Upgrading from a 20d to ...
February 3, 2009 5:41 PM Subscribe
Digital SLRs: Canon 10-series or Digital Rebel in low light?
I've been borrowing a Canon EOS-20D for the last few weeks, and I think I'm ready to finally buy a DSLR. I have a bunch of lenses for an old EOS Elan-IIe, so I'm more or less wedded to getting a Canon DSLR. Most of my photos are candids in low light. With the 20D, I've been shooting with a 50mm F/1.8 prime and I've been pretty happy.
It looks like I can get a new Digital Rebel Xsi and a used 40D for about the same price locally (no meaningful warranty on the 40D though).
I've looked at previous discussions on AskMeFi about low light, the 20d, and so on, but I can't figure out:
1. In what ways a recent digital rebel would be a downgrade from the 20d that I've been shooting with?
2. Is the light sensitivity any different? I've been reading some comparisons (e.g., this) and it doesn't seem to make a difference within the same format, but the rebel feels a little blurrier/slower so I'm not quite sure.
3. Should I be considering anything else, like robustness of the body, weight, or how configurable it is? I'm obviously not a pro, but I'm likely to be traveling a fair amount with it.
I've been borrowing a Canon EOS-20D for the last few weeks, and I think I'm ready to finally buy a DSLR. I have a bunch of lenses for an old EOS Elan-IIe, so I'm more or less wedded to getting a Canon DSLR. Most of my photos are candids in low light. With the 20D, I've been shooting with a 50mm F/1.8 prime and I've been pretty happy.
It looks like I can get a new Digital Rebel Xsi and a used 40D for about the same price locally (no meaningful warranty on the 40D though).
I've looked at previous discussions on AskMeFi about low light, the 20d, and so on, but I can't figure out:
1. In what ways a recent digital rebel would be a downgrade from the 20d that I've been shooting with?
2. Is the light sensitivity any different? I've been reading some comparisons (e.g., this) and it doesn't seem to make a difference within the same format, but the rebel feels a little blurrier/slower so I'm not quite sure.
3. Should I be considering anything else, like robustness of the body, weight, or how configurable it is? I'm obviously not a pro, but I'm likely to be traveling a fair amount with it.
Best answer: The Rebels are less solidly built, yes, and also lack the top-mounted LCD, rely on menus for more settings than the xxD series, and lack a feature here or there (mostly stuff that Canon could have put into the Rebel firmware, but didn't) so as to differentiate them from the more expensive line. The xxD is a little heavier and larger and usually has a higher frame rate and slightly better autofocus systems (e.g. more cross-type sensors). The image sensors are similar (assuming same generation of camera) and both do have live view, which is nice.
Given a choice between the XSi new or the 40D used, I'd go with the 40D. It is the most like the camera you've been shooting with.
posted by kindall at 5:59 PM on February 3, 2009
Given a choice between the XSi new or the 40D used, I'd go with the 40D. It is the most like the camera you've been shooting with.
posted by kindall at 5:59 PM on February 3, 2009
We just got a Rebel xsi that we more or less love. I can't give answers as to how it would compare to the other camera you mention, but it does work very well in low light, particularly since you can crank the ISO to 1600. It's very lightweight, doesn't feel cheaply made to me at all (no offense, pjern), and had a pretty shallow learning curve (I'm no pro, but I know a bit about photography).
If you go with the xsi, be careful; there's an older version with only 10 megapixels, whereas the most recent model has 12.2.
I've noticed that the internal light meter can be a hair off; to compensate, I expose just a hair or two under what it suggests.
posted by hifiparasol at 6:05 PM on February 3, 2009
If you go with the xsi, be careful; there's an older version with only 10 megapixels, whereas the most recent model has 12.2.
I've noticed that the internal light meter can be a hair off; to compensate, I expose just a hair or two under what it suggests.
posted by hifiparasol at 6:05 PM on February 3, 2009
Best answer: I'd take the used 40D in good condition over the new XSi. The image quality (including low light performance) is fairly comparable from the sensors on both, but with the 40D you get better build quality, faster shutter (1/8000 vs 1/4000), much better auto-focus (all points cross-type as compared to center point only), and substantially higher frame rate.
Here's the dxomark sensor comparison between the 40D, XS, and XSi. As you can see, pretty similar image quality across the board with perhaps a slight advantage to the 40D in terms of color depth and dynamic range.
posted by drpynchon at 6:25 PM on February 3, 2009
Here's the dxomark sensor comparison between the 40D, XS, and XSi. As you can see, pretty similar image quality across the board with perhaps a slight advantage to the 40D in terms of color depth and dynamic range.
posted by drpynchon at 6:25 PM on February 3, 2009
Best answer: Rebels are targeted and made for consumers. Not prosumers, or pros. straight up.
40D while it does not have full size image sensor, with its steel chasis, it far outpaces a rebel, anyday.
It also comes down to how it feels in your hands. The 40D is a 20D, two gens. later.
I would buy from a shop, because whichever camera you go with, you want to be assured that the image sensor hasn't been mistreated. Make sure to look for dead pixels, too. (they appear white on an image)
posted by captainsohler at 6:36 PM on February 3, 2009
40D while it does not have full size image sensor, with its steel chasis, it far outpaces a rebel, anyday.
It also comes down to how it feels in your hands. The 40D is a 20D, two gens. later.
I would buy from a shop, because whichever camera you go with, you want to be assured that the image sensor hasn't been mistreated. Make sure to look for dead pixels, too. (they appear white on an image)
posted by captainsohler at 6:36 PM on February 3, 2009
Best answer: Recently had the same dilemma. I went the xxD route and never looked back.
Reasons why I love it:
-Larger
Reasons why I love it:
-Larger
Yes, this means a tad clunkier and heavier, but there's more room for the good stuff like a larger top screen, easy-to-hit, well-placed buttons and the...-Jog dial
If you know enough about photography to know that you may want to change two settings in quick succession (e.g. shutter speed and aperture), the iPod-style jog dial will be a god-send when coupled with the smaller wheel behind the trigger. Also makes scrolling through shots a dream.-Better build quality
The feel of the controls is night and day between the two lines. Also, the xxD's are magnesium and aluminum where the Rebels are plastic and, well... plastic. Additionally, they are rated for way more exposures before needing servicing.-Makes me look cooler
Well... c'mon. My mom's got a Rebel... ;)posted by Mr. Anthropomorphism at 6:44 PM on February 3, 2009
Oh, and one other control disparity: Rebels have a tiny 4-button d-pad while the xxD's have an eight-way thumbstick.
It is the only way to fly when scrolling around full-res shots on a tiny display or manually selecting an autofocus point.
posted by Mr. Anthropomorphism at 6:50 PM on February 3, 2009
It is the only way to fly when scrolling around full-res shots on a tiny display or manually selecting an autofocus point.
posted by Mr. Anthropomorphism at 6:50 PM on February 3, 2009
I'm going to stop trolling this thread now, but this picture shows the size difference. That Rebel is cramped, man. And I forgot that they don't have the top display at all. You want that top display. And yes, it's backlit.
Sorry for the barrage, but you'll read this wishy-washy debate on new xxxD's vs old xxD's all over the Internet. No one ever wants to say one is better per se, as different people have different camera needs. That may be true, but to say that xxD's aren't better cameras is BULLSHIT.
.....breathe.....
posted by Mr. Anthropomorphism at 6:59 PM on February 3, 2009
Sorry for the barrage, but you'll read this wishy-washy debate on new xxxD's vs old xxD's all over the Internet. No one ever wants to say one is better per se, as different people have different camera needs. That may be true, but to say that xxD's aren't better cameras is BULLSHIT.
.....breathe.....
posted by Mr. Anthropomorphism at 6:59 PM on February 3, 2009
I think you'll get pretty comparable image quality either way.
If you have small hands, the rebel may be more comfortable. If you have large hands the 40D will be more comfortable. That may be more important than the controls, etc (which definitely favor the 40D.).
I'd suggest going to a store and seeing how the two cameras feel in your hand, and then go and buy whichever one you like better.
The 40D will feel pretty much the same as the 50D, if that's what the stores have.
posted by aubilenon at 7:46 PM on February 3, 2009
If you have small hands, the rebel may be more comfortable. If you have large hands the 40D will be more comfortable. That may be more important than the controls, etc (which definitely favor the 40D.).
I'd suggest going to a store and seeing how the two cameras feel in your hand, and then go and buy whichever one you like better.
The 40D will feel pretty much the same as the 50D, if that's what the stores have.
posted by aubilenon at 7:46 PM on February 3, 2009
Response by poster: Wow, what great answers! It sounds like the used 40d is likely to be the way to go, I'll check it out tomorrow in store.
captainsohler: If I get the 40d, it will be from a local shop that's reasonably reputable. Is there anything I can do to see if the sensor has been mistreated other than asking? Is there a quick way to look for dead pixels (a pattern to shoot or the like...)? I think I'll have a few days to return if there are any issues, but I'm not exactly sure what to look for.
On a side note, is there anything else I should worry about in terms of buying used (shutter count?)?
posted by pbh at 9:31 PM on February 3, 2009
captainsohler: If I get the 40d, it will be from a local shop that's reasonably reputable. Is there anything I can do to see if the sensor has been mistreated other than asking? Is there a quick way to look for dead pixels (a pattern to shoot or the like...)? I think I'll have a few days to return if there are any issues, but I'm not exactly sure what to look for.
On a side note, is there anything else I should worry about in terms of buying used (shutter count?)?
posted by pbh at 9:31 PM on February 3, 2009
I don't mean to change the subject of the thread, but I'm wondering what the advantages are of, say, a used 40D over a used 20D. I would think that by now a 20D would be fairly inexpensive, and I'm wondering what's new on the 40.
I know the 40D has a better and larger LCD, I think they both have the same sensor, and I think the 40D has a newer image processor. Is this correct? If so, do the benefits of the new image processor apply to raw images, or only in-camera jpgs?
I have a 20D and am not in the market for a new camera at the moment, but a few people who've used my 20D have been asking what I think about a used 20D vs 40D and I really don't know what to tell them.
posted by Juffo-Wup at 1:32 AM on February 4, 2009
I know the 40D has a better and larger LCD, I think they both have the same sensor, and I think the 40D has a newer image processor. Is this correct? If so, do the benefits of the new image processor apply to raw images, or only in-camera jpgs?
I have a 20D and am not in the market for a new camera at the moment, but a few people who've used my 20D have been asking what I think about a used 20D vs 40D and I really don't know what to tell them.
posted by Juffo-Wup at 1:32 AM on February 4, 2009
Response by poster: Juffo-Wup: No worries, I'm actually curious about that too because I can also get the 20d used locally.
posted by pbh at 3:35 AM on February 4, 2009
posted by pbh at 3:35 AM on February 4, 2009
Best answer: If it were between a choice of 20D and 40D, I'd choose the 40D based solely on ISO noise. Especially if you plan to use the camera in low-light situations. I have a 20D and it gets pretty noisy at ISO 400. I'm not sure I'd print anything from the 20D taken at ISO 800 or above! The newer 40D should have less ISO noise (though you may want to do a little Googling to confirm that).
posted by geeky at 7:19 AM on February 4, 2009
posted by geeky at 7:19 AM on February 4, 2009
Oh heck, here, I did some Googling for you.
Canon 20D vs. 40D
posted by geeky at 7:21 AM on February 4, 2009
Canon 20D vs. 40D
posted by geeky at 7:21 AM on February 4, 2009
The 40D has a better viewfinder. It's got a real prism if i'm not mistaken. A nice viewfinder is a big plus. My very old Pentax K1000 is fucking awesome in this regard, while my Rebel is very disappointing. Mind you, with autofocus, the smaller viewfinder isn't the biggest deal in the world.
One thing to keep in mind: the 40D is a fair bit bigger than the Rebel. DSLRs are dorky enough to being with. A giant one is all the more dorky looking.
The two cameras are similar, but the 40D is the nicer of the two.
posted by chunking express at 8:10 AM on February 4, 2009
One thing to keep in mind: the 40D is a fair bit bigger than the Rebel. DSLRs are dorky enough to being with. A giant one is all the more dorky looking.
The two cameras are similar, but the 40D is the nicer of the two.
posted by chunking express at 8:10 AM on February 4, 2009
Best answer: Image quality actually won't be dramatically improved between the 20D and 40D. With the latter you will likely get some minimal advantage as far as IQ (depending on whether you shoot RAW or JPEG), but the greater advantages are in the feature set. These include:
- Obviously 10 vs 8 MP not that that means too much
- DIGIC III vs. DIGIC II processor
- 14-bit vs. 12-bit RAW
- Smaller ISO steps
- Spot metering
- Much improved LCD ( 3" 230k pixel vs 1.8" 118k pixel)
- Automated dust reduction
- Improved auto-focus (cross-type sensors)
- Better mirror lock up functionality
- Live view
- Larger continuous buffer (75 vs 23 JPEG, 17 vs 6 RAW)
- Some improved weather sealing
- A larger, brighter view finder
- "Picture Styles"
posted by drpynchon at 12:54 PM on February 4, 2009
- Obviously 10 vs 8 MP not that that means too much
- DIGIC III vs. DIGIC II processor
- 14-bit vs. 12-bit RAW
- Smaller ISO steps
- Spot metering
- Much improved LCD ( 3" 230k pixel vs 1.8" 118k pixel)
- Automated dust reduction
- Improved auto-focus (cross-type sensors)
- Better mirror lock up functionality
- Live view
- Larger continuous buffer (75 vs 23 JPEG, 17 vs 6 RAW)
- Some improved weather sealing
- A larger, brighter view finder
- "Picture Styles"
posted by drpynchon at 12:54 PM on February 4, 2009
Regardless of any issues in differences of image quality, if you're used to using an Elan-IIe, the Rebel's 4 button d-pad in the back will drive you crazy. The 40d has a quick control dial, just like (I think) the Elan-IIe.
posted by odin53 at 6:05 PM on February 4, 2009
posted by odin53 at 6:05 PM on February 4, 2009
Response by poster: Thanks all! I ended up getting the 40d, and I'm playing with it now to make sure there aren't any problems with it.
posted by pbh at 6:42 PM on February 4, 2009
posted by pbh at 6:42 PM on February 4, 2009
« Older Ten days in Europe: How to spend them? | Is there a way to 'frame' a YouTube video with an... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
I can't say much about the new Rebel Xsi, but I think that in general, the Rebel line feels cheaply made to me, and less likely to last in normal use.
YMMV, etc.
posted by pjern at 5:49 PM on February 3, 2009