SLR Digital Cameras

[kmac]

I'm in the process of investing in a SLR digital camera. I was wondering what everyone here uses and if there is one that stands out more. Presently I'm leaning towrds the Canon XTI, any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
kmac

 

[NewHampshire]

I was using a Canon Elan 7E (35mm Film) and decided to finally give in to the digital SLR craze. I did a lot of homework, read reviews, got advice, looked at the budget.....and the Canon Rebel XTi (aka 400D) won. I picked it up along with a battery grip (if you have big hands this thing will be your greatest friend). Many reviews I read stated the XTi was even better than the dated 30D. At 10.1 Megapixels you get plenty of resolution for most of what you might need it for.

Go with the XTi and you will not be diappointed.

Brian

 

[forestgnome]

...another vote for the 400D. I've used the 300D for four years, then recently got the 400D. I have no complaints at all, not even the size. I quickly got used to the smaller size, and now the 300D feels like a monster in my hand. Since my style is hiking/nature, I appreciate the smaller size.

There may be an issue with the batteries in the cold. I can't say until I give it another chance with batteries that I'm sure are completely charged. The batteries are smaller than those of the 300D, which worked very well in cold temps.

 

[MichaelJ]

The XTi is an excellent choice for a walking/hiking dSLR. We are an all-Canon household and I'm very happy with the results from all the cameras. I currently have a 300D and even if I someday upgrade to a semi-pro body like the 40D, the Rebel series, with its smaller form factor and lighter-weight materials, will still be my preference for hikes.

And they take awesome pictures, too.

 

[kmorgan]

...and, the XTi has an ultrasonic cleaning mode for the sensor. A big plus. I have the Rebel XT (350d) and am very happy with it. Use in winter weather all the time (keep it in the usual vinyl type case/protector) and never have problems with the battery life.

Kevin

 

[DougPaul]

I also have an XTi and am happy with it. The small size and light weight are certainly advantages when hiking. I also consider the auto cleaning to be an advantage.

The next step is some glass... The kit lens (~28-85mm 35mm equivalent) is ok, but not great (optically). It is very light as lenses go... The IS lenses are nice, but a bit heavy for hiking.

FWIW, there have been some discussions in this forum about lenses for Canons.

FWIW2, many DSLR owners also have a lightweight P&S to use when hiking takes priority over pictures.

Doug

 

[Mongoose]

I have a Nikon D80, so far it's been great. I used it hiking in 10F-20F temps with no problems. The battery lasts a long time, even in those cold temps. I was worried about it being too delicate for hiking but so far it's done well.

As for features, it has more than enough features for me.

 

[Mark Schaefer]

I have had the XTi (400D) for about 2 months and am overall very satisfied. If you have an investment in Canon lenses, don't want to pay big bucks for a full-frame dSLR, and want something light enough for hiking; then the XTi is hard to beat. I carefully considered the slightly more featured and more costly 40D and concluded that I would rarely use any of the extra features. So the choice of the XTi over the 40D was an easy one for me.

At some point I want to buy a full frame dSLR, probably more for civilized settings rather than hiking. But from what I have seen of the output of full frame dSLRs they are still not equal in sharpness to a good film camera with good glass and using current Velvia slide film. And given that Fuji is still improving Velvia (it is a moving target) the cross over point when digital will finally surpass the best of 35mm film photography is probably 2-3 years or more away. I am guesstimating it will require a minimum of 32 megapixels. But that is an ideal camera. The current 1.5x and 1.6x crop factor compact dSLRs are very adequate for getting into digital, and I would not recommend waiting for anything better.

I went ahead and bought the 18-55mm kit lens with the XTi knowing that there were better lenses available. With the kit price I got at the time from B&H the effective price of the lens was about $20. I figured it was an easy throw away if it was not adequate. The lens has proven to be more than adequate for me (especially when avoiding the last couple of mm's in its focal length range). I also bought the Canon 10-22mm lens (16-35mm equivalent) at the same time as the XTi. If wide angle photos are important to you, this is an excellent lens.

I shoot a lot of photos. Within one month of the purchase I calculate that I had paid for the camera, 10-22mm, and 18-55mm lenses in the avoided cost of Velvia film and processing. I expect that I will continue to use the XTi for hiking even after buying a full frame dSLR. It is a very good investment.

The following is just a cautionary note on expectation settings. The images I have taken with the XTi are not as sharp as my 35mm film camera with the current Velvia; not even using my current L series lenses on the XTi. I did not expect them to be. But they are good enough for now, and much better than a P/S camera. The real downer (and it is true of all digital cameras) was seeing colors that are duller than reality (or maybe I just see the world through Velvia colored glasses). The colors can be zapped up in post processing to look as good as Velvia. I just wish there was a "Velvia shooting mode" so I could easily get the good (and real) colors directly out of the camera. With some effort and time I should be able to get adequate color from a customized RAW mode setting, but that is going to take some experimentation. Again this is a general digital rap, and nothing unique to any one digital camera. And having said all this, most people I know feel that the colors directly out of a digital camera are very good.

 

[w7xman]

Another XTi Vote. Not from experience...but in the wait for the upgrade to the 5D, which I hope to get when it becomes available, I will be unloading my 20D and getting an XTi in the mean time. I demand alot of my cameras, and have no reservations about this stop gap move!

Good luck!

 

[DougPaul]

The following is just a cautionary note on expectation settings. The images I have taken with the XTi are not as sharp as my 35mm film camera with the current Velvia; not even using my current L series lenses on the XTi. I did not expect them to be. But they are good enough for now, and much better than a P/S camera. The real downer (and it is true of all digital cameras) was seeing colors that are duller than reality (or maybe I just see the world through Velvia colored glasses). The colors can be zapped up in post processing to look as good as Velvia. I just wish there was a "Velvia shooting mode" so I could easily get the good (and real) colors directly out of the camera. With some effort and time I should be able to get adequate color from a customized RAW mode setting, but that is going to take some experimentation. Again this is a general digital rap, and nothing unique to any one digital camera. And having said all this, most people I know feel that the colors directly out of a digital camera are very good.

You should be able to get the "Velvia" effect by increasing the color saturation. See, for instance, http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/camera-adjustments.htm

You can also increase the saturation in post-processing (JPEG or raw).

EDIT: also take a look at http://kenrockwell.com/canon/40d/color-tone.htm. It focuses on a 40D, but the color and contrast adjustments are essentially identical on the XTi.

Doug

 

[yvon]

I have a Nikon D80, so far it's been great. I used it hiking in 10F-20F temps with no problems. The battery lasts a long time, even in those cold temps. I was worried about it being too delicate for hiking but so far it's done well.

As for features, it has more than enough features for me.

I had my Nikon D70 on my 3 weeks Trek to Everest base camp and it was ok. Even we had sometime very cold nights. I had put my batteries in my sleeping bag very often, but not the D70. And I used it in the ADK very often in cold weather.

 

[darren]

At some point I want to buy a full frame dSLR, probably more for civilized settings rather than hiking. But from what I have seen of the output of full frame dSLRs they are still not equal in sharpness to a good film camera with good glass and using current Velvia slide film. And given that Fuji is still improving Velvia (it is a moving target) the cross over point when digital will finally surpass the best of 35mm film photography is probably 2-3 years or more away. I am guesstimating it will require a minimum of 32 megapixels.

...

The following is just a cautionary note on expectation settings. The images I have taken with the XTi are not as sharp as my 35mm film camera with the current Velvia; not even using my current L series lenses on the XTi.

What process are you using to compare the sharpness of Velvia vs. dSLR? I have to say that I fairly strongly disagree with your statements so I'm interested in know how you made the comparisons. I shot Velvia for over 10 years and loved it, however now I would never go back.

If you mean using a $100,000 drum scanner to scan Velvia and comparing that to a dSLR output then maybe you might have a point, but even then I tend to doubt it. But who has access to that technology or more importantly who wants to pay someone $50 - $80 a slide to use one to scan their shots.

People want to do two things with their photos these days: post them or email them online, and make prints. For both of those tasks, a dSLR will blow away using a film camera with Velvia. Shooting slides, getting them processed, scanning them at home, and making prints from the scans is a PAINFUL process. The other option is to pay a lab around $100+ to make 1 good print from a slide.

Yes, you might get an electron microscope and determine that Fuji Velvia has more resolution than X dSLR, but it means nothing in the real world. I can take a shot from my dSLR, crop it to 1/3 of the image, and make a bigger, sharper print than I ever could from slide film printed full frame.

Color and sharpness in digital photography depends on image post processing. It is the nature of the beast. The term "digital darkroom" is spot on. A photographer using a dSLR needs to spend time in the digital darkroom to get the most of the equipment. It is the same as shooting film and developing and printing yourself vs. dropping the roll off at CVS. But then even if you shoot in Auto mode with .jpg's you will still get better results than Kodak 100 Gold dropped off at photo counter at CVS.

- darren

 

[darren]

I'm in the process of investing in a SLR digital camera. I was wondering what everyone here uses and if there is one that stands out more. Presently I'm leaning towrds the Canon XTI, any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
kmac

One question is do you currently have a film SLR and lenses? If so then the Brand question is answered.

If not, then you can't really go wrong with a Canon or a Nikon. As you have seen, there are a lot of Canon shooters on this site. If you hike with any of them then the ability to share / try out lenses might be a plus to you.

BTW, the Costco out here had a combo Canon XTI, 18-55mm, and 75-300mm lenses for like $850. I thought that was really cheap, especially for Hawaii. Anyone else see this combo anywhere else? The 75-300 is certainly not Canon's best lens, but until I got my 100-400L I took plenty of good shots with it. Decent starter lens at any rate.

- darren

 

[Chip]

Costco is showing the 10.1 mp XTi with the EF-S 18-55mm lens and a Pixma MP610 printer for $649 after rebate.

 

[Tim Seaver]

The real downer (and it is true of all digital cameras) was seeing colors that are duller than reality (or maybe I just see the world through Velvia colored glasses).

I often wonder which of those is the REAL "reality"! It's a real drag to think that your personal perception of color is some outlandish fantasy.


Another vote for the XTi - great hiking camera, small enough to be carried on your chest. The small buttons can be problematic in winter if you are wearing gloves - double-check before you shoot that you haven't inadventently changed the ISO to 1600! Plenty of resolution for most uses. Get one, you'll like it!

 

[Mark Schaefer]

What process are you using to compare the sharpness of Velvia vs. dSLR? I have to say that I fairly strongly disagree with your statements so I'm interested in know how you made the comparisons. I shot Velvia for over 10 years and loved it, however now I would never go back. ...

In part it may depend on when you stopped using Velvia. Velvia 100f and 100 are sharper and finer grain than the original Velvia (although with inferior color), and the new (or re-released) Velvia 50 is in my estimation a slight improvement to the original Velvia, although admittedly Fuji does not claim the grain is any better that the original. My method of comparing is examining the slide under a loupe, and in small slide projections comparable in size to my computer screen. That does introduce some noise to the slides, but despite the noise the Velvia sharpness still wins to my eyes. The digital sharpness is quite acceptable, and when I shoot at ISO 200 and higher -- digital is an improvement over comparable slide films - a clear winning point for digital. The color with digital at ISO 200 and higher is also better than comparable slide films.

Printing from slides has always been a challenge and a process which I rarely concerned myself with as a result. The real world for me had been slide shows and delivering slide images to a stock house. Stock houses have all made the digital plunge now primarily for convenience reasons. Further they would not have taken the plunge if the digital quality was unacceptable.

I am not advocating going back to film in any way. Nor do I intend to buy another roll of film. There are too many advantages in digital including seeing the results immediately and being able to post online. Getting the exposure reliably correct in the field with a minimum of bracketed shots is the main digital advantage for me. Digital images can be sharpened and colors fixed in Photoshop if necessary. Ideally I want to keep the post processing to a minimum. I just wanted to air the cautionary note on expectations as I was bummed out when I saw my first digital images. I am less disappointed now. I remain more concerned with the dull colors, and I want to solve that as much as possible in the camera through custom RAW mode experimentation and settings. I had previously read the Ken Rockwell pages that Doug posted, I just haven't yet found the time to perfect the custom settings for my use.

 

[Mark Schaefer]

I often wonder which of those is the REAL "reality"! It's a real drag to think that your personal perception of color is some outlandish fantasy.

Perhaps I am just suffering Velvia withdrawal symptoms. To be honest I perceive that the colors in my Velvia images are closer to the reality that I actually see than are the colors of digital images straight out of the XTi (and other digital cameras that I have tried). Velvia appears a bit super color saturated to me, but digital appears to be dulled down more.

I also know some photographers who spend mega hours in Photoshop to get the colors that they had instantly with Velvia. I am hoping, perhaps naively, to avoid that.

 

[w7xman]

I am suprised at the advertised price of the XTi on many sites...I might move this transfer sooner than later.

Has anyone heard about a 5D replacement on the horizon? Is anyone on here shooting with the 5D currently?

 

[Mongoose]

Mmmm, Velvia

When I used my Nikon F3, I always used Velvia film. It's excellent for outdoor scenery. Now with my D80 I can sort of simulate Velvia through the Optimize Image screen. Set your color mode to IIIa and that gives you saturated colors just like Velvia does. Then adjust your contrast, sharpness, etc to your preference. It took a while to tweak, but I'm happy with the results from my digital now.

 

[kmac]

Thank you all so much, I've got lots to read and think about before making my decision, it's a bit overwhelming
I'm curious though, what "one" lens would one purchase with the Canon 400D if not purchasing the "kit lens" the package deal offers?

kmac

Just discovered this great site for us newbies : )
http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/general.html#eos