Other than a personal preference due to the feel of the camera...name 1 reason that the 20D is far superior to the XTi. Personally I like the smaller feel of the XTi. It's much easier to carry (not near as heavy) especially if I'm carrying it all day like I typically do. I would NEVER use ISO 3200, and don't need 5 fps versus 3 fps.

As I said before...the lense makes the photo, not the camera. Buy the XTi, and spend the extra money on a nice lense.

If you're so sold on the 20D, you'd be better buying the 30D. Amazon has the 20D for $929 and the 30D for $1185.

[Edited on October 19, 2006 at 12:54 PM. Reason : ]

10/19/2006 12:52:23 PM

I own a 30D. I had a rebel xt, which I immediately sold and put that toward a 30D when it first came out. I decided to sell it because I used the 20D and liked it a LOT more than my rebel for several reasons. Size was one of them, but the 20/30D feels a lot sturdier (because it is). The rebel doesn't have an lcd on the top, which sucks. The rebel isn't as easy to change anything on, and it only has on wheel. The big clickwheel on the back of the 20/30D makes things SO much easier. Not to mention the iso in 3rd stops as opposed to full stops and reduced noise at higher iso in the 20/30D. The 20/30D has 5fps burst mode, rebel is only 3fps. Buffer is a lot smaller in the rebel, and once you have any significant lens on the rebel it looks and feels REALLY wierd (and awkward because it isn't balanced).

I don't know the specs of the xti too well, but the fact that it takes sd cards and has gimmicks such as the lcd turning off when you put your face on it makes me skeptical. I don't need those things, they are fancy things designed to get uninformed people to buy the camera. The camera feels like garbage and is slow.


I'm not talking out of my ass here. I've owned both cameras, so I don't NOT know what I am talking about. The rebel xti is a good camera, sure, but you're cutting yourself short with it. Spend the extra 100-150 bucks and get a 20D. You get MUCH more camera for not a lot of money.




On further review of this post, I realize I mentioned almost nothing of the xti, which is what the discussion was about.

[Edited on October 19, 2006 at 1:04 PM. Reason : .]

10/19/2006 1:00:13 PM

Ronny,

I don't disagree with you. But the original question posed was about an entry level SLR camera. At which point I think the XTi is the way to go. MUCH better than the Nikon D50 that was ask about. People who are going from a point and shoot to SLR will be more than happy with an XTi.

10/19/2006 1:56:47 PM

How do you reason that? The 20D is a better camera and is much easier to use, in my opinion.

10/19/2006 2:39:03 PM

Good Lord man...I simply like the XTi better. Call me stupid, or an amateur or whatever you wish. To me it's a better transition from point and shoot to SLR. I don't want a bulky camera that I have a hard time lugging around. I want something that I can easily carry all day walking. The XTi is just as nice a camera as the 20D...but for some reason semi-professionals who have the 20D and larger seem to think the smaller XTi is cheap. The XTi is NOT the XT. It has a much more professional feel, and has a much better build quality. If you like the 20D, 30D, 5D or 1D...fine. They are just not the camera for me. Money was not an issue, I got the camera I was most comfortable with. It's that simple. Everyone has their own opinion...please God let me have mine and quit acting like I'm a photography kindergartner because I didn't spend the extra $200 on a bulky camera.

10/19/2006 3:00:59 PM

Awww, did I hit a nerve?

You gave your opinion and I gave mine. What's the big deal buddy?
Also, buying an SLR and complaining about it being too bulky is just... stupid.

[Edited on October 19, 2006 at 3:31 PM. Reason : .]

10/19/2006 3:29:36 PM

first time I did any type of color post processing...upped the red by 5 units, not sure if I like it better, though

10/19/2006 3:51:36 PM

i have a question for you photography people...i realize my panasonic dmc-fz30 isn't an SLR, but i was hoping you could help me out anyway, as it's as close as any p&s can get

i love my camera, i do...but damned if it doesn't take awful indoor shots...is this common to most digital cameras, or is mine just that bad? the outdoor shots are gorgeous - i have absolutely no complaints with them, but if i don't use a flash indoors, i have to keep the iso setting at 400, the f-stop at 2.6, and the shutter speed around 1/10s at best, 1/5s around average...this means that ANY movement (and i mean any) makes it awfully blurred

i can increase the shutter speed (1/30s is usually good enough), but of course then the image is dark...i don't use photoshop very often (obviously), but is this easily fixed in photoshop if i open up the RAW file?

yes, ISO400 is as high as i can go (the fz50 goes up to ISO1600 ), and 2.6 is the absolute lowest i can get the f-stop (though sometimes it limits me to 3.2 and i don't know why)

i was taking pictures at the fair yesterday in that new building that houses the red cross station and the sheep/goats/pigs/donkeys...in the viewfinder the light is fine until i push the shutter button halfway down and then it goes darker...it does this on both manual and automatic focus/settings...it's frustrating as hell because this is the ONLY complaint i have with this camera

any suggestions y'all have would be greatly appreciated...if this is something that can generally be fixed in photoshop and i simply need to learn how to do it, cool...if you have some suggestions for how i can improve the picture, cool...if i'm screwed, not cool

10/21/2006 6:44:37 PM

Try sports mode.


Increase the saturation a touch?

10/21/2006 7:29:08 PM

10/21/2006 9:40:30 PM

It's been a while since I posted any here:

10/22/2006 10:21:38 AM

10/24/2006 12:04:06 PM

10/24/2006 11:54:54 PM

pictures taken with a nikon d50...

can they be blown up to 20x24???

10/27/2006 8:08:23 AM

pictures taken with a nikon d50...

can they be blown up to 20x24???

10/27/2006 5:47:47 PM

pictures taken with a nikon d50...

can they be blown up to 20x24???

10/27/2006 5:48:55 PM

of course they can! will they look good? that's the question

10/27/2006 5:53:09 PM

they'll look decent, especially if you shoot RAW, edit it correctly, and don't have to crop much. I've done it before on D70 files.

10/27/2006 5:59:13 PM

Shooting a lot of shots in Iraq, I've found that Canon is much more reliable in quality and climate for digital SLR's

10/27/2006 6:42:33 PM

hahaha, right. like there's actually going to be a difference between top level dSLR's for Canon and Nikon.

[Edited on October 27, 2006 at 6:50 PM. Reason : difference in weather sealing]

10/27/2006 6:50:20 PM

yes, that is the question. anyone with any experience should feel free to answer

10/27/2006 6:51:52 PM

Where are you shooting stowaway? home? travel some more and see what's out there, you'll see what I'm talking about

10/27/2006 6:54:18 PM

i shoot wherever I damn well please. hurricanes, nor' easters, 120°+.

10/27/2006 7:01:14 PM

for the price of the canon mark II 1ds... i better beable to shoot under fuckin water.

10/27/2006 7:02:25 PM

yep, anything over 2k needs to be fucking sealed at all seams, dials, buttons.

10/27/2006 7:05:39 PM

stowaway is the only man that's shot the bottom of the ocean

10/27/2006 7:30:46 PM

10/27/2006 7:32:22 PM

i just wanted to pop in and ask what this thread was about

ive always seen it, never looked at it

just curious folks

10/27/2006 7:33:12 PM

it's a showoff and q/a thread for people with digital slr cameras.

10/27/2006 7:34:28 PM

oh, what is SLR

10/27/2006 7:36:15 PM

a type o' camera (Single Lens Reflex)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-lens_reflex_camera

10/27/2006 7:38:14 PM

Could be better, but at 190 mph it was as good as I could do.



[Edited on October 30, 2006 at 8:42 AM. Reason : Yo !]

10/30/2006 8:35:12 AM

Thinking of buying a rig... now I don't have a ton of money to spend so would I be better off going with the canon xti or the nikon d80. The d80 feels a bit better in my hand but looking for a more technical opinion. This will be my first DSLR. I have had film SLR's in the past.

10/30/2006 5:33:15 PM

technical, they are the same. there is not going to be one feature one way or the other that will let it take better pictures. if the nikon feels better, get it. you don't want a hard to use and uncomfortable camera.

10/30/2006 5:44:44 PM

10/30/2006 7:04:21 PM

^^^^ That was so close at the very end. Nice shot.

That's all. I have nothing to contribute.

10/30/2006 7:08:57 PM

OK so I think I settled on the D80 so another question... looking for opinions. At around $129 is the four year warranty worth it on these things?

10/31/2006 12:03:39 PM

ZiP hasnt posted in 3 months, today

10/31/2006 12:13:39 PM

^^Yes.

You'll drop it.

10/31/2006 12:40:50 PM

Thanks! I expect to see many Halloween pictures appear in this thread in the coming days.

10/31/2006 2:41:45 PM

Check with your insurance (homeowners, renters) and see what $1500 worth of coverage is going to cost. I had that and it was less than $30 a year and covered anything other than normal wear and tear.

10/31/2006 2:50:11 PM

^what he said.

With USAA, there was a $900 minimum value, and it's $24 for a full year. Covers any sort of damage that happens to my camera, no matter the source.


[Edited on October 31, 2006 at 8:25 PM. Reason : sdklj]

10/31/2006 8:24:04 PM

Wouldn't your deductible come into play on any claim? Plus the way home owners insurance is now any claim gives you points just like auto insurance.

10/31/2006 10:13:06 PM

I think I have a $50 deductible

And it's a separate policy, not on a homeowner's or renter's. USAA calls it a valuable personal property policy.

10/31/2006 11:04:49 PM

I got my extended warranty through Circuit City, at a discount of course, but it was definitely worth it. Canon is also really good about repairs. I dropped my 30D not long ago and it was fucked. I sent it to them in NJ and they fixed it for free and had it back to me within a week. They ended up having to replace the entire shutter, clean the CCD, and update the firmware. It wasn't even a hassle.

11/1/2006 5:38:14 AM

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ronnynause/sets/72157594355382764/

I posted some new stuff from my trip to St. Louis tonight. Let me know what you think.

[Edited on November 1, 2006 at 8:32 AM. Reason : .]

11/1/2006 8:31:12 AM

Some of my shots from St. Louis. It was an amazing trip. These shots haven't had anything done to them in PS save maybe some unsharp mask and slight levels adjusting.

11/1/2006 8:41:29 AM

First pic out of my camera... I was just playing around with the shutter speed so I'm sure it could be better once I learn what I'm doing... I also cropped the hell out of it so I'm sure than made a difference.



[Edited on November 1, 2006 at 11:22 AM. Reason : ]

11/1/2006 11:20:54 AM

11/1/2006 10:06:46 PM

11/2/2006 10:36:04 PM