Is this just more camera than I need?

I was given a Canon Eos Rebel XSi for Christmas (with the 18-55 IS kit lens) and i have been researching a zoom lens almost ever since (sports, plays, school program, etc.). I went so far as to buy a lens (55-250 IS) at Ritz and return it within the 10 day grace period. I recently tried my friends Sony H50 (sorry for the blasphemy). But at $330 and a 18-400ish zoom and a point and shoot, should I sell the XSi and downgrade? Is downgrading unheard of? What is the basic difference? Will my pictures of the kids be that much better? Crazy novice needs help!!!!!

Your Rebel will be more versatile (interchangeable lenses), have greater low light capability (if you get the appropriate lens), and lower noise (higher quality images) than the Sony. But, ultimately the choice depends on what you want to get out of your photography. For some, a point and shoot is fine if all they ever expect to do is family and vacation snapshots. If, however, you want a system that can expand as you improve your photographic skills, that is, you want to learn more about the craft of photography and create images as opposed to just taking snapshots, you're better off with a DSLR such as the Rebel.

I'm not saying you can't be creative with a point and shoot, but I am saying there are limitations with the Sony that you will soon run up against if you intend to become a good photographer.

Without having had any personal experience with the specific camera models you are/have used beside what Mark said one of the big advantages of the SLR over the P&S is the lag in taking a photo. DSLRs take the photo when you press the shutter and not a some time in the future when the subject has moved and is generally ready immediately to take another photograph.

Why did you return the 55-250? Were you happier using the Sony?

I'm asking because from what I've heard the 55-250 is a nice lens for its low price and can get you started shooting at longer ranges. The Sony will reach a bit longer, but then you will be at its limits without adding adapters.

Like Mark said, the XSi gives qualities and capabilities that will out-do the Sony if your photography aspirations extend to more than basic photography. You mention sports and indoor events, and to get satisfying results in those venues you will get better results keeping the XSi and looking for one or two "fast" lenses to let you shoot effectively in lower light.

You got a nice gift! Enjoy it!

If your going to be shooting plays and school functions you will want the low light capabilities of a DSLR, unless you don't mind noisy pictures. For sports a DSLR is also better than a P&S, higher FPS, less or no shutter lag. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the 55-250 equate to 400mm (35mm equiv) on the long end with the 1.6x crop factor? Same as the Sony you are referring to. Why did you get rid of the 55-250? I love that lens. It spends a lot of time on my XSI.

Since I don't have any photography experience I had a coronary over the $ (I know it was good for what I got) and I did a lot of test shots and couldn't find a noticeable difference with the IS on or off...why...what should i have seen?

mishymama wrote in post #7496441
Since I don't have any photography experience I had a coronary over the $ (I know it was good for what I got) and I did a lot of test shots and couldn't find a noticeable difference with the IS on or off...why...what should i have seen?

IS only helps you when you're shooting slower shutter speeds when hand-holding the camera. It compensates for camera shake and allows for a sharper image.

thanks Mark Cohran. I am certainly having a hard time with all the info and lingo!!!!

mishymama, I recommend that you slow down a bit...don't make any major purchases just yet. Try to learn the basics of ISO, shutter speed and aperture. Do some research on what type of lenses best suit the photography you want to do. Then maybe think about how much time and money you really want to put into this hobby. You can get great results without expensive gear, but you need to know the limitations of your gear and what you're trying to achieve.

Sports,plays, low light stuff, nothing beats a SLR. Don't forget that your friend is stuck to f2.8 at the widest and only f4.5 to f7 at the longest. In low light, these plus the fact that he can't use ISO above 400 means that there will be some pretty poor pictures... I would suggest a 50 1.8 or a 85 1.8 for sports and plays (if both are indoor), and it will give you much better pictures without loosing money by selling equipment.

If you need the money for something else though, by all means, but i doubt that you're that bad off that selling the camera is for the better.

Ok everyone...what does this mean..."Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the 55-250 equate to 400mm (35mm equiv) on the long end"(Newtophoto). Does this mean I haven't been comparing apples to apples. I thought the 55 and 250 were mm. Also..."I would suggest a 50 1.8 or a 85 1.8 for sports and plays (if both are indoor)"(basroil). what lenses are these or are they settings? If lenses what kind? Sorry for my naivity.

The 85 1.8 is the best lens for low light since it doesn't hunt and it is super fast.

mishymama wrote in post #7496845
Ok everyone...what does this mean..."Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the 55-250 equate to 400mm (35mm equiv) on the long end"(Newtophoto). Does this mean I haven't been comparing apples to apples. I thought the 55 and 250 were mm. Also..."I would suggest a 50 1.8 or a 85 1.8 for sports and plays (if both are indoor)"(basroil). what lenses are these or are they settings? If lenses what kind? Sorry for my naivity.

Your camera has a 1.6x crop, which is a way of saying that a 35mm frame is 1.6x larger (on both sides) than the sensor in your camera. This creates a narrower field of view, so the 55-250 would give you an equivalent field of view to an 88-400mm on a 35mm digital or film camera. The focal length range is technically 55-250mm. Often when point and shoot manufacturers state a focal length range, they are stating the equivalent range on a 35mm camera based on the FOV, not the actual focal length.

A 50mm f/1.8 or 85mm f/1.8 lens allows you to shoot with a wide aperture (f/1.8 _), which lets more light into the camera and enables you to shoot at higher shutter speeds. These lenses do not zoom, they are a single focal length and are commonly called prime lenses.

mishymama wrote in post #7496845
Ok everyone...what does this mean..."Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the 55-250 equate to 400mm (35mm equiv) on the long end"(Newtophoto). Does this mean I haven't been comparing apples to apples. I thought the 55 and 250 were mm. Also..."I would suggest a 50 1.8 or a 85 1.8 for sports and plays (if both are indoor)"(basroil). what lenses are these or are they settings? If lenses what kind? Sorry for my naivity.

Before writing anything else here, go tothis site and read EVERYTHING. If you have any questions after that then I will be happy to answer them.

The biggest problem for the OP in understanding right now is that you are focussed on reach and nothing else. In this case, the Sony and the SLR (using the 55-250) would appear to be equals as they have roughly equal angles of view at maximum zoom.

Comparing strictly available zoom ranges, one would wonder why anyone would use SLR cameras. They need multiple lenses to cover the ranges, the are bulky and they are expensive.

The reasons to use SLR cameras are many actually but here are the two pertinent to the OP's questions:
1. Light. Most situations that parents (especially) and photographers in general want to capture are not brightly lit. SLR cameras have large sensors and can be used at very high ISO levels like 1600 and even 3200 with image quality that is still very good. Few P&S cameras are acceptable above ISO200.

This means the SLR shooter comes home from the dance receital with nice shots and the P&S user has a combination of too much blur and noise.

2) SLR cameras are fast to focus and shoot. This allows you to shoot action and sports and not miss so many shots.