Need Advice (Rebel or 20d)?

I need some advice on which model would be good for me. I currently have the 700 powershot & want a SLR camera. I really dont want to spend over $1000. I'm not going to use for professional pics or anything. I love photography & it's just my hobby. I wanted to be able to take nice, clear, sharp pics.

Can anyone point me in the right direction? I'm thinking about the Rebel xti or the 20d?

You wont go wrong with either, they are both great cameras and the quality of pics is going to be near identical for both. Best thing you can do is head up to Best Buy or you local camera store and try the two as the biggest difference between the two are the physical size of the camera. Some like big and some small. Pick the one that fits you best.

thanks. is one better than the other in regards to ease of use? i think i'm gonna lean towards the rebel xti since its smaller, but i heard the flash is poor?

I personally prefer the 20D/30D body over the Rebel bodies. But that's my personal preference. You really can't go wrong either way as far as producing the quality images you're looking for.

It's a matter of feel and comfort. The 20D/30D feels more like a traditional camera to me with the control/setting display on top. I also like the two seperate dials for aperture, exposure compensation and shutterspeed.

20D.

A DSLR won't give you sharper pictures or better or more colorful pixels.. You'll find you have to do more post processing to get DSLR images to look as good as a point and shoot digital camera... As a matter of fact, many people are let down when they realize this.

Unless you plan to spend a few thousand dollars extra for lenses, the only real advantage you'll see with a DSLR is lower noise at high ISO (400+) and a much faster autofocus. (Minimal shutter lag).

If money is an issue, then obviously you should get the XTi

Jim_T wrote in post #3734389
A DSLR won't give you sharper pictures or better or more colorful pixels.. You'll find you have to do more post processing to get DSLR images to look as good as a point and shoot digital camera... As a matter of fact, many people are let down when they realize this.

I'm not sure that I agree with "more PP required" with dSLR. I think if you get aggressive with the sharpening, saturation, and contrast settings you can get P&S type jpgs out of the camera. I have never tried this though so I could be wrong. I guess I should try it.

DDan wrote in post #3734412
I'm not sure that I agree with "more PP required" with dSLR. I think if you get aggressive with the sharpening, saturation, and contrast settings you can get P&S type jpgs out of the camera.

It is quite east to set up the camera so that it takes P&S style sharpening and saturation exactly as you mention. Also, I don't agree that it takes $1000s of dollars of lenses. The basic kit lens performs better. I did some comparison testing a few months ago comparing a Nikon 8700, not a P&S but a compact, the XTi with the kit lens and the XTi with the 17-55. As expected the $1000 lens was clearly the best of the bunch, but the kit lens did just fine as well clearly being better than the compact.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Oh, should have added that all lenses were at 55mm and the pics are 100% center crops. The Nikon was set to ISO40 and the XTi at 100. All lenses were f/5.6

yeah, I also think that a dSLR can take images that are better then your P&S....we didn't have as much PP control in the film days, but SLRs were still popular then. The main thing with a dSLR is it needs a user who knows a few principles of photography. I just remember an acronym my grand dad made up when he got his first P&S camera (he had SLRs, but with Parkinson's and wanting my grandma to feel comfortable with a camera, he thought he'd get something simple). It was their PHD camera (press here dummy).

Since a dSLR is better at dynamic range, noise, DOF, and lighting options, I can't see how a P&S inherently has better PQ in camera.

As for the OP.....I have a 5D (which has a similar size to the 20D), and I recently got a XTi. I was worried that the XTi would be too small......but it's actually not too bad. It forces you to use your left hand to hold the camera....as my right hand doesn't have much to hold on to. But its small size is convenient. I also got the kit lens with it

The quality isn't as good as my 5D with an L lens.....but the camera and kit lens is actually very good for its compact size. I think it might become my totable camera setup when I'm not taking my 5D and bag full of lenses

So the Xti is both a good budget camera, and a good way to stay light with a dSLR.

Go for the Rebel. I love the size of it. It's not big, but it also still has a good solid feel to it. Fits my hands well.

I would go for the 20D, it has all the same auto modes so it is just as easy to use but it wont limit you as you progress. I have both and the 20D smokes any rebel any day.

Headcase650 wrote in post #3735401
... but it wont limit you as you progress. I have both and the 20D smokes any rebel any day.

Interesting comment. Other than ISO 3200, shutter maxing at 8000, 2 FPS, and a smaller screen, what on the XTi do you find limiting?

gjl711 wrote in post #3735433
Interesting comment. Other than ISO 3200, shutter maxing at 8000, 2 FPS, and a smaller screen, what on the XTi do you find limiting?

The "shift" button for aperture. That was my biggest issue with the XT. I just couldn't get my coordination down to hit it instead of the self-timer button. I couldn't shoot M fast enough, so stuck with Av mode most of the time. M came natural once I upgraded to the 30D.

Go for the 20D.