RalphJ wrote:
I say all the time that each person should hold for a few minutes a Rebel and then hold an D-series (5D, 40D, etc.) to make sure the Rebel isn't too small (the shallow grip in particular on the Rebel really tires my hand very quickly when walking around with the camera).
I second that. It's sad how Canon seem to think that any amateur photographer would have a little girly hand. The 40D grip however, fits well and is very comfortable to hold. I know my next camera would be one from the XXD series.
n0b0 wrote:
I second that. It's sad how Canon seem to think that any amateur photographer would have a little girly hand. The 40D grip however, fits well and is very comfortable to hold. I know my next camera would be one from the XXD series.
I think it's just to give users a small camera option. The 450D is considerably lighter and smaller than the XXD series, many people want that, I know I do when I'm travelling. If you put the grip on it makes a lovely neat sized camera, reminiscent of an old Nikon FM or FE
jaclarkaus wrote:
Actually in my experience the XSi comes nowhere near the 5D in terms of IQ - the larger sensor has significantly less noise, especially when pushing the ISO. The XSi smears and blotches the photo when trying to handle it.
Of course there's much more to a camera than its resolution, but.. For typical landscape/high depth of field images, you won't see a difference. Where the FF advantage comes in is shooting fast lenses/shallow DOF, where the absence of magnification factor further enables you to isolate your subject. Some call this "pop", etc, but it's simply the FF versus crop factor slightly changes the foreground/background perspective/DOF. But once again if you're shooting stopped down this is for the most part irrelevant. And in terms of absolute resolution it's a tossup between the two. Either will produce approximately 13x19 prints at native resolution.
n0b0 wrote:
Wow! very sharp and vibrant images veroman!! What lens did you use?
Thank you for your comments. The first image was shot with the 35mm f/2. The second was the 24-70 f/2.8L. These were pretty much straightforward conversions from Digital Photo Professional with minor adjustment in Photoshop.
veroman wrote:
Thank you for your comments. The first image was shot with the 35mm f/2. The second was the 24-70 f/2.8L. These were pretty much straightforward conversions from Digital Photo Professional with minor adjustment in Photoshop.
- Steve
The very fine strands in the second image (100% crop) are about a pixel wide!
Whenever the XSi is mentioned, many folks LOVE to put it down. They enjoy making nonsensical statements like it has poor image quality, poor noise performance, poor dynamic range, blah, blah, blah. It's as though they need to repeatedly convince themselves that all the money they've spent on their expensive gear is well worth it. Of course, the XSi does not offer the same control in DOF and high ISO performance as the FF 5D/5D2, but otherwise, it's an incredible bargain.
IMHO, the XS/1000D has the best APS-C sensor in the market right now.
thw2 wrote:
Whenever the XSi is mentioned, many folks LOVE to put it down. They enjoy making nonsensical statements like it has poor image quality, poor noise performance, poor dynamic range, blah, blah, blah. It's as though they need to repeatedly convince themselves that all the money they've spent on their expensive gear is well worth it. Of course, the XSi does not offer the same control in DOF and high ISO performance as the FF 5D/5D2, but otherwise, it's an incredible bargain.
IMHO, the XS/1000D has the best APS-C sensor in the market right now.
Good sensor but the camera is hampered in raw mode and not that much cheaper than the 450 (in uk)
The 450D is a giant, in terms of picture quality. It is as near as dammit to a 5D for many purposes. In low light the 5D will start to pull away a little, but for the money the 450D is fantastic. If you know what you are doing, you can get awesome results with a 450D. At my last job I partnered a 1Ds3 with a 450D. The baby camera did very well at iso 800. When I needed iso 12800 I used the big camera. Don't be fooled by its toy-like looks. I would have no qualms about photographing a wedding with a pair of 450D's.
Dphoto;
Wow, I recognize that Manatee in the 2nd image, and I was there last March. Downtown Bradenton Florida, right? Looks like you were down on the lowest level to take that shot. I have a group of maybe 12 images I took from all the way on top with a 5D and an 85 f/1.8 lens. It's a small world sometimes.
The light wasn't great (indoors) and I had to go up to 800ISO wide open @ 1/30th. I think the quality is just astounding from what is a consumer digicam.
Sure, the XSi is a great camera for the price and produces great images. Post all the examples you want, but it does not change the fact that I could see the difference between images from my XSi and 5D immediately, and I liked the 5D ones better.
I don't really care about the why's, since I no longer own the XSi.
Imagemaster wrote:
Sure, the XSi is a great camera for the price and produces great images. Post all the examples you want, but it does not change the fact that I could see the difference between images from my XSi and 5D immediately, and I liked the 5D ones better.
I don't really care about the why's, since I no longer own the XSi.
ChrisDM wrote:
Of course there's much more to a camera than its resolution, but.. For typical landscape/high depth of field images, you won't see a difference. Where the FF advantage comes in is shooting fast lenses/shallow DOF, where the absence of magnification factor further enables you to isolate your subject. Some call this "pop", etc, but it's simply the FF versus crop factor slightly changes the foreground/background perspective/DOF. But once again if you're shooting stopped down this is for the most part irrelevant. And in terms of absolute resolution it's a tossup between the two. Either will produce approximately 13x19 prints at native resolution.