How bad are XTi kit lens ?

Liaquila,

welcome to the forum !

The most important issue has already been addressed ... P&S cameras add a lot of sharpening in the camera so that the images are 'ready out of the box'.

By contrast, DSLR cameras add less sharpening. The reason is that it is always easily possible to add sharpening in post processing, but you can not remove it any more. So DSLRs give the control how much to sharpen and when to the photographer ... but he has to use that.

Try searching for 'unsharp mask' in the forum for some threads on techniques how to sharpen your images.

Other than that, the kit lens is a decent lens ... but you have to know its limitations (mainly using it well stopped down to f/8 ). If you want to have a cheap yet very sharp lens, get yourself the 80$ (well, that's the US price, most likely more expensive in Brasil) Canon 50/1.8. It is an inexpensive prime (no zoom) lens that will add serious low light capability to your set. Use it @ f/2.8, and you can enjoy shallow DOF yet razor sharp subjects.

Best regards,
Andy

It has more limitations than the more expensive lens, but that's what you pay for generally. More versatility in situations.

It's defintely a lens along with the 50 1.8(which is under 100 USD) to learn on. I'd say its better choice than the kit lens for learning exposure and DOF control.

If you want sharp out of the camera photos, you need to go into the Parameters and kick up the settings for sharpness, and it'll put out stuff like the Sony did.

Phil, on dpreview, in the XTi review, recommends buying the camera without the kit lens and saving the money for something better. "Kit lens disappointing, better to buy body only and spend more on a good lens." see - http://www.dpreview.co​m …s/canoneos400d/​page29.asp.

The kit lens is good in the center and at f/8 to f/11. That, is a pretty narrow sweet spot. other than that - it really isn't very good.

That worked worked ok on the 6MP 300D, somewhat on the 8MP 350D, but on the 10MP 400, it will show its faults much more. IMO, it was marginal on the previous two bodies, but I wouldn't touch it on the 400D.

J.

Yes but again things have to be put into perspective. A person that is new to DSLR or new to photography does not know about sweet spots and has to go though a learning process. I think they can learn a lot, get good at composition and understand basic principles of photography from the kits lens. Many people don't want to wait and save more. They may be getting the camera as a gift with a set cap on the amount. Again, I can't help but reference the archive that has so many excellent pictures taken with this lens. Those people may have moved on and gotten other lenses but they were able to capture some excellent images.
I don't think the DPReview reviews should be taken so strongly when you are talking about a novice or inexperienced photographer with no preference or understanding of gear and specifications. They may get alens that gathers more light but it won't help them take better pictures if they don't grasp the concepts.

I completely disagree - the kit lens in the hands of an experienced photographer can do some great things - as can a pin hole camera. Doing this to a newbie just makes for more frustration. IMO, a newbie is far better off with a decent lens with which they can get some great results and not have to fight the equipment. But, on that we disagree.

Also the archive - many of those shots have benefitted from considerable PP. If a newbie expects that right out of the camera, it is not a realistic expectation.

In general, in my experience, buying a better lens is money saved in the long run - in two ways. (1) you don't go out and spend the money to get another lens anyhow. Go there first; and (2) I spend much less time in PP with my better lenses. Time is money.


J

JohnJ80 wrote in post #2212575
Also the archive - many of those shots have benefitted from considerable PP. If a newbie expects that right out of the camera, it is not a realistic expectation.

Hi John,

Your points are well taken but I do have to say that when I got my 30D, like many I did not want to deal with RAW and I think a novice will also feel that way. I went out and shot the first week or so in the default JPG mode and the pictures were excellent. They did not need any post processing. I did make some adjustments because I can and know how but the pictures I got were absolutely great and shot JPG.

TMR Design wrote in post #2212618
Hi John,

Your points are well taken but I do have to say that when I got my 30D, like many I did not want to deal with RAW and I think a novice will also feel that way. I went out and shot the first week or so in the default JPG mode and the pictures were excellent. They did not need any post processing. I did make some adjustments because I can and know how but the pictures I got were absolutely great and shot JPG.

Well, I guess I'd liken it to buying a BMW Z3 and then putting a 45mph speed limiter on the engine. I just don't get it.

Having a raft of L glass for my 5D, a variety of some of the EFS compatible lenses for my XT, and having used the kit lens, I can't see the logic in spending so much on a great camera and then not just a little more to make it work so much better. The kit is such an idiosyncratic lens - too many rules and quirks for a newbie to figure out. If one had a more forgiving, better performing lens - I just think it would do one so much better.

For example, saving the $100 on the body from the kit lens and then putting it towards one of:

1) sigma 18-50 f/2.8 ($359) - just a click off from the fabulous 17-40 f/4L and a fast lens to boot.

2) sigma 18-125 ($239) or 18-200 ($314) - terrific lenses, with optics that are considerably better over the entire range of the kit PLUS it goes out to to very reasonable tele ranges. All for only a bare bit more. Now these are lenses that can be really fun and useful for someone starting out. Use a lens like this, and you will really know where you want to go next, because you've shot over a wide range. Get some more lenses, and this still makes a great walk around lens.

I just see it as false economy and prolonging the struggle until one can really understand what is happening and internalize how all this works.

Fortunately, for jpg shooters, the newer cameras are coming with Picture Styles which seem to really help the shot straight out of the camera - a very useful feature.

But the kit? no way.

Really, I'd like to see Canon come up with a better lens - maybe match what Nikon is doing for their kit. It would be worth it to put a much better kit on these great cameras. The Canon kit lens is sort of a mustache on the Mona Lisa.

J.

Shooting jpeg with a DSLR is like shooting with a P&S. A complete waste of camera and effort. the kit lens is fine. download a free copy of adobe's lightroom 4.1 Beta and shoot in RAW. You will learn a lot very quickly, and learn why it a travasty to shoot jpegs with a DSLR. I agree that if you are buying a 20 or 30D that you would be better off buying the Sigma 18-200 as a first lens, if you have the budget. The 18-200 lives on my 20D, and the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro spends a lot of time on my 5D.

sjprg wrote in post #2214401
Shooting jpeg with a DSLR is like shooting with a P&S. A complete waste of camera and effort.

That's a bit harsh! It's like a film user saying shooting anything other than slide film is a waste of time. I certainly agree that using RAW makes the most of a very powerful tool, but it is not necessary to shoot every shot in RAW

You might have the time and interest to convert and PP every shot - I don't. I use RAW for special occasions - eg portraits and landscapes that i have gone to a lot of trouble over. But I'm certainly not going to shoot a card full of snap shots in RAW. To me, that is a complete waste of time. When I use RAW I work more like there is film in the camera - fully conscious of the investment in time each shot will require.

Horses for courses.

steved110 wrote in post #2214468
That's a bit harsh! It's like a film user saying shooting anything other than slide film is a waste of time. I certainly agree that using RAW makes the most of a very powerful tool, but it is not necessary to shoot every shot in RAW

You might have the time and interest to convert and PP every shot - I don't. I use RAW for special occasions - eg portraits and landscapes that i have gone to a lot of trouble over. But I'm certainly not going to shoot a card full of snap shots in RAW. To me, that is a complete waste of time. When I use RAW I work more like there is film in the camera - fully conscious of the investment in time each shot will require.

Horses for courses.

Well, I think the original comment about shooting jpg being a waste of time was a bit much, but I agree with the sentiment. if you do go the extra step and use something like Lightroom or Aperture for cataloging, programs which also handle printing, there is none of the 'extra' work of RAW and there are also none of the detriments of jpg. RAW is becoming pretty mainstream, and IIRC, there are now cameras that are essentially only providing RAW (DNG) files as output.

In point of fact, in using lightroom or aperture, I don't know how you would know it was raw or jpg but you would be able to access all the data that exists in a RAW file.

So, they JPEG vs RAW debate becomes less and less of an issue every day given the tools that are becoming available.

So, shooting in jpg isn't a TOTAL waste of time, but it is heading in that direction more than it is not.

and, I still think the kit lens is a waste on the XTi.

J.

Maybe I need to spend more time learning how to drive my PC....

but I really hate PP!

Seriously, check out some of the new RAW centric workflow tools. Specifically go and download the Adobe Lightroom beta or Aperture from Apple. Aperture now has a 30 day free download evaluation period.

Both take in your RAW (or jpg, for that matter) masters and then track the changes but never change the masters. They both have complete color managed printing etc...

With these, i don't think a user is going to experience much difference whether the shot is jpg or raw. However, you will receive the benefits of raw and all the convenience of jpg.

J.