• Stormtrack's forum runs on Xenforo forum software, which will be undergoing a major update the evening of Wednesday, Feb 28th. The site may be down for a period while that update takes place.

Canon Rebel XT

Rebel XT all the Way!

I would definately go with the XT. Same sensor as the 20D, from what I understand, which means it's high ISO performance is excellent. Also very fast. The only thing you won't get with the XT when comparing with say the higher end 20D are some of the custom functions like Mirror Lockup and FEL. I personally use Mirror Lockup all the time, which is why I went with the 10D, but if you don't need it or the other functions, the Rebel XT is a great choice.

James
 
Re: Rebel XT all the Way!

Originally posted by James Langford
I would definately go with the XT. Same sensor as the 20D, from what I understand, which means it's high ISO performance is excellent.
James

I'm not quite sure... On the Canon XT website, they said it's a new sensor, as one would assume by the fact that it's an 8.0 megapixel sensor vs. the 20D's 8.2 mp sensor. I've also heard, however, that Canon just slightly modified the 20D sensor for the XT... In either case, I'm sure it's an excellent camera!
 
The only thing you won't get with the XT when comparing with say the higher end 20D are some of the custom functions like Mirror Lockup and FEL.

Well if there is a crack to open up mirror lock up with the first digital rebel I would bet there is/will be one for the new one. As for the larger and larger megapixel numbers they can't hurt...but...I'm finding the 6.3 mp digital rebel(300D) to be plenty. I have 16x20s from 3 mp shots that look just fine(from sony dsc-F707). Resolution is much about viewing distance. Only if one wants to study images printed large up close do you really need more megapixels(from a good sized sensor too). To get a 16x20 from my 6.3 mp rebel one has to chop off that extra 4 inches in width(as the aspect ratio is 2/3...16x24) so getting a regular print deminsion like a 16x20 you just lost a chunk of those pixels.
 
What is the advantage to using mirror lock up? I found a firmware to download for my DR, but am reluctant to use it right now. Can it be reversed?
 
It reduces any chance of camera shake by holding the mirror up before you shoot. From what I have seen and heard it isn't that big of an issue.

For the longest time I thought that was why I could not get very sharp images. Then I quit shooting wide open and got a real lens. I don't see any real need to use the function now.
 
I already own a Digital Rebel, so if I were in the market for a new camera, I'd be looking at the 20D, not the Rebel XT (I mean, if you're going to upgrade, you upgrade). The extra megapixels are nice, but as Mike points out, once you get above 6MP or so, everything starts to look the same. Unless you're looking to make large prints or doing magazine work, 2 extra megapixels aren't worth shelling out a ton of money for.

$1450 ain't a bad price, but if I were just now making the DSLR jump, I'd probably first look for a regular Digital Rebel that's been marked down below $1000 (sans kit lens), and then drop a few hundred dollars on a good lens (a Canon 17-40, perhaps?). Money is better spent on glass than megapixels, if you ask me.
 
I'm in agreement with Jeff. I've seen photography done with 8+ MPH camera's and to be honesty I do not notice any difference in the image quality between those pictures and mine.

I have had several of my photography printed out in a poster size (20x24") that was taken with the Rebel and the quality is amazing! I don't thinK I'll ever go much bigger than that, so I'm sticking with my Rebel.
 
The only gripe I have about my Rebel is that when I take a picture, while it looks fantastic on the LCD display (I do portrait photography with light kits), when I upload the pictures they're actually darker and less satisfying.

So to compensate for it, I've been having to bump my apeture up a little making it so that it appears to be over exposed ont he LCD and been getting great results.
 
The only gripe I have about my Rebel is that when I take a picture, while it looks fantastic on the LCD display (I do portrait photography with light kits), when I upload the pictures they're actually darker and less satisfying.

So to compensate for it, I've been having to bump my apeture up a little making it so that it appears to be over exposed ont he LCD and been getting great results.
 
Charles,

Mirror Lock Up (MLU) really comes into play on long exposures, and/or extreme telephoto shots where any vibration will be noticed. Wildlife photographers use this extensively as many of their shots are at long telephoto ranges and generally less than ideal conditions.

In landscape photography (i.e. storm photography) camera vibration is not near as critical. The wider angle is used more as you're trying to get as much of the storm as you can, If you're using extreme telephoto, your subject is most likely moving (tornado demolishing a building) and you're fighting wind and excitement.

I have used MLU in lightning photography. I haven't seen where it makes a big difference in whether the shot is good or great. Where I've seen the differences is in Macrophotography (really close up stuff). Any camera shake shows up here, so the MLU makes sense to get the sharpest photo possible. I really doubt that you will be trying to get an extreme close up of a flower or bug with a tornado bearing down on you. If you are, then you deserve what you get! :D

The effects of camera motion can really be seen in several of the videos that have been posted. Especially those where the shooter was two miles away and trying to zoom in on the tornado trashing a building or crossing a road. Any time the photorapher tried to pan, the movements were magnified due to the extreme zoom level. This is where MLU would help in still photography. It give a chance for the mirror to bouce up and the vibration from that to die off before opening the shutter and exposing the shot. Now you see why MLU isn't really good for Storm Photography. There is a certainl about of time involved and too many things happen in that time frame for it to be feasible.

I would be more concerned with higher shutter speeds to stop the action and eliminate the camera shake. IS (Image Stabilized) Lens help in this regard allowing you to use a lower shutter speed in less than ideal lighting situations.

Higher ISO settings are another solution, but come with a price tag of higher noise (film grain to all of us older film folks).

Now that I've written more than most people ever wanted to know... I hope it helps.

John
 
MLU and more info

I actually use MLU on any shot where the shutter speed is slower than 1/10th of a second or so. I've heard it said that MLU makes no difference in long expoures, but my experience says otherwise.

I definately think the 8 MP thing is a selling gimmick for most people. Like you said Mike, I've printed 16x20s with my 6.5 10D, and they look great. The biggest reason I would go for one of the newer cams (20D or XT) would be for the considerably lower noise at higher ISO. The 20D's higher ISO images are amazingly clean. I don't shoot high ISO much, but when I do it would be great to have cleaner images than what come from my 10D. However, I'm not planning on upgrading anytime soon. If anything, I'll be looking into a newer lens like the 17-40 L. I have a 20mm prime now, but would like to get a bit wider. :D

James
 
James Langford wrote:
I definately think the 8 MP thing is a selling gimmick for most people.

I always wondered at what point pixel resolution would equal (or exceed) the optical resolution of a given lens. Once you get to the point where blowing up a picture makes it fuzzy before pixellation becomes obvious, extra pixels are a waste.
 
Actually, it's a bit more complicated than how many MP... it's both how many MP AND how closely packed the pixels are.

8mp is still better than 6 (marginally), so it isn't just a gimmick. I highly doubt it is approaching the resolution of the lens yet.

Aaron
 
Back
Top