New Canon XS (DSLR) - more affordable than XSi

[Darren Addy]

Those of you who, like me, have been drooling over the Canon Rebel XSi might want to take a look at the newly introduced XS. It is supposed to fit the price slot between the XTi and the XSi (Precisely where remains to be seen). A preview is available here, with reviews to (no doubt) follow. It is also known as the 1000D and the Kiss F (depending upon market).

The XS shares the Live View features and Auto ISO adjust features of the XSi (missing on the XTi). If you need spot metering, you'll still want the XSi. The wireless remote capability is also (oddly) apparently missing (there on the XTi and the XSi). It shares a longer life battery with the XSi (1080 mAh vs the 720 mAh of the XTi). The LCD is the XTi sized 2.5" (rather than the 3" of the XSi). It is .1 lb lighter than either the XTi or the XSi.

I'm guessing that the XS will be priced at approx. $125 less than the XSi, but we'll see!

 

[D. Hayes]

Live view is the only reason to get the XS IMO. The lower density of the 10.1MP is nice since it works better in low light. I didn't get the XSi because of that and the drastic price difference over the XTi. So the real question is how much more is the XS over the XTi and is the price difference worth it?

Now these guys with the CHDK hacks on the Canon line are getting into the DSLR models now. So live view might be available on the XTi soon enough if it's not already. So if you're adventurous you all might read the below forum and see if you can save a couple hundred bucks just flashing the firmware on the XTi.

http://chdk.setepontos.com/index.php/board,33.0.html

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

This one seems pretty silly to me. So they want something in a little lower price range. I'm guessing folks can buy a new XTi somewhere for a quite a while yet. The "upgrades" over that low priced camera are rather pointless. Hell live view aside, it doesn't even seem like an upgrade over the XTi(400d). I'm doubting they price it as low as you can get a new XTi for.

 

[Brett Roberts]

I agree with Mike. The Rebel series is already, in essence, an intentionally-cripped version of the 20/30/40D lineup. I own one myself, purely out of financial limitations and lack of need for the superior construction materials on the professional series, and I do think Canon's introducing the Rebel back in 2003 was a good way to make SLR's slightly more accessible to those lacking a pro budget. But to throw in an even lower-tier option that's even more intentionally crippled seems silly; I suspect the target audience likely isn't serious photographers, but rather the kind of folks who are itching to be able to say they own a fancy camera, without necessarily delving into it to the extent necessary to reap its benefits.

The recent trend towards cheaper SLR's and mass proliferation to the general public is interesting to me. While I think an SLR is certainly appropriate for every storm chaser who wants to take good stills, they're not always appropriate or necessary for folks without a more specific photographic interest, IMO. I don't really take day-to-day "casual" or "snapshot" photos myself, but if I did, I'd find the weight and size of my SLR kit beyond annoying to lug around just for that purpose. I wonder how many people see the very tempting (sub-$500) prices on some of the latest consumer-grade SLR's and pull the trigger, only to find the complexity, size, and cost of decent-quality lenses too prohibitive to get much real advantage out of it. I guess my thought is that, if you aren't willing to spend the $600-800 on a current "pro-sumer" model, you're probably just going to laugh at the price tag for the lens collection necessary to get image quality substantialy better than a high-end point-and-shoot camera.

 

[Scott Taylor]

This one seems pretty silly to me. So they want something in a little lower price range. I'm guessing folks can buy a new XTi somewhere for a quite a while yet. The "upgrades" over that low priced camera are rather pointless. Hell live view aside, it doesn't even seem like an upgrade over the XTi(400d). I'm doubting they price it as low as you can get a new XTi for.

Completely agree! I honestly thought "what the hell are Canon thinking" when I read about this yesterday. Yet another very similar lower-end camera to confuse the first time buyers out there. I can see the threads on photography boards everywhere now... "XTI, XSI or XS - Which one?"

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

They should spend their time replacing the 5D! Not that I could afford it anyway, but I'd probably try. I wonder what they are going to come up with to cram more pixels into these smaller sensors without increasing the noise. Seems the XSi may very well be more noisy than the XT or even XTi because of this. Somewhere I read the 5D was the most noise free cam out there. And it would make sense, even if it's a little older now, since for the sensor size, the 12 mp's aren't terribly crammed in there.

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

They should spend their time replacing the 5D! Not that I could afford it anyway, but I'd probably try. I wonder what they are going to come up with to cram more pixels into these smaller sensors without increasing the noise. Seems the XSi may very well be more noisy than the XT or even XTi because of this. Somewhere I read the 5D was the most noise free cam out there. And it would make sense, even if it's a little older now, since for the sensor size, the 12 mp's aren't terribly crammed in there.

I'd get a 5D replacement, except my 10-22 lens wouldn't work on it. That lens is the best lens I've used in my life. The 16-30L on a full frame body doesn't come close to it. Almost every picture I've licensed has been from that lens... you don't mess with a good thing!

 

[Darren Addy]

I suspect the target audience likely isn't serious photographers, but rather the kind of folks who are itching to be able to say they own a fancy camera, without necessarily delving into it to the extent necessary to reap its benefits.

In your premise there is the idea that the more expensive the equipment, the more "serious" the photographer/photography. I think you are confusing rampant consumerism with "serious" photographers. Put another way, I'd rather see something done by Ansel Adams in the '40s with a Kodak Brownie than something done by the average Joe with a digital Canon Wizbang.

The consumer camera market has always been about how to make the average Joe take pictures he'll be proud of, even if he doesn't know the difference between lens aperture and a hole in the ground. To that end, they will make models that extend the whole gamut of price ranges (just as you may have noticed that car manufacturers don't simply make one model/price range). The XS fits a price/feature range between the XSi and the XTi. Just like the Malibu fits the price/feature range between the Impala and the Cobalt.

That being said, a better tool can make being a craftsman easier, assuming he/she learns to handle the said tool appropriately. I think we agree that most people don't really want to learn the basics of exposure (let alone the post-processing necessary in the digital age). They just shoot jpegs and are happy with that.

But don't think that gaining proficiency in something requires us to look down our noses at those who don't share the same zeal, or aren't "as far down the tunnel" as we are yet. And don't make the mistake of thinking that just because the guy has the dream setup recommended in the photo mags means he knows how to use it. All that proves is that he had the necessary funds/credit to obtain that equipment.

Before you look down your nose at the "crippled" Canon Rebel, just remember that the original model 300D is what Hollingshead (and others) started wowing us with years ago.

 

[Darren Addy]

Completely agree! I honestly thought "what the hell are Canon thinking" when I read about this yesterday. Yet another very similar lower-end camera to confuse the first time buyers out there. I can see the threads on photography boards everywhere now... "XTI, XSI or XS - Which one?"

Manufacturer's product/pricing strategy is soundly rooted in consumer psychology. Just like how many people buy the small size drink at the fast food "restaurant". The small drink is there for those who want it, but also to set a baseline price in your buying psychology. The medium is only 20 cents more, so you focus on the 20 cents (not the fact that you are paying a ridonkulous price for soda). Then once you've rationalized that price you see that the large is only another 10 cents more than that. So you go for the large as the "best deal".

Same thing with DSLRs. The previous larger price gap between the XTi and the XSi was probably hurting XSi sales. The introduction of the XS will allow those same smaller steps to focus on (rather then the price total). "Look at what I can get for just another $150."

 

[Brett Roberts]

In your premise there is the idea that the more expensive the equipment, the more "serious" the photographer/photography. I think you are confusing rampant consumerism with "serious" photographers. Put another way, I'd rather see something done by Ansel Adams in the '40s with a Kodak Brownie than something done by the average Joe with a digital Canon Wizbang.

The consumer camera market has always been about how to make the average Joe take pictures he'll be proud of, even if he doesn't know the difference between lens aperture and a hole in the ground. To that end, they will make models that extend the whole gamut of price ranges (just as you may have noticed that car manufacturers don't simply make one model/price range). The XS fits a price/feature range between the XSi and the XTi. Just like the Malibu fits the price/feature range between the Impala and the Cobalt.

That being said, a better tool can make being a craftsman easier, assuming he/she learns to handle the said tool appropriately. I think we agree that most people don't really want to learn the basics of exposure (let alone the post-processing necessary in the digital age). They just shoot jpegs and are happy with that.

But don't think that gaining proficiency in something requires us to look down our noses at those who don't share the same zeal, or aren't "as far down the tunnel" as we are yet. And don't make the mistake of thinking that just because the guy has the dream setup recommended in the photo mags means he knows how to use it. All that proves is that he had the necessary funds/credit to obtain that equipment.

Before you look down your nose at the "crippled" Canon Rebel, just remember that the original model 300D is what Hollingshead (and others) started wowing us with years ago.

I don't disagree with anything in your post; perhaps mine was not stated very clearly. I agree that Mike (among others) has produced tons of incredible images over the years with the Rebel series, and as I stated before, I am a 300D owner myself - one who is willing to admit my camera is an intentionally-crippled-for-market-placement 10D/20D . To be sure, an experienced photographer shooting RAW on a 300D and using proper post-processing techniques will produce images that blow away those shot by your average Joe on a 1D series.

My premise, though - and perhaps it's unfounded - was that the trend towards offering even more "crippled" models that still retain the "DSLR" label, in spite of axing many of the useful features of their bigger cousins, is probably not beneficial to most serious photographers. And by serious, I mean passionate and willing to learn and utilize the camera's intricacies - which is not necessarily correlated with having the funds to rack up a ton of pro-grade equipment, as your post alludes to as well.

So, let me rephrase: a DSLR, considering its extra size and cost, is only useful (IMO) to the extent that it's able to produce image quality superior to what you could get from a high-end P&S. In my experience, a basic set of 2-3 lenses that cover common focal ranges and offer IQ notably better than a high-end P&S will run you close to or over a grand, at minimum. [For the record, I consider the EF-S 18-55 mm that came with my 300D to basically negate the camera's usefulness when mounted, considering high-end Canon P&S models now offer RAW mode and likely equal lens quality at a lower price point and in a more convenient package - though I've heard the new IS version of the 18-55 has upped the ante a bit]. When you're looking at that kind of expenditure, it seems slightly silly IMO to sacrifice spot metering and the superior AF system, among other features, to save (presumably) $100-$150 on the body. To each his own, though; there will no doubt be some folks on a tight budget who'll gladly bite on this model, learn it inside and out, and use it to produce stunning images. At the same time, the ever-lower price point may also encourage even more bragging-rights purchases by soccer moms who will never know an aperture from a hole in the ground, which is what I was referencing all along.

 

[Melanie Kern-Favilla]

What body/lenses do you use?

I'd get a 5D replacement, except my 10-22 lens wouldn't work on it. That lens is the best lens I've used in my life. The 16-30L on a full frame body doesn't come close to it. Almost every picture I've licensed has been from that lens... you don't mess with a good thing!

I'm glad to hear someone specifically speaking to this lens. I absolutely LOVE my 10-22 lens, but I was looking into an upgrade to the 5D. We know that one doesn't work with the other, so I was questioning the 16-30L. Glad to see that someone is able to speak as to how both lenses perform. Looks like I'm probably sticking with my XTi.

One of the reasons I originally wanted to upgrade to the 5D was because I thought it would help me take better photos, but then I learned that good glass is everything (isn't it?). So do I really need a full-sensor camera if I'm getting decent (and I do stress 'decent', due to my skill level) results with my Rebel?

I'm wondering, Canon Users, what body are you using and what are your most-utilized lenses? I guess I just want to be reassured that I can take killer photos with a pro-sumer body, as long as I have the good glass (and some talent ).

Melanie

 

[Eric Flescher]

current canon thread

Very interesting.
I targeted and bought a Rebel XT and have been happy with it.
For next time, a camera that I might be may well be a canon again but has to be at least 12 megapixel.

 

[Scott Taylor]

Manufacturer's product/pricing strategy is soundly rooted in consumer psychology. Just like how many people buy the small size drink at the fast food "restaurant". The small drink is there for those who want it, but also to set a baseline price in your buying psychology. The medium is only 20 cents more, so you focus on the 20 cents (not the fact that you are paying a ridonkulous price for soda). Then once you've rationalized that price you see that the large is only another 10 cents more than that. So you go for the large as the "best deal".

Same thing with DSLRs. The previous larger price gap between the XTi and the XSi was probably hurting XSi sales. The introduction of the XS will allow those same smaller steps to focus on (rather then the price total). "Look at what I can get for just another $150."

I don't really disagree with any of that, and I guess after following the Canon product line closely for the past 10 years, I really shouldn't be surprised TOO much. It is simply another entry level budget body for those to choose from.

Many have been waiting on the 5D Mark II thats been rumored for many months and months... most thought it would be available in early spring, but that didn't happen. Then the 1D Mark III has had a variety of issues that Canon seemed to take FOREVER to finally getting totally resolved. So some of us would like to see focus in other areas from Canon.... but I realize their majority sales come from the lower end bodies and thats why we see stuff like this.

 

[Scott Taylor]

I need more coffee...

 

[Brett Roberts]

I'm glad to hear someone specifically speaking to this lens. I absolutely LOVE my 10-22 lens, but I was looking into an upgrade to the 5D. We know that one doesn't work with the other, so I was questioning the 16-30L. Glad to see that someone is able to speak as to how both lenses perform. Looks like I'm probably sticking with my XTi.

One of the reasons I originally wanted to upgrade to the 5D was because I thought it would help me take better photos, but then I learned that good glass is everything (isn't it?). So do I really need a full-sensor camera if I'm getting decent (and I do stress 'decent', due to my skill level) results with my Rebel?

I'm wondering, Canon Users, what body are you using and what are your most-utilized lenses? I guess I just want to be reassured that I can take killer photos with a pro-sumer body, as long as I have the good glass (and some talent ).

Melanie

I got my hands on a Canon 10-22 for my 300D this past winter. I'd say it was used for, at minimum, 85% of my chasing photos this season. It's an incredible lens, and absolutely without question the single best and most useful lens a chaser with a Canon SLR can purchase, IMO. I thought it was a bit pricy (at $600) when I ordered it, but now that I'm essentially finding ways to use it instead of my Sigma's (17-70 and 70-300) for every shot possible, I think I'll stick to the slightly costlier Canon route from here on out.

I fully agree that glass is darn near everything when it comes to image quality. That's not to say upgrading from an older-generation Rebel to a 5D or 1D would not offer a slightly higher ceiling on quality, particularly under specific conditions (such as high ISO), but unless you're using the very best glass and plan on enlarging prints big time, the differences are probably negligible and not worth the cost. If your primary interest is sharing photos on the web and/or making smaller prints, you absolutely can take "killer" photos with the XTi that will be every bit the equal of something shot with a 5D. For larger prints, you might, in theory, see a very small improvement due to increased sensor resolution, lower pixel density and slightly lower noise.

As for the 10-22 vs. 16-35L, I haven't used the latter, but given its cost and rampant popularity among serious landscape photographers, I would assume it's at least as good as our 10-22 when paired with a full-frame body. I do find my 10-22 to be rather soft in the corners, but that could also be true of the 16-35. Maybe a 5D owner can chime in here on how that lens performs on full-frame?