XT vs. XTi

Well originally I posted a question asking if there was a big difference between 8mp and 10.1mp, it's turned into a big discussion and my other questions kind of got buried so I'll repost in a new thread. Thanks.
Here's the original thread https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=246915

sandpiper wrote in post #2347899
Yes, if you think that those added features are important to you.

There isn't going to be any significant difference in the image quality, so it's the features you are paying for.

If you want to improve the image quality, you might do better with a used XT and put the saving towards better glass. Top quality lenses will make far more difference to IQ than the extra pixels.

Only you know how much difference the new features will make to you.

Yeah I've read a few reviews where they said the lens that comes with it isn't very good, so putting the difference in cost onto a better lens is a good suggestion.

Here's a list I got of the new stuff, would appreciate comments on their worth:

1) New 10.1 effective Megapixel CMOS sensor (versus 8.0 on the Rebel XT)
>> so we've already determined it's not a big difference

2) New dust reduction system
>> sounds like a good thing to have, does dust affect the life of the camera or just the image quality? (ie. spots on the picture) And how would you clean the dust without this feature?

3) Large 2.5" LCD display (versus 1.8" on the XT)
>> this seems like a nice feature, being able to see things a little more clearly

No more LCD info display (the main LCD is used instead)
>> well this creates room for a bigger LCD, anyone who's experienced both types of info displays, does this make it easier to use?

4) 9-point autofocus system (versus 7-point)
>> this one I don't know anything about can someone explain what exactly this means, and if 2 more points makes much of a difference?

5) Can now take more shots in a row in burst mode (27 vs 14 JPEG, 10 vs 6 RAW)
>> always been interested in having this feature on a camera, it nearly has double the amount of pictures in a row

6) New Picture Styles feature, first seen on the EOS-5D and 30D
>> I guess this makes it a little more user friendly for someone who doesn't know the best manual settings for landscape, portrait etc

7) Battery life is 10% lower than on the XT
>> I think I read this is due to the larger LCD, 10% doesn't sound like a lot but when actually using it do you notice it more? Also read the battery grip adds more battery life.

Any other comments welcomed

oh and after I've researched the two a little more I will check them out in the store to get a better feel for them too.

#7) I used my Xti at a football game is IS turned on all Night (3.5hrs), I took over 400 shots and battery didnt die. I hope that helps. I personally think that the Xti battery life is longer, if you are constantly taking pics they LCD sensor is keeping the LCD off, there for conserving battery life.

#9 I know this might not help but my Xti focuses faster with my 70-200mm F/2.8 than my friends XT.

2) Image quality. Without that, you'd use Rocket blower, Copperhill or Eclipse/PecPads (any of which are searchable for full details on how). And there's no guarantee that you won't need to clean the sensor using one of these methoods even with the self-cleaning sensor.
3) NO Rebel-family experience, but the bigger LCD on my 5D is nicer than the small one on my 20D (LCD, not sensor, which is also nice).
4) It's not just 9 vs. 7 it's that the 9-point system (also used in the 30D) is faster and more accurate, especially ith fast lenses.
7) IIRC you can also control how much the LCD stays on, which will help. I wouldn't worry too much anyway. Whether you change it every 350 shots or every 400 isn't going to be that much bother.

if you want the added features go with the xti

if you want to save a $100, go with the xt

XTi is nice camera by all means but it is not worth difference in price.
Get yourself used XT and let yourself grow out of your camera in the years to come.
Put the rest of the money towards next lens or flash.

IMHO..

Well the new features sound nice to me but I was asking for opinions 'cause maybe they aren't such a big deal in some people's experience
It'll actually be $175 more.. I guess I'm leaning more towards the XT now, considering I don't have experience with this kind of camera, I won't know what I'm missing lol.

by the way, I live in Toronto too Hermeto, where do you get your camera stuff? Henry's?

No, Henry’s is the most expensive!
I bought my camera at Henry’s, 24-70 at Vistek and everything else from B&H..
Most of the time it is much cheaper.
You live and learn..

Right now I have two lenses from B&H in transit..

The only significant difference IMHO is point 4 - the autofocus system. It's not the fact that it has 9 points vs 7 that matters. The AF system on the 400D is much more accurate with fast lenses (f/2.8 and better). The keeper rate with my 100mm f/2 is much better with the 400D than it was with the 350D.
If that's not important to you (e.g. if you have no fast lenses or don't shoot with them wide open very often) I'd save the money and get the 350D.

Hermeto wrote in post #2355429
No, Henry’s is the most expensive!
I bought my camera at Henry’s, 24-70 at Vistek and everything else from B&H..
Most of the time it is much cheaper.
You live and learn..

Right now I have two lenses from B&H in transit..

Their prices seem good, although you have to factor in the exchange rate (I guess the American dollar is still low though) and shipping...and customs fees, do you get charged those when ordering? What about tax?

@gcogger, I guess it depends which lens I decide to get too.

vicereine wrote in post #2356394
Their prices seem good, although you have to factor in the exchange rate (I guess the American dollar is still low though) and shipping...and customs fees, do you get charged those when ordering? What about tax?

@gcogger, I guess it depends which lens I decide to get too.

Exchange rates are very good these days, there is no duty fees for camera equipment, brokerage fees are included in shipping fees (if you use the right option) - you only pay PST and GST - just the same as you pay for anything else in Canada.

All in all, it’s about 30% less than Henry’s.
For ME, that’s more than enough!

I have both the XT and XTi. Bottom line is the XTi is worth the extra money...

1) New 10.1 effective Megapixel CMOS sensor (versus 8.0 on the Rebel XT)

Not a big difference but if printing you gain about an 1 inch on an 8 inch print or so.

2) New dust reduction system

Works fine...doesn’t hurt to have it. One less hassle to deal with.

3) Large 2.5" LCD display (versus 1.8" on the XT)

The number one reason to get the Xti... Super fast image review and camera settings much, much easier and fast to select. Also easier to read menu.

4) 9-point autofocus system (versus 7-point)

Number two reason to get the Xti...I shot sports with the Xti and not the XT so I can’t compare...all I can say is when shooting sports with the Xti and 70-200 f2.8 IS lens, 99% of all images are in focus and scary sharp.

If shooting in low light the Xti would probably be a better than the XT....but my XT does an admiral job.

5) Can now take more shots in a row in burst mode (27 vs 14 JPEG, 10 vs 6 RAW)

Every little bit helps!

7) Battery life is 10% lower than on the XT

It’s really not an issue. The Xti’s LCD will suck the life out of the batteries fairly quickly...but I set mine to off and can shoot all day on one battery.

I believe I did post a response to your first post so...I copy paste here

1)I agree.Only in extreme conditions(LARGE prints) and heavy cropping it might be helpfull but not a big deal.

2)I see some difference between my 10D and my new 400D(many lens changes) with more than 1200 pics and practicly NO dust even at f32.

3)It is good to be bigger and brighter and higher resolution.I think that the info at the back is good(big,clear to see letters).It does not bother me.

4)The MOST significant upgrade in my opinion.The difference between 7 and 9 AF-points is that the center point is more accurate especialy with fast glass 2.8 and faster.Better focus period.

5)Good upgrade

6)Well for me not a big deal but why not

7)Same processor, same battery but more futures it is normal to have less battery power.I have the grip and 3 batteries.No power problem.

On #4, maybe I am misunderstanding the whole multi-point auto focus thing, but I use just the center point only. It seems that every time I let the camera choose what to focus on it's a crap shoot. Sometimes it chooses the foreground, sometimes an object in the middle, sometimes something in the back. It seems easier to focus on the subject I choose using the center point, and then reframe. What am I missing?

1) You are right, if you want to see the difference in size of 100% crop between the two, goto dpreview.com and see the 400D's test. The difference is pretty trivial, especially if you don't print poster size. If you do, a 5D or a 1DsMII would be better.

2) The dust cleaning feature is a nice one to have but you can clean the sensor by flipping the mirror up and blowing the dust off or clean it with an eclipse system. There is a feature on DPP to remove dust spot in post processing as well. So if you are familiar with dslr's it's not a big deal. If you aren't and don't want to mess with the mirror and sensor, then it might be helpful to have. Dust does not harm the camera, just puts spot on the digital image.

3) In my view, the larger LCD is very nice. It also have wider angle from which the image can be viewed. I personally don't think the little display being incorporated to LCD is a big deal.

4) Not a big deal in the no. of AF points, however, it can now focus faster with lenses wiht f2.8 or faster, so that might be the bigger deal.

5) Given everything else is equal, more buffer is always nicer, especially if you shoot events or sports where you take multiple shots quickly.

6) Picture style is a little bit more user friendly way to set up your JPEG pictures, not a big deal either way in my view.

7) Battery life isn't too good with either one. If you are concerned, get the battery grip or an aftermarket battery. With two, you can easily shoot 700 shots or more on a single charge. Many aftermarket batteries also hold more charge and costs a lot less too. Opteka on amazon sells the same grip as the Canon version for almost half the price. The XTi is suppose to feel a touch better in the hand but adding a grip would make it much nicer to hold.

Having owned the Xt, If it was me, I'd get the XTi, mainly for the faster/better AF, the larger LCD, and the larger buffer.

I would get XTi.

"1) New 10.1 effective Megapixel CMOS sensor (versus 8.0 on the Rebel XT)
>> so we've already determined it's not a big difference"

You get about 12% more resolution on each dimension. It is not a big deal as pointed out by so many people. But think about it in perspective: many considers the Sigma 18-200mm or Tamron 18-200mm being soft. But the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L (which costs 3-4 times as much with much less zoom range) is only 15% sharper (see photozone.de) and many still consider it worthwhile. So the 12% increase in resolution on the XTi should be considered well worth it, plus the extra money for XTi also gets you faster and more accurate auto focussing, lower noise, dust cleaning, etc.