view things in terms of "classification". Once you make the upgrade from a P&S to a crop body DSLR you've "jumped class" and any other camera within that class is really going to perform about the same. The minor feature changes are insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Jumping up to a full frame sensor like a 1D, 5D, or D3 is another "class jump" and anything in that class is going to kick the ass of anything below it, providing you can use it correctly. Sometimes just jumping up from the bottom of your "class" to the top if you're satisified with the optical performance but just need more FPS or sealing or a "pro-like" feature set can make sense though. Like jumping from a D40 to a D300, or an XTi to a 40D. But for the most part the Rebel, XT, XTi, and XSi are all the same. There's almost no point in serial upgrading. I consider the D40, D50, D70, and D80 all pretty much the same. An XTi to 40D jump makes sense if you can make good use of all of the features, but the overall photographic quality is still going to be about the same. Same thing with jumping from a D40 or D80 to a D200 or D300. More features, but really similar overall photographic capability. The 5D and 1D cameras are in different leagues. So is the D3. Beyond that if you really want to take serious photos, the 1D and D3 will both get their butts kicked by medium format digital or large format film (4x5") if you want maximum resolution and sharpness like with pro fashion photography or landscape photography. In the grand scheme of things, small format DSLRs are still for amateurs, although very handy for photojournalist type pros that need the portability and convenience which is why they're used.