Think I finally found a good camera!

[Soulz3urn3lack]

Buy what you can afford, glass is the biggest difference honestly. I'd rather have an old camera and better glass.

Honestly that's a better price than around here. People are trying to sell XT's for like 350$ and wont budge off their prices sadly =/

 

[fokker]

I don't see any limits in the xt, specially if it's the first dslr. Canon keeps putting out more and more rebels with more features but it doesn't always mean a better camera. They're just saying, here's a new feature come and buy it. And about ISO, the improvement is not a big deal, I don't think she's going to be doing any big printing, so 1600 is PERFECTLY usable.

My only complain about the camera is the kit lens. It's crap. Photos are ok, but soon you'll want a better one.

I agree with you about the lens, they are horrible, but I disagree on the rest of that statement. The technology has advanced light years since the Xt, and you can most definitely notice a big improvement in the high ISO ability.

 

[zcar21]

unless you have a magnefying glass you won't see any square or pixels, it would just get a little bit blurry. With a p&s, even if you double the megapixel, you'll get more blur. Besides, to print such a big size you shouldn't even use a dlsr (I don't care if it has 20mp). A larger format would be needed for very sharp images.

I can tell you from experience that you can see individual pixels on a 20X30 print using an 8MP camera.

It wasn't printed correctly.
My xt has 3456x2304 pixel, divided by 30x20 equals 115ppi. I don't even see squares at 40ppi, how can you see them at 115?
see here, Comped: Megapixel Folly

 

[fjrabon]

unless you have a magnefying glass you won't see any square or pixels, it would just get a little bit blurry. With a p&s, even if you double the megapixel, you'll get more blur. Besides, to print such a big size you shouldn't even use a dlsr (I don't care if it has 20mp). A larger format would be needed for very sharp images.

I can tell you from experience that you can see individual pixels on a 20X30 print using an 8MP camera.

It wasn't printed correctly.
My xt has 3456x2304 pixel, divided by 30x20 equals 115ppi. I don't even see squares at 40ppi, how can you see them at 115?
see here, Comped: Megapixel Folly

perhaps, or perhaps not, but wait, you can't see the pixels on the 40ppi picture there? they're plain as day to me from two feet away and I have average sight. The 60ppi I can see them in a couple of spots, but this image almost seems made to hide low resolution. The 160 I can't see.

 

[zcar21]

Well, I see pixelation at 40ppi, but now actual squares. the 60ppi looks good, although not as sharp as 160.

 

[colintrax]

Woah. You guys are talking over my head now anyways, I do cheap out sometimes. Keep in mind, she isn't making or even asking for the camera. She doesn't ask for anything. I want to get it for her because I know she'd love it, and she wants to be a photographer.
So the T1i is.....?

 

[fjrabon]

Woah. You guys are talking over my head now anyways, I do cheap out sometimes. Keep in mind, she isn't making or even asking for the camera. She doesn't ask for anything. I want to get it for her because I know she'd love it, and she wants to be a photographer.
So the T1i is.....?

I mean I think that the camera you're talking about just isn't a good deal. If you're set on a sub $300 DSLR, then just keep scanning ebay, craigslist, etc. To me, the XT isn't significantly better than like a Canon S95, image quality wise. In fact, I generally think that S95 might make better images, it just can't zoom very far.

 

[colintrax]

Is the T1i a xt? I'm pretty sure it's not, or atleast I hope so.

 

[fjrabon]

Is the T1i a xt? I'm pretty sure it's not, or atleast I hope so.

the XT is the XT. EOS and Rebel are just general names for the overall lines. XT was the specific model.

 

[colintrax]

So isn't the T1i a specific model?
Canon Digital Rebel T1i (EOS 500D)

 

[MLeeK]

The T1i is in the Canon Rebel line. So was the XT. The T1i is a much newer and much improved rebel than the XT.

I'd definitely take the T1i over the XT!!!

 

[fjrabon]

also, if you're interested in the S95, Amazon has it for $290 right now. Even though it's a P&S, I think it's a better camera than the XT. As long as you don't need to do telephoto. IMHO, it's the best P&S out there. Breath taking shots with a camera that will fit in her pocket. It also does video pretty well.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

I suggest you not to use Point and Shoot cameras. The sensors are too small. If you're worried about pixelation, use bicubic resizing. If you read about circle of confusion, you'll understand why small sensors are not ideal.

 

[fjrabon]

I suggest you not to use Point and Shoot cameras. The sensors are too small. If you're worried about pixelation, use bicubic resizing. If you read about circle of confusion, you'll understand why small sensors are not ideal.

That's good and fine in most situations. But we are talking $300 budget here. The XT was an okay intro camera 4 generations ago. My sister still uses hers. It's more or less unusable in low light. The kit lens for it is probably the biggest reason why kit lenses continue to get a bad reputation, despite that they've vastly improved over that period. It doesn't seem like that long ago but it might as well have been 50 years ago. It's been a time of exponential growth for DSLRs. I think if $300ish is really your budget you're looking at used micro 4/3rds, top of the line P&S or just wait on the camera. The XT will just have her asking "why can't I take pictures inside without flash, like everybody else?"

 

[MLeeK]

I have to agree with fjrabon here. I'd go with an SX30 IS or an SX40 HS before I'd go with a rebel XT. Smaller sensor and all. It's going to give better results, last longer and do more for her.