I did a lot of reading on the EP-1 and I also took to heart what Brainiac mentioned about the 500. I went to check out the EP-1 and it wasn't in stock yet, but they had the original Pen there and I could at least compare the size. I wasn't impressed with the difference. The Rebel was only marginally larger and neither was small enough for a typical clothing pocket. Both would fit in a typical large jacket pocket.
I ended up with the Rebel XS. A huge factor for me (and I'm sure many others) was the price. The Rebel is significantly cheaper. One of the most attractive lenses for the Pen is the 25/1.4, but that was way too pricey.
I sold my 17-40L for the cost of the Rebel and I even found an Oly 50/1.8 in the used bin to boot. That's a pretty small lens (same size as my 28/3.5).
Now I have a 28 and a 50 that are small enough to travel real light and also take when out biking. Using live view for the first time was a blast (have a 5D). Using my 85 1.8 was great as well. I got a little more DOF for the same larger aperture which is good sometimes. There are times I need the large aperture in low light, but I want more DOF to keep a couple of people in focus.
I will check-in in a few days to see what I think with some more time with the camera. I don't think I have any regrets. It's nice to have a more compact body in some situations. I just don't think I would have been happy with no VF. I also am happy because I can use all of my lenses with another Canon. It's small enough and pretty cheap in comparison to the smaller DSLR alternatives.
Did you go for the (excellent) Rebel T1i (500D) or XSi (450D), or the badly crippled Rebel XS (1000D)? Brainiac was talking about the 500D and 450D, both excellent cameras. Canon badly crippled the processing chain in the 1000D making it overall a mediocre camera and distinctly lower performance than either its predecessor, the XTi(400D) or the E-P1 and G1, all of which are 3fps bodies with large buffers, the XS is barely 1.5fps when shooting RAW and has a 4 shot buffer.
OK I feel foolish. I went with the XS (edited my confusion above).
I wasn't really interested in fps because this is a second body for me. As long as the IQ is halfway decent, I should be happy. I wanted an SLR that would be small enough for my alternate needs. I didn't want a P&S and I didn't want to spend too much on this camera.
I hope this camera lives up to that. I saw the T1i and liked it, but it was a fair price jump.
Eric Gottesman wrote:
OK I feel foolish. I went with the XS (edited my confusion above).
I wasn't really interested in fps because this is a second body for me. As long as the IQ is halfway decent, I should be happy. I wanted an SLR that would be small enough for my alternate needs. I didn't want a P&S and I didn't want to spend too much on this camera.
I hope this camera lives up to that. I saw the T1i and liked it, but it was a fair price jump.
-Eric
You likely won't have an issue with IQ on the XS, it's pretty much identical to the XTi. If you don't mind the rather low fps and buffer, the XS will do the job adequately for a lowish price.
That's what I hope. I also plan on using alt glass so auto focus isn't much a reason either. I'm hoping that I got a no frills small camera that shoots nice pics.
Here are some early results. I have a Ziuko 50/1.8. All handheld.
I found a ski goggle case that hold the camera safe and attached to my front handlebars. So far. this looks like what I was looking for. I can take it almost everywhere and the files come out pretty good.
No processing other than from RAW, levels, and some cropping.
mawz wrote:
Did you go for the (excellent) Rebel T1i (500D) or XSi (450D), or the badly crippled Rebel XS (1000D)? Brainiac was talking about the 500D and 450D, both excellent cameras. Canon badly crippled the processing chain in the 1000D making it overall a mediocre camera and distinctly lower performance than either its predecessor, the XTi(400D) or the E-P1 and G1, all of which are 3fps bodies with large buffers, the XS is barely 1.5fps when shooting RAW and has a 4 shot buffer.
If you shoot any of these cameras primarily to take advantage of their frames per second or buffer, or bought them on that basis, you're doing it wrong. They're not sports bodies, period. The XS is not "badly crippled" in the areas that count most to most photographers, for example in image quality.
jvarszegi wrote:
If you shoot any of these cameras primarily to take advantage of their frames per second or buffer, or bought them on that basis, you're doing it wrong. They're not sports bodies, period. The XS is not "badly crippled" in the areas that count most to most photographers, for example in image quality.
1.5 fps is slow enough to be noticeable shot-to-shot even when not using continuous advance.
My experience is that with less than 2.5fps or a 6 shot buffer I will run into issues with responsiveness when shooting on the street, not for sports or anything like that, but just taking 1-2 shots rapidly to catch shifting expressions or moving objects. A couple closely spaced quick grab scenes and I'm hitting that buffer unless the camera writes extremely fast. And the extra fps help with overall responsiveness, I actually prefer a 4-5fps body simply for the extra responsiveness that the timings needed for those framerates delivers to the camera.
