Rebel XT vs. XTi

[blonde423]

I am in the process of purchasing a new DSLR. I just wanted to hear some feedback on the Canon Rebel XT vs. the Rebel XTi. I'm an amatuer on a budget so I just want to know is it worth the money to go ahead and splurge on the XTi. Please help! :)

Thanks!

[Seltzer]

As with any camera purchase, it entirely depends on what you are looking to get out of the camera, and what you will be shooting.
Personally I wish I had waited for the XTi to come out, especially for as comparative as the prices are. As it is I got the XT on a rather good sale about 8 months ago.
Main differences seem to be the built in IS: can be bad and not needed if using a tripod, i think it has a way to turn it off, but good if doing long shutter shots or doing hand-held shots a lot (which is most of the photos I take).Ignore that...:(
The XTi also has a larger LCD display, basically they took the extra bit of display that the XT had for showing metering and such and made it just one full display and had the metering show up larger but you can't view both your menu options and the meters anymore.
One big plus the XTi has going for it is the sensor cleaning or the shake as you boot it up to clear dust. This is great if you like changing lenses a lot or shoot in dusty environments, it's good otherwise just because it's easier to keep the sensor clean.
8mp XT vs 10mp XTi, not really anything too important for most people, especially if just displaying on the web and not doing poster printouts, mainly just a way to use more memory while getting a slightly better pixel ratio.
When I went and played with an XTi the two felt about the same in my hands and the "kit lens" is exactly the same (if you are looking to buy with the kit lens).
Hope that helps, but as with anything, check it out for yourself before making a decision.

[sagelike31]

The main reason why I didn't buy the XTi was because of the display thing.
I would have really needed that. All that being said the XTi does ahve a couple of things that are a bit better than the XT. Some were already said by Seltzer. But others are 9 focus points except for 7 which can come in handy.

If you don't care about the display thing get the XTi. If you need to see your metering with the shot don't.

[Seltzer]

yes, good point Sage..
here are some images thanks to steves-digicams.com (http://www.steves-digicams.com) to show the screen differences and focal points. If you want more detailed info, that site has great reviews on both cams and how the sensor cleaner works on the XTi

Rebel XT LCD display (http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/rebelxt/xt_back.jpg)

Rebel XTi LCD display (http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/rebelxti/xti_back.jpg)

Rebel XT focal point layout (http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/rebelxt/xt_viewfinder.jpg)

Rebel XTi focal point layout (http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/rebelxti/xti_viewfinder.gif)

[smc1377]

Main differences seem to be the built in IS: can be bad and not needed if using a tripod, i think it has a way to turn it off, but good if doing long shutter shots or doing hand-held shots a lot (which is most of the photos I take).

IS as in Image Stabilization? I don't believe the XTi comes with that in the body. I believe IS on EOS cameras is achieved in the lens and not in the camera body.

But advice to original poster is to go try out the camera at the store. If it was me, I wouldn't upgrade but I have my own particular reasons whereas it might be completely worth it to you. Oh yeah, bring a memory card so that you can analyze the pictures when you get home.

[Seltzer]

IS as in Image Stabilization? I don't believe the XTi comes with that in the body. I believe IS on EOS cameras is achieved in the lens and not in the camera body.

Ahh, you are correct sir, I am a moron.. :) Thought I had seen that somewhere (probably some sales guy), but upon further review it would seem that I need to check my sources.
However, this did lead me to another search and found that Steves-digicams has a nice breakdown of the feature differences between the two.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/rebelxti_vs_rebelxt.html

[loosestring]

I went with the XTi (bought first week in Dec.) on newegg.com (http://www.newegg.com)as they had it for Less than 800 bucks + free 1GB card. I believe the total after s/h was $776. Watch the prices for a few days as they fluctuate. Then catch it when it's low.
I am well pleased with this camera. It is quite a step up from my last one which was an Fuji Finepix 1300. :D

[smc1377]

Ahh, you are correct sir, I am a moron.. :) Thought I had seen that somewhere (probably some sales guy), but upon further review it would seem that I need to check my sources.

You are way too harsh on yourself. There are cameras with IS in the camera body like the Pentax K100D (and others). If you're like me, I do lots of reading on everything out there and sometimes features get mixed up. Easy to do.:cool:

[Seltzer]

You are way too harsh on yourself.

Naw, if I believed it to be true I wouldn't continue posting and would probably go hide in shame and depression.. as it is I'll keep posting my rabble for all of you to be amused by. :D
And I believe the new Sony DSLR-A100H was what I was thinking of. It does have good specs but haven't quite looked to how it matches up and I wasn't a fan of the controls system on it when I had some time to play around with it.

[RainPacket]

If you don't care about the display thing get the XTi. If you need to see your metering with the shot don't.

In fairness, you still see your metering in the viewfinder itself. Little calculator-type LED readouts on the bottom of the viewfinder provide the metering information. :)

[hitkaiser]

Lets call them 350D and 400D

I got the 400D and my workmate got a 350D around about the same time (So ive seen both). He wanted to spend little on the body and wanted an aresenal of lenses.

Im glad I didnt get the 350D, why? Well, the anti dust system really is the deal maker. Dust WILL become a problem and having to worry about it less and less on the 400D is a godsend.

The 350D has a little LCD screen to review your settings which the 400D doesnt, i really don't miss the screen since the regular LCD screen is nice and large displaying all the settings well (as well as displaying some of them on the viewfinder).

Also, how long are you planning to keep this camera? My workmate sold his less then 3-4 months later to upgrade to a 20D, on the other hand Im going to stick with this camera for a couple of years atleast (unless something GREAT and uber revolutionary comes along)

Most review sites conclude with:

If you have a 350D, dont bother upgrading
If you are a new buyer, get the 400D

[mdwsta4]

i think the biggest selling point of the 400d is the increased number of AF points.
the antidust feature is nice, but it won't get rid of large pieces of dust that are stuck on your sensor and eventually you'll need to clean it yourself (or have it cleaned by someone else).
the larger screen is useless to me really. i suppose it would be nice at times to have a slightly larger screen for playback, but i check the histogram on the pictures and typically don't look at the picture itself all that often. i also prefer having a dedicated function screen rather than combining it with the main LCD.
megapixels are another unneeded feature. i don't print huge posters and 8mp has suited me just fine for the large prints i have made. i'll commend nikon with the d40 and them stopping the megapixel game. too many people don't understand that more megapixels is not always better.
lastly, another advantage of the 350d is the price. you can probably save $100-150 compared to the 400d which would be a decent chunk of change to put toward a lens, battery grip, filters, etc.

all that said, the 400d is a great camera and either choice will be a good one. if you would rather put money toward a lens, then save the cash and get the 350d. if you prefer looking at the LCD for playback, then the 400d might be what you want. best advice would probably be to go to a local retailer that has both in stock and play with each of them to see which you prefer.
good luck!

[jared703]

I'm just getting into photography and I went with the 400d. I opted to get the body only and with with a 50mm canon prime lens to start with. I should be getting it this week- i'm really excited to get into something i've been reading and following for a while now.

-jared

[Seltzer]

Congrats on the new cam there jared, looking forward to seeing what you can do! Just read up, read the manual, read posts here, see what shots work for you and what style you do on your own before trying too hard to duplicate someone else's work.

[nfnitloop]

Hi all! I've been lurking for a few days, looking for a good place to put my first post. Since I just got my 350d a few days ago, I thought this looked like a good place!
I've been wanting a DSLR for a long time. I've been reading the DPS blog for a while (and re-reading many times!) getting excited about taking *real* pictures and not just "snapshots"
I learned a bit about photography from an old film SLR that was my grandfathers and everything I was reading wasn't quite sinking in. Once I got my XT it really sunk in and after a few hours I switched right to manual mode. Great fun.
My biggest choice maker was a budget ceiling. The differences between the 350 and 400 didn't justify (for me) waiting a bit longer (I'm hideously impulsive) for something that would end up being just a starter for a hobby I'll keep going for a long time.
jared703 said he got the 400 body only and the 50mm prime. I really wish I had went with that lens on my 350. I like the kit lens (I really don't have any other point of reference) but it's been really cold here and I've been inside taking low light portraits of my daughter. I even got desperate for more subjects and took some of the cat. The faster lens would have been nice for the super bowl party last night too.
The extra money I still saved by buying the 350 lets me save up faster for that 50mm and about 5 million other accessories I want now.
I'm really happy with my purchase. I agonized over brand (mostly Nikon/Canon) and then came down to the 350/400 question. I probably wouldn't have used a few extra tidbits in the 400. It's not quite worth the ~$200 extra that I could spend on a nice lens some day. (And I need a bag, filters, a Speedlite, etc, etc)

[RainPacket]

The 50mm f/1.8 is an incredibly cheap prime lens ($70) with excellent image, and worth every penny. And then some.

It is pretty much my day-to-day general-use lens these days, and many of my favorite pictures have been shot with it. I cannot recommend it highly enough; if you're already buying an EOS DSLR body, spend the extra $70 and get the "nifty fifty" also. Consider me an evangelist for this lens! :)

[Saralonde]

Whenever anyone with a Canon asks what lens they should first buy, I always recommend the 50 1.8, especially if they are on a budget (as most of us are!). Inexpensive, good in low light, plus it teaches you to move your feet and not depend on a zoom.

[jared703]

The 50mm f/1.8 is an incredibly cheap prime lens ($70) with excellent image, and worth every penny. And then some.

It is pretty much my day-to-day general-use lens these days, and many of my favorite pictures have been shot with it. I cannot recommend it highly enough; if you're already buying an EOS DSLR body, spend the extra $70 and get the "nifty fifty" also. Consider me an evangelist for this lens! :)

I pretty much bought the 50mm based on your & Saralonde's positivity towards this lens. I hear some people say the kit lensi s good for starting out, however I wanted to spend that money towards a lens I'd keep forever. I'm getting both the lens and camera tomorrow so I'm excited to get started :)

-jared

[Saralonde]

I pretty much bought the 50mm based on your & Saralonde's positivity towards this lens. I hear some people say the kit lensi s good for starting out, however I wanted to spend that money towards a lens I'd keep forever. I'm getting both the lens and camera tomorrow so I'm excited to get started :)

-jared

Enjoy and post some of your shots!:)

[wingerz]

Not sure if this feedback is coming too late, but I picked the XT over the XTi right before the holidays. It mainly came down to budget because I got the XT body for $500 at Amazon (I've seen it go down to $460 on Dell). I was able to get the XT, 28-105mm (3.5-4.5), and 50mm (1.8) for the price of the XTi body.

The three main features that I looked at on the XTi: 1) extra megapixels - didn't matter all that much to me, 2) dust removal - I wasn't planning on changing lenses outside all that much, plus I got a rubber bulb air blaster for easy-to-remove dust, 3) nicer LCD display - I figured I could make do with the smaller LCD. The extra autofocus points on the XTi are nice as well.

This was my first DSLR. I've been very happy with it so far. One thing that really convinced me that getting the XT would be fine was borrowing my friend's for a weekend. That, and the fact that countless beautiful pictures have been taken with the XT.

[RainPacket]

The XT is a wonderful digital camera, and shouldn't be discounted.

The extra megapixels of the XTi are only nice if you're planning to do large blow-up prints. The self-cleaning sensor is not necessarily enough alone to justify the price, though it's a godsend for me, personally: my "nifty fifty" basically lives on the camera, but when I do need a different lens, it seems to invariably be while I'm outdoors, often somewhere windy!

The two things which actually won me personally over, however...

1) The XTi has more autofocus points and seems to determine focus noticeably faster than the XT. Since I was able to afford either, I decided I'd rather have the greater number of AF points and faster response.

2) The XTi boots from 'off' faster than the XT. I was stuck with an Olympus point-and-shoot for years, which had a four second start time. With the Olympus, by the time I had turned it ON, the shot was usually gone. This is probably not as much a determining factor for anyone else, but after three years with that Stylus, I was all for ANYTHING that could boot in under a second. (Turn on the XTi while holding the shutter half-down; that will make it turn on without doing the self-clean of the sensor. You'll see it's on and ready in something like a tenth of a second, if not less.)

If price is the main concern, however, the XT is definitely a deal not to be sneezed at.

[mdwsta4]

actually, that is incorrect. both cameras have a start up time of .2 seconds, however, the XTi is actually SLOWER when the dust cleaning feature is on (1.5 second start up time if you let the dust feature run). either way, that's still almost instant on.
it might also be worth noting that the battery life on the XTi is 10% less than on the XT.


2) The XTi boots from 'off' faster than the XT. I was stuck with an Olympus point-and-shoot for years, which had a four second start time. With the Olympus, by the time I had turned it ON, the shot was usually gone. This is probably not as much a determining factor for anyone else, but after three years with that Stylus, I was all for ANYTHING that could boot in under a second. (Turn on the XTi while holding the shutter half-down; that will make it turn on without doing the self-clean of the sensor. You'll see it's on and ready in something like a tenth of a second, if not less.)

[RainPacket]

actually, that is incorrect. both cameras have a start up time of .2 seconds, however, the XTi is actually SLOWER when the dust cleaning feature is on (1.5 second start up time if you let the dust feature run). either way, that's still almost instant on.

Hrm. When I tried an XT and an XTi (with the shutter depressed to half, which skips the dust-cleaning feature) in the store while deciding, the XT took noticably slightly longer to boot (unless I left dust-cleaning on for the XTi, which obviously took more time).

It may well have been that the store-demo XT in question wasn't working quite right, however, since the XTi had just come out of a box a day earlier, and the XT had been sitting on a shelf and getting handled by prospective buyers for months!

Either way, it's pretty darn near instant-on in both cases. :)

it might also be worth noting that the battery life on the XTi is 10% less than on the XT.

This is definitely true, and something I should've put into my review; the brighter screen and other features do suck the battery... though I admit I've never yet killed my XTi entirely. I've run the battery down and swapped to a second, but I've never, even in a full day of shooting, managed to drain both batteries entirely.

[mdwsta4]

that's why you pick up the battery grip so you worry even less :)
i've never ran my battery out while walking around town and shooting, but during car shows during the summer where i take 1000+ pictures, i've drained both batteries in my battery grip. not to mention how much better it makes the XT/XTi feel. i took it off when i was cleaning my sensor and just for kicks i played around w/o the grip on afterwards and the camera really did feel too small in my hands. it's also nice to have the added battery life so you don't have to worry about changing batteries in the field or missing that perfect shot. my $.02

This is definitely true, and something I should've put into my review; the brighter screen and other features do suck the battery... though I admit I've never yet killed my XTi entirely. I've run the battery down and swapped to a second, but I've never, even in a full day of shooting, managed to drain both batteries entirely.

[stuart]

i was in your position about a year ago or so i had been asking around and lots of reading on the net. about the 350d (xt) for about 6 mths.or so then i heard the 400d (xti) was a coming,most reviews i read were fairly glowing and most summed up by saying the 400d was a good step up on the 350d ive got the 400d.the 350 is a great camera but if you can spend a little extra go for the 400

[stevesutt89]

Sorry about the time gap from the last post, but any way here goes: I'm looking into buying a 350D and would have gone for the Kit lens without thinking except for the glowing comments about the 50mm f/1.8 lens
does this not mean that you are limited to a lens that can only go as wide as a film camera with an 80mm lens or p&s digital camera stuck on 2.2x zoom? To me this seems very limiting in situations that have limited space

ps i'm in no way suggesting that the 350D/400D is anything like a P&S camera.

[Saralonde]

The 50mm is really a great lens that can do a lot and some people do buy it over the kit lens. A lot depends on what you like to shoot. If you are interested in anything that needs wide angle, go with the kit lens, it is probably more versatile. The 50mm is relatively cheap, so you might be able to get both. Did you check this thread? http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1400

[inkista]

... I'm looking into buying a 350D and would have gone for the Kit lens without thinking except for the glowing comments about the 50mm f/1.8 lens
does this not mean that you are limited to a lens that can only go as wide as a film camera with an 80mm lens or p&s digital camera stuck on 2.2x zoom? To me this seems very limiting in situations that have limited space...I take it you're coming from the P&S world of digital cameras? :)

If you were into photography before digital, and were on a budget, the chances are that the only lens your 35mm film SLR had was a 50mm prime lens. So, going back to that set up is very comfortable for a lot of folks. Back in the day, the "kit lenses" that came with SLRs were almost always 50mm primes.

And sure, a zoom lens has more versatility with respect to space and framing. But a fast large-aperture lens (f/1.8) has far more versatility with respect to available light. It's rare for me to be forced to stand in one spot when taking a picture. And it's more common for me to get a blurry or dark shot because I didn't have enough light.

Other advantages of prime lenses, due to their mechanical simplicity and prior existence to zooms are that they're usually (but not always) cheaper, sharper, faster, and smaller than their zoom counterparts. So, zooming with your feet and switching lenses more frequently might not be a bad tradeoff, depending on what and how you're shooting. Zooms are certainly far more convenient. But primes often simplify and concentrate the task of composition down to the single question of "where should I be?" You tend to walk around a subject more with a prime on the camera than with a zoom.

For a beginner coming from the P&S world, the general recommendation is get both the kit lens AND the 50mm f/1.8. The first one is more usable for the typical applications you used the P&S for (especially for wide angle shots), but the 50 f/1.8 will teach you about prime lenses, bokeh, depth-of-field, and available light shooting--all the things your P&S can't do because it has a zoom lens. Given that the 50mm f/1.8 costs less than some filters, it's a no-brainer.