XSI or 40D?

[Optimus Rhyme]

I'm sure many people hate these posts, but I figured it was worth a shot in asking.

I currently have a Canon Powershot S5 IS, and while I love the camera I've decided to join the world of DSLR photography, but I just haven't quite figured out which camera to start me off with.

I basically have two choices, and since I'm new to DSLRs I have an idea of which one of the two you guys will suggest.

The Canon Digital Rebel XSI which comes out in April or the Canon EOS-40D.

I'll give you a little idea on why I'm choosing between the two and then you can make your choice on which one would suit me best.

I love to photograph anything and everything. I wouldn't say I'm someone who takes pictures of something in particular but I do love sunset photography. I plan to do lots of HDR photos too, so that's also a factor. I'm interested in macro shots too, but haven't yet played around with that too much yet.

I'm also thinking of this as more of a long term purchase. I find myself buying a new camera almost every year because the camera is just slightly missing out on something I want etc. In this case would that mean that if I chose an XSI over the 40D that I would be missing anything from the 40D?

I'm a huge photography fan and want to continue taking more and more photographs now and figure it's time to invest in some good equipment rather than a $300 point and shoot. I don't mind the cost difference between the two either, so that's not an issue.

I'd love to hear your thoughts. Thanks guys.

 

[M@lew]

They'll both do the job. Want the portability or 6.5 fps. You'll need to look at the features and just decide if they're for you and if you can justify the cost. Nothing else we can really say. You'll always be missing something no matter which camera you go with, so if you reckon you'll buy a new camera in a years time, just buy the XSI and save yourself some $$.

 

[Scarlet Fever]

You'll always be missing something no matter which camera you go with

What do you mean by that?

 

[jdavtz]

6.5fps is good for handheld HDR things (especially with an image stabilised lens). I don't know what speed the XSI will be able to do.

Also you must hold both cameras physically in your hands; the 40D is very different in size and weight from the 400D (which I presume is similar to how the XSI will be - I've not looked).

In fact, as you've said you don't mind the cost difference, then probably the only reason NOT to get the 40D is if you don't like the size/weight in your hands.

 

[OreoCookie]

Get the smaller camera and invest in lenses instead. Give us your budget and we'll be happy to recommend some nice glass

 

[Abstract]

Get the 40D. That way, you'll have a fantastic camera and will have nobody to complain to when you think "Hey, my camera isn't giving me the quality I want!" Let it be the "camera purchase that end all camera purchases."

 

[NeXTCube]

Underspend on body, overspend on lenses

I've gotta go with OreoCookie on this one and say you're better off putting the extra dough into lenses rather than the body. Get the XSi (body only)with the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM lens. It will rock your world.

When you get an SLR, you're not buying a body, you're buying a lens system. Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Sony/Minolta all have deep, excellent autofocus lens collections built up over the last 20 years. All are supported by respectable third-party lensmakers Sigma, Tamron and Tokina.

And seriously, don't overlook Pentax and Sony (Minolta). Their DSLRs have built-in image stabilization, which magically will make all of your lenses "IS"/"VR". The late, great Herb Keppler carried a Pentax *ist. And a Pentax K10D with the Pentax 16-50 f/2.8 (Popular Photography review)will be very competitive with the Canon and Nikon offerings. Pentax also has unique offerings like their "pancake lenses" that no one else has.

(Full disclosure - I started out as a Nikon guy, then went Canon when I switched to autofocus. I stayed Canon when I went digital because I'd already made an investment in lenses and other accessories.)

 

[scotthayes]

Get the smaller camera and invest in lenses instead. Give us your budget and we'll be happy to recommend some nice glass

I've gotta go with OreoCookie on this one and say you're better off putting the extra dough into lenses rather than the body.

Totally agree, a good lens can make a huge difference. I'm now saving up for a 24-70 f/2.8 L to go with my 70-200 f/4 L.

 

[Wingnut330]

I actually bought an XTi and returned it so I could get the XSi when it comes out. I'm an entry level shooter and this is my first SLR, so I wanted to get something that I can grow in to. The 40D is nice but it is much bigger - to me anyway. I'm sure others would disagree, but it seemed too big for a carry around camera for me. Keep in mind I'm coming from a pocket held P&S.

There are a few key features of the XSi that I like. Check out the Ken Rockwell review at http://www.kenrockwell.com - it's a nice write up.

 

[phiberglass]

I would get the XSi and invest in Glass.

Glass is much more important than the body.

 

[crazyskillz07]

Either body will be great. Like the person above me said, look into some good glass. Maybe buy a 28-70 2.8L and the XSI. Depends on your budget.

 

[colinmack]

Between those two options, definitely get an XSi...

You may also want to try out a Nikon or two as well, the 18-200 VR is a nice all-around lens without a native equivalent from Canon.

 

[jdsam]

I've gotta go with OreoCookie on this one and say you're better off putting the extra dough into lenses rather than the body. Get the XSi (body only)with the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM lens. It will rock your world.

He is very right about the 17-55, I bought myself a 40D and that lens around christmas this year and love the combination. I love the feel and options that I get with the 40D, and the lens is just something else. The feature that I see as a huge advantage for me over the XTi and XSi is the 6.5 frames per second. If you plan on shooting any kind of sporting event the 6.5 vs 3 fps is a substantial difference.

I can't speak for the XSi, but I know for sure if you go with the 40D you won't be let down.

J

 

[Optimus Rhyme]

OK, so it looks like I'm leaning towards the XSI then. But would you guys really recommend not getting it with the lens kit? It's not that much more and it might be a decent starter lens. I think I'd like to get the 100mm macro lens, whatever it was called as it sounded like a great one as well as maybe a great landscape lens. Any suggestions in macro and landscape?

 

[jdsam]

OK, so it looks like I'm leaning towards the XSI then. But would you guys really recommend not getting it with the lens kit? It's not that much more and it might be a decent starter lens. I think I'd like to get the 100mm macro lens, whatever it was called as it sounded like a great one as well as maybe a great landscape lens. Any suggestions in macro and landscape?

In my opinion the 17-55 IS is a great landscape and walk around lens. From my personal experience and many of the reviews I read, before I chose that lens for my 40D, it is some of the nicest glass you can get in that range.

J

 

[Optimus Rhyme]

He is very right about the 17-55, I bought myself a 40D and that lens around christmas this year and love the combination. I love the feel and options that I get with the 40D, and the lens is just something else. The feature that I see as a huge advantage for me over the XTi and XSi is the 6.5 frames per second. If you plan on shooting any kind of sporting event the 6.5 vs 3 fps is a substantial difference.

I can't speak for the XSi, but I know for sure if you go with the 40D you won't be let down.

J

That's really one of the only things that has me more interested in the 40D would be the 6.5fps compared to the 3 for the XSI. The only reason would be for shooting HDR photos, but I may just shoot in RAW so the difference wouldn't really be much of an issue.

 

[jdsam]

If you plan on doing much post production work I would highly recommend shooting in RAW (as long as you can handle/afford the storage space). On the side of HDR I would highly recommend shooting from a tripod, shooting the bracketed shots is much easier and more forgiving if you are just set up on a tripod, especially while learning.

 

[Optimus Rhyme]

If you plan on doing much post production work I would highly recommend shooting in RAW (as long as you can handle/afford the storage space). On the side of HDR I would highly recommend shooting from a tripod, shooting the bracketed shots is much easier and more forgiving if you are just set up on a tripod, especially while learning.

I've done some HDR photos with a tripod before as my current camera is only capable of 1.5fps, so a tripod is definitely a necessity.

I will be storing all my photos on an external HD, so storage space isn't an issue.

I sometimes prefer how bracketed HDR shots look compared to a RAW shot formed into an HDR, but then again I haven't experimented with RAW HDR shots yet myself so I can't say about my own shots.

 

[SubaruNation555]

I am in exactly the same situation and I am leaning toward the XSi because I don't think the price difference is worth it for my needs. However I am not going to make up my mind until the XSi is out and reviewed and I can visit my local shop and physically hold each one.

If you choose the 40D body (~$1,100) over the XSi body (~$800) you get the following advantages:

-6.5fps vs. 3.5fps
-1/8000th vs. 1/4000th/sec max shutter speed
-3200 ISO
-Top LCD/rear control dial which some prefer
-Kelvin white balance
-Larger, more "quality" feel (based from various review of the XTi and 40D)
-Slightly better battery life

When all is said and done both will take excellent images when coupled with a quality lens. The $300 you save can be used to by lenses, memory cards, a case, a tripod, a flash, grip/extra battery or online photo hosting.

You just have to ask yourself if these extra features are worth the money and if you choose the XSi will you feel like you settled?

 

[Mr_Brightside_@]

-Larger, more "quality" feel (based from various review of the XTi and 40D)

Personally I find the 30D (yes, 30) way too hefty in my hands while the XTi fits nicely. I'd say try them out first. But I'm getting the XSi.

 

[Optimus Rhyme]

I will say that I do too like a slightly smaller camera. I've held the XTI and the 40D and I do prefer the size of the XTI, but then again I haven't held them long, just briefly.

I'm almost positive I will be going for the XSI, but still not fully sure. I do want to wait for the reviews basically. It will give me more time to decide on which lenses to purchase. I do really like the looks of the lens recommended earlier, but it's $1100 Canadian, which is more than I'd like to spend. I think I'd prefer to spend around $1200-$1500 and purchase a good macro and a good all around lens. My only problem is I'm not really that knowledgeable when it comes to lenses, or even DSLR cameras for that matter. I just know that I want to buy something that will be more of a long term purchase.

I'm going to be looking up on lenses over the next few days/weeks/months and see what I can find. Any recommendations on anything is more than welcome. I'll probably stick with Canon ones, and I've decided that when it comes to macro I will most likely go with the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM. I'm thinking that I may stick with the lens that the XSI comes with, but maybe get something better. Not fully sure yet, opinions are more than welcome.

 

[Optimus Rhyme]

OK, I think I may have found my lenses.

EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM

I'd just buy the camera without the lens.

Any thoughts?

 

[OreoCookie]

Definitely not a good combo.
The 24-105 is not a good walkaround lens, because it corresponds to 38-168 on film. I suggest you start with a 2.8/16~18-50 by Tokina, Sigma or even Tamron. The macro lens is fine, but only sensible if you actually do lots of macro shots. Otherwise you'll be better served with a 1.8/50~80 or so which is much better for portraits.

 

[NeXTCube]

Definitely not a good combo.
The 24-105 is not a good walkaround lens, because it corresponds to 38-168 on film. I suggest you start with a 2.8/16~18-50 by Tokina, Sigma or even Tamron. The macro lens is fine, but only sensible if you actually do lots of macro shots. Otherwise you'll be better served with a 1.8/50~80 or so which is much better for portraits.

I can personally recommend the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 (Pop Photo review); I own one and have had very good luck with it. The big advantages of the f/2.8 lenses are the brighter viewfinder and faster autofocus; at the wide end it's letting in twice as much light, and at the zoom end four times as much light as the f/4-5.6 lenses do. It's half the price of the Canon lens; B&H in NYC has them for $419US.

 

[Optimus Rhyme]

Definitely not a good combo.
The 24-105 is not a good walkaround lens, because it corresponds to 38-168 on film. I suggest you start with a 2.8/16~18-50 by Tokina, Sigma or even Tamron. The macro lens is fine, but only sensible if you actually do lots of macro shots. Otherwise you'll be better served with a 1.8/50~80 or so which is much better for portraits.

I'm a little puzzled as to where you got the 24-105 from? I didn't plan to get that one.

I'm pretty sure I'll be going for the 100mm though, I just need a good general lens then if people don't recommend the one that comes in the kit.