big prime on low end rebel

I'm thinking about saving up for the 400 f/5.6 over the next few months. I'm rather curious if anyone has thoughts on using that lens with the XS, or one of the other baseline Rebel bodies. I'm well aware of the shortcoming and limits of my XS, however it does get the job done and I'm usually very happy with the results. Once I get into the big primes am I going to definitely want the higher frames per second and better auto focus?

I currently have my 70-200 on my camera almost exclusively and I'm constantly wanting more reach for birds and the critters that wander around.

Would putting a 400 on my XS be impractical because of the camera capabilities? I'm very pleased with how the 70-200 behaves on my XS.

What are you shooting with the 400? Unless you have a need for the faster shutter speeds in dimming light (dusk) of more expensive bodies I think you'll be fine with the XS.

It's always better to have a good lens + a low end body than a mediocre lens + a top of the line body.

FWIW, here's a photo from the original Rebel - 300D + a Sigmonster (300-800).

With the 400 I would be shooting birds and animals. Tonight for example, I went to the state park for a few hours and saw lots of deer, even some big bucks, but I couldn't get close enough to get something decent without heavy cropping. I don't think I would need the 1/8000 shutter speed, I don't even use the 1/4000 that I have very much. I do kinda think I would like having a burst rate a little faster than the 1.5 fps I get now, and a larger buffer (I have a 5 shot buffer).

Yeah..i have an XS, and it's absolutely fine.. in regards to IQ and ISO..for that matter. There is a fair difference though, between an ie. T2i(18mp) and the XS.. for cropping. Bird and wildlife shots can benefit from the extra resolution in tight-cropping scenarios.. and the (T2i) does offer better ISO noise...mostly from 800-1600.

Edit:
The other nice feature that the XS doesn't have.. and i like, is Spot-metering.

1Tanker wrote in post #13001373
Yeah..i have an XS, and it's absolutely fine.. in regards to IQ and ISO..for that matter. There is a fair difference though, between an ie. T2i(18mp) and the XS.. for cropping. Bird and wildlife shots can benefit from the extra resolution in tight-cropping scenarios.. and the (T2i) does offer better ISO noise.especially from 800-1600.

I could really use the better noise control at the higher ISO levels. My 1600 isn't usable most of the time. Thanks for your input, I appreciate it.

I have the T2i and don't find the noise control any better than the XS (which I owned) at 1600. At 3200 it's better (which isn't an option for the XS).

I like the T2i because it has four times the screen resolution, has usable 3200 ISO, and can shoot about 4 frames per second raw (even if the buffer is only twelve or so).

But the Rebel XS is a fantastic camera. If you're talking about a composed shot at 1600 or lower, it's as good as the 7D. No image quality advantage with the upper models.

BTW: If 1600 isn't usable on the XS, it means you're under-exposing. It can nail the subject sharp at 1600.

MikeFairbanks wrote in post #13001453
BTW: If 1600 isn't usable on the XS, it means you're under-exposing. It can nail the subject sharp at 1600.

I do know that, but to get my exposure right I end up having to use a shutter speed that's too slow for what I need. I've gotten some gorgeous 1600 shots, but most of them I'm not happy with.

imsellingmyfoot wrote in post #13001457
I do know that, but to get my exposure right I end up having to use a shutter speed that's too slow for what I need. I've gotten some gorgeous 1600 shots, but most of them I'm not happy with.

then you need a larger aperture for a correct exposure, 1600 ISO on the XS or XSi is actually pretty good

There is no EOS body in existence that ISN'T worthy of ANY EF lens.

Have fun shooting!

picturecrazy wrote in post #13002859
There is no EOS body in existence that ISN'T worthy of ANY EF lens.

Have fun shooting!

Excellent. So the consensus seems to be that there is really no reason for me to get a new body before I get myself a big prime.

I'll add another one. I shot plenty of wildlife with a Rebel 300D and a 300 f4.0L and was very very happy with the results. I was stuck on iso 100 or 200 and the AF wasn't good enough for birds in flight or anything but the IQ was great.

I've upgraded to a 7D since and miss the simplicity of getting superbly crisp images (mostly due to the very low resolution sensor) but as I improve my skills so do I improve the images I get.

I would consider a body upgrade like a T2i for faster FPS and better ISO performance.

Youre shutter speed will always be fast and you won't be able to do anything about the f5.6

You could try a body upgrade and add a 1.4x TC for your 70-200 for now?

Unless youre always shooting in bright sunlight

karlpilkington wrote in post #13003135
I would consider a body upgrade like a T2i for faster FPS and better ISO performance.

Youre shutter speed will always be fast and you won't be able to do anything about the f5.6

You could try a body upgrade and add a 1.4x TC for your 70-200 for now?

Unless youre always shooting in bright sunlight

I've thought about adding a teleconverter but 280mm doesn't appeal to me. I've had a 75-300 and the 300 was too short. I'm still considering a body upgrade, just for other reasons. This thread was mainly asking whether I need to consider a body upgrade for reasons specific to the 400 f/5.6, and everyone has pretty much said there isn't unless I want something with higher fps and the like.