Do ye ken Canon?

December 1, 2008 9:42 AM

Help me decide which Canon DSLR to save up for as my first DSLR.

I've been using the A710 IS for a couple of years now and, having also used a friend's 350D, am very impressed with the quality of Canon cameras. I've reached the point now where I need to have a DSLR to be able to progress with my photography. I'm torn between the 1000D and the 450D - the price for the 1000D is more realistic for me (I would really like to get a camera before the beginning of April if possible) but the 450D isn't much more, and I'm wondering if that indicates a better quality.

Other relevant info: I have the option of getting the body only as SO's dad has offered to give me the 18-55 kit lens that came with his to start with. I mainly shoot macro shots and want to move from observing to creating my own views. I also really want a Lensbaby, which will be my next purchase after the camera. I am lacking in technical knowledge - one of the reasons I want to upgrade - so something with a good Program function would be good to start off with. The IS in my compact is a godsend for me. And I'm unlikely to want to upgrade my camera for quite some time.

any advice on where to purchase (in the UK) and where to get a case for it that won't look like an old man's fannypack would be useful for the future too!

posted by mippy to sports, hobbies, & recreation (27 comments total)

Not an answer, but the 1000D is the Digital Rebel XS in the US, and the 450D is the Digital Rebel XSi. In case that helps anyone.
posted by smackfu at 9:52 AM on December 1, 2008

I've got a 400D, and love it.

I don't know the 1000D well enough to be able to judge its weaknesses, but I'll note the following:

* Any of the digital SLRs will have plenty of manual capabilities and automation to get you going. If you're going to go full-auto, the smaller number of autofocus points in the 1000D may become a problem.

* Case-wise, I'm a very big believer in never ever carrying a case that looks like it has a camera in it, eg, looks stealable. I'd recommend getting any waterproof/resistant messenger bag you like, and getting the foam-padded inserts meant to customize 'real' camera bags to provide padding. My own bag, which usually contains about $2000 worth of gear, is a boring thing I got for $20 a while ago, and just has a couple of Domke inserts with squares of foam at the bottom where they're not padded, to hold the camera and lenses.
posted by Tomorrowful at 9:54 AM on December 1, 2008

Upon glancing at some reviews, I'd suggest that if you can, you go for the 450D: It has spot metering, which is quite useful, and a larger viewfinder - which is going to be key for the kind of touchy focusing inherent in macro work.

That said, it's not a night-and-day difference between the two; you really can't go wrong with the 1000D. If the price difference is enough to matter to your budget, don't stress, just get the thing and start exposing film (so to speak).
posted by Tomorrowful at 9:59 AM on December 1, 2008

Well, the 450D (Rebel XSi in the US) is certainly more of a camera to grow into than the 1000D (Rebel XS.) If you believe your photography is going to be more and more of a serious hobby for you then I think getting the most advanced camera you can afford is probably worth it.

It may also be worth getting the body only and looking at lenses separately. Some of the Canon kit lenses are very good, but it may be worth spending that money on some other lens you want (e.g. the Lensbaby or some other macro lens.) You might also be able to find good used lenses that might save you some money in the long run.

The IS is nice, but for really serious macro work you're going to want to invest eventually in a good tripod and head. There are many macro books out there that will give you ideas about what to save for next. Besides that a good tripod is really a must for most photographers.
posted by sevenless at 10:02 AM on December 1, 2008

I have a tall Velbon tripod (about 5ft) but being used to only holding my camera for macro work I can't quite work out how to factor a tripod into macro work.

The Lensbaby is because I'd like to play around with bokeh and I can rarely afford to develop my Holga films :)
posted by mippy at 10:10 AM on December 1, 2008

I have the 450 XSI and I can tell you wholeheartedly that it is an excellent camera. The kit lens is fantastic for what you pay for it ($80, come on now), and the image quality is excellent. If you plan on shooting indoors or in low light situations I would look into the 30D or even the 40D as it's price is moving lower towards the XSI's current price and they produce less noise at high ISO'S. (Basically it lets you capture natural low light scenes without all of the fuzziness normally associated with such a scene.)

Some things to consider:

-If you plan on shooting in harsh weather conditions, you should look into the 30D.
-Any extra money is always better spent on LENSES than on body upgrades.
-Once you learn the ropes of Manual DSLR photography, you WILL want a better camera. Try to stay away from reading too much about higher end Canons and Nikons - It will just make you want a more expensive camera which I promise you cannot be justified by a marginal increase in image quality - Some of my absolute best photos were taken with a $120 Canon point and shoot.

To be honest you can't go wrong. If you can afford it, though, go with the XSI - You won't be let down. I would buy from AMAZON.
posted by Macallister Vagabond at 10:11 AM on December 1, 2008

Get something used.

IMO, a used 20D, 30D or 40D is a better bet than a new rebel. While the ultimate image quality is about the same, the controls on the XXD models are _much_ better. The dual control dials and little focus point selecting joystick make shooting in Av/Tv/manual mode much more fluid...and manual mode is where you're going to learn. Plus, the viewfinders are significantly nicer on the semi-pro cameras.

20D's can be had for practically nothing over at fredmiranda.com and they're 90% as good as a 40D/50D. At weddings/events I'll shoot the 20D and 40D interchangeably and be unable to tell the difference in the final RAW files without looking at the EXIF data.

Skip the kit lenses. Get a 50mm f1.8 and something like the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX or more expensive Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS. The former is as sharp as the Canon 17-40 f4, and the latter is one of the best lenses out there at any price.
posted by paanta at 10:13 AM on December 1, 2008

I bought the xSi (the 450D) in August and I could not be happier with it. It's amazing, my pictures have never looked better, and I'm having so much fun using it.

I bought it from Buydig.com for an amazing price. I don't know if there's a UK version.

I'll be buying this bag as soon as possible, based on someone else's recommendation.
posted by cooker girl at 10:24 AM on December 1, 2008

450D.

Warehouse Express prices are usually reasonable.

Go to a camera shop and try one in your hands before buying though.
posted by mandal at 10:33 AM on December 1, 2008

I don't want to bring one of the perennial gadget-nerd fights into this thread, so I'll just say that I mildly, though not passionately, disagree with paata re: used XXD over a newer, lower-end model.

In the end, once you've decided to go with an remotely recent SLR, it's very hard to make a truly bad choice for a beginner - there's just good and better.
posted by Tomorrowful at 10:43 AM on December 1, 2008

While I confess I haven't used either (I still only have the original Rebel/300D), the specs of the 450/XSi are very comparable to the pricier, and more heavy-duty, 40D. For a lot of users, there'd be little reason to choose the extra expense of the 40D over the 450D. (Hence the recently introduced 50D, which is what I'm hoping to save up for now.)

Anyway. The 1000D would be fine if you're new to DSLR photography. The catch is, if you already know you're interested in really learning about photography, I think you'll bump up against its limitations faster than the 450D. True, "it's the photographer, not the camera, that makes great shots" - but that doesn't mean the camera and its capabilities are meaningless. Some cameras make more difficult shoots easier to handle.

The key for me, and why I'd choose the 450 over the 1000 - spot metering. I'm drawn to tough/extreme lighting conditions, such as silhouettes at sunset, and spot metering would be a huge help to me.
posted by dnash at 10:45 AM on December 1, 2008

As many have already said, go for the 450D. The spot meter alone makes it worth it and the extra 2 megapixels, while not really that important at this resolution, does give you just a little bit more room to crop. The extra magnification of the viewfinder is nice as well.

Also, see here for a comparison of pretty much every feature on the 2 cameras.
posted by pwicks at 11:11 AM on December 1, 2008

One more thing:
I've had good luck buying dslrs from Buydig as well.
posted by pwicks at 11:12 AM on December 1, 2008

Get a used camera from www.photography-on-the.net. Buying a new camera is like buying a new car -- you get the prestige of new, the new smell, and a huge depreciation the second you take it off the lot (isle).

You can get a 30D for ~$450 used, or an XT/XTI for even less. Everything after the 30D/XT is non-monumental.

ps-I've owned a 10d/30d/40d/rebel/xt/xti.
posted by SirStan at 11:23 AM on December 1, 2008

And with SLR's, megapixels dont mean anything. An old 4MP full frame Canon will take better banner sized photos than a 12MP XSI.
posted by SirStan at 11:24 AM on December 1, 2008

I bought an XTi, but slapped a 28-135mm IS/USM lens on it, which I believe is the kit lens for the XSi.

These are my photos and these are some of my favorites, taken people-watching in Rome, in about a 15-minute timeframe.

The XSi adds Live View, which may be useful to some, or for tripod work... It's also 12 MP over 10.1, but again, MP is less and less a concern, compared to sensor size.

I printed out one of my images at 36" x 24" and it wasn't even the native resolution of the shot--it was smaller. And it looks amazing. Just saying that there is definitely good photos to be taken with the XTi, and relatively affordable. I don't have the kit lens, which is the lens you were offered. My friend suggested the 28-135 and I couldn't be happier. (There are three photos towards the end of my slideshow of a woman in front of the Spanish Steps--they are all taken from exactly the same position, and show the full range of the lens.)

You can also see what's popular on Flickr and look for photos taken with the cameras you're looking at.
posted by disillusioned at 11:38 AM on December 1, 2008

I bought a Rebel XTi last year. Love it. Package came with a 300mm zoom, which is great, but I'd be happier if it was an IS model as working without a tripod is damn hard at long ranges. The kit lens it came with does some good macro shots, as far as I'm concerned; I think the closest focal distance it does is 10", so it works fine for me.
posted by caution live frogs at 12:05 PM on December 1, 2008

I'd get an XT, XTi, or maybe an old 20D, 30D. They are all great cameras, and can probably be had for not much money at all. (Especially used.)
posted by chunking express at 12:28 PM on December 1, 2008

My camera has a 1cm macro - nothing greater than this is any use to me :) Something to think about when looking for lenses. I was a lot more interested in macro focal distance than megapixelage when deciding which compact to get.

Thanks for the suggestions; although I'm not sure some of the websites that have come up are useful to me, they might help out someone else. Hmm, I wonder why they have different names for Canon DSLRs in the States?
posted by mippy at 12:32 PM on December 1, 2008

I definately wouldn't want the shutterfire count of a used DSLR, but thats just me and many other people I know. I would put my money on something with a steel chasis and hopefully a 100% image sensor. But, with cost in mind, a 30D or 20D would be great.

I feel like I say this in every "what consumer camera should I buy?" question: stay away from kit lenses.
posted by captainsohler at 12:41 PM on December 1, 2008

Focusing distance is misleading.

For all intents and purposes, nothing will focus as close as 1cm outside of tiny compacts. But that isn't necessarily a problem - I suspect that something like Canon's 100mm macro lens will be physically farther away, but I really doubt your little compact's lens fills up as much sensor space as that $450 100mm. A "true" macro lens, like Canon's 60mm EF-S or 100mm EF models, has a 1:1 ratio of actual object size:image size on sensor. There are cheaper "macro" lenses like the Canon 50mm or the Tamrom 70-300 I've got that will get you an image 50% the size of the real thing... and then there's the MP-E 60mm, which will get you up to a 5x image, that is, the sensor image is five times the size of the real object. But it's very expensive and incredibly difficult to work with.
posted by Tomorrowful at 1:45 PM on December 1, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

I don't shoot Canon cameras so hopefully I'm somewhat unbiased as to specifics.

Any DSLR option will have a huge amount of increased capabilities over what you're used to. We're talking levels of magnitude.

Do this on the cheap.

Get the low end body and take the SO's dad's offer up on the free kit lens.

If you want to mess around with bokeh, get the super bargain Canon 50/f1.8 lens; which, unlike a Lensbaby, can be used to shoot with fun out of focus backgrounds and foregrounds as well as used conventionally to give you an ultrasharp lens with excellent contrast, etc.

Don't buy a used body. Who knows what kind of moron had it before you got it? Someone could have tried to clean the imaging sensor off with a dirty toothbrush. Someone could have gotten it wet to the point where the thing won't die for several weeks or months, but will ultimately die. Someone had the benefit of a warranty that you will not have.

Once you buy this stuff, keep the boxes, packaging, original paperwork, etc., and try not to beat the heck out of the equipment. That way, if you reach the point where you want to move up, you can get top dollar for it when you sell it, and replace it with the hardware you discover you'd really like to have at that point.
posted by imjustsaying at 2:13 PM on December 1, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

2nding the advice to go along to a real shop and try a few cameras in your hands. Doing that is what convinced me not to buy a Canon (despite having access to a bunch of good Canon lenses for cheap/free), and turned me to Nikon instead. Not to diss Canon, but to me they just felt clunky & unwieldy while the Nikons just felt 'right'. YMMV; I have friends that can't stand the way my Nikon feels in their hands ;-)

If you really want 1cm focal distance for good reasons, rather than just habit from using macro mode on your P&S, then you might look at starting with close-up adapters (dioptres) on the kit lens before jumping straight to the $$$ of a prime macro. Of course, they're no replacement for a good macro lens, but the end effect - rather than increase magnification, they reduce minimum focussing distance - is closer to that of a P&S.

And, I dunno what the Canon kit lenses are like, but the more I use it the more I'm impressed by the Nikon 18-55 kit lens. Sure, it's plastic; sure, it's not as good as a good prime; sure, it's not particularly fast; sure, the manual focus ring and action is abysmal - but, geez, I'm damned if it's not a good general purpose lens! I understand the Canon kit lens isn't considered to be quite as good, but I'd be surprised if it was appreciably worse for a DSLR beginner to start with. No point in forking out money before you really understand what's going on with your lenses; something that's the big difference between a P&S and a SLR.

Oh, and learn to shoot manual ;-)
posted by Pinback at 2:46 PM on December 1, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Did you read the reviews and compare the specs on dpreview.com?
posted by Tixylix at 4:07 PM on December 1, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

I had a quick look but as I've never owned a DSLR I was a bit confused as to what I was looking for.
posted by mippy at 8:51 AM on December 2, 2008

I bought the 450d a few weeks ago and love the pants off it. I would personally tell you to get the 450d, if only because my experience with it has been overwhelmingly positive.

Although it was more expensive than the 1000d, I was wooed by:
- Slightly larger megapixel count (though this is largely irrelevant at this point)
- Spot metering
- 9 focus points, rather than 7
- 3" screen rather than 2.5"
- There is liveview on the 450d but I didn't really care to have it, and I haven't really used it.

A quick search on google brought me to this page: http://www.photolectic.com/reviews/dslr/canon-1000d/xs-vs.-450d/xsi-quick-comparison.html comparing the 450d, 400d, and 1000d. Looking at the table, the sensor is exactly the same size and the cameras have equal capabilities. Not identical, but they are pretty bloody similar, and are going to take more or less the same pictures.

The real consideration might be how they feel in your hands. Go out to a shop and pick one up, have a fiddle with the buttons, and make a decision based on your experience with both cameras. Maybe you'll like the lightness of the 1000d, or the textured grip of the 450d will win you over. Realistically, the body will only last you a few years before you want an upgrade anyway. Your real commitment is going to be towards the lens you buy.
posted by roshy at 4:21 AM on December 9, 2008

Hold the two in your hands before you make a decision. Ergonomics is a big part of picking the right camera. The XSi/450D is small for a DSLR, and the 1000D is even smaller. Be sure the one you pick fits comfortably in your hands so that you can use all the controls effectively.
posted by tomorama at 8:46 PM on December 13, 2008