New Canon Rebel XTi

It looks great, and not near as expensive as I thought it would be.

http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/03/25/canon.rebel.t1i/

The one we like most is called Creative Auto by Canon, and is essentially an easy way to tweak settings while letting the camera take care of the heavy lifting. The camera remains in auto mode, but the user can choose from English-language options, like “Darker/Brighter" or “Blur Background" to customize the image. For beginners not coming from a manual camera background, this is a great way to learn without actually messing things up.

Otherwise, there isn’t much that stands out, other than a good top “film speed".

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2009/03/canon-500d-hi-d.html

I'm passing on this one.

For beginners not coming from a manual camera background, this is a great way to learn without actually messing things up.

There is no "messing things up" by exploring manual shooting. There is a learning curve but the rewards are so much better control of your images than any preset or "English-language options" can offer, it is worth taking the time to learn to shoot manually in RAW image format. If a person is only going to shoot in 'program' mode or one of the automatic modes there really is little advantage to shooting with a DSLR over a nice point and shoot camera IMO. In fact in automatic modes I think many of the better point and shoots have better image quality than DSLRs.

Edit to clarify I realize that the above quote is from a review, my criticism isn't directed at you NashVegas
.

If you're not messing up, you're not learning, are you?

I took it as a cue that the writer was saying experienced photographers probably wouldn't have much use for it, without directly insulting the manufacturer for putting out an $800 toy.

I tried using the automatic "sports" mode at the Iditarod start, but it became apparent very quickly that the photos weren't nearly as good as the ones where I used manual settings.

about these new Canons is that menu on the back that shows all your settings. It's so easy to navigate and much, much easier to read than the settings on the top of the camera. I find myself using the 50D much more than the 5D just because it's so much easier.

I feel somewhat blessed that the Rebel series are just named 350D-400D-450D - and now 500D for this one, here in Europe :)

in some ways, I hate looking at new DSLRs because I still haven't learned everything about my almost two-year old Rebel XTi. I plan on keeping it even when it's a dinosaur in just a few short years. I used my old Pentax K-1000 for at least a couple of decades. I stopped using film due to my perception of the environmental impact that film manufacture, processing and printing create. Yet, it looks like we've created something worse that way with the fully electronic cameras.

It would seem to me that the only parts of the camera that truly change in tech are the CCD and the viewer in back. There's no reason the rest of the controls couldn't remain the same and all you do is switch out the CCD or maybe the whole back every few years and keep the rest of the frame and optics. The battery tech isn't changing that fast, and the memory cards haven't changed in shape or data contact-points all that much, either. If they do, then design the camera in such a way that those parts that change the most can be quickly switched out. And you have to wonder if the manufacturer doesn't do this already, only in the factory.

I know, the makers wouldn't make as much money if they made things modular, but it really irks me to see so many cameras created and tossed aside so much faster than they were in the film age. It almost makes me want to get a 4x5 camera again and just get a digital back for it, replacing it over the years as needed ;)

15mp/21mp is a very large file capable of producing a high quality very large print. High ISO performance has also improved significantly and will continue to improve for a few more cycles. After that I believe improvements aren't going to be as significant or important to most shooters and we will see people keeping their cameras longer.

But then I read about such things as "Superatoms" that are clusters of atoms capable of mimicking other elements :o

http://www.rexresearch.com/castleman/castleman.htm

I have to wonder what that would do to resolution technologies...

I won't get rid of it, I will pass it to my wife. She's got an S110 and she will give it to our great niece.

My first digital was an Olympus C-3030, and as far as I know, my past-wife is still using it :)

I'm not saying that most of these cameras (or the ones most of us here would buy) are cheapies. Only that it's kind of like buying what you thought was a bargain on something only to turn around and find a friend bought it for half as much and it has twice as many features added on. It's that sinking feeling from "if only I had waited another few months." If cameras were modular for the parts that change the most over time, it wouldn't be so bad learning of the "latest and greatest". We all drooled over that Mamiya last week, but know that, realistically, it's out of our league for price and possibly use. The latest Canon is something we can afford, though likely even then only "upgrading" after five years or more.

I'll just have to ignore these kinds of posts unless I'm truly looking for a new camera. And the only new camera I'm in the market for (other than possibly an IR one eventually) is a Canon point'n'shoot PowerShot SX200 IS :D

(from the Specifications page)



I don't know enough about CCDs to know if that's good, bad or average.

tout the same megapixel. The 1/2.3 falls in the middle according to this page:

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/sensor_sizes_01.htm

it's very informative and helpful :)

The image processor - the new DIGIC IV is quite a bit better than the one in the XTi. I have the XTi/400D. Two of my friends have bought the 450D/XSi lately - and the images look noticeably better out of the box, from what I can tell.

But the main thing that has me thinking about upgrade from time to time is autofocus and ISO abilities. Thats where the camera house really has an influence on whether you get the shot or not. Can't really tell if this model improves much on its predecessors in the line on those accounts.

6 or 20 mega pixels does not move me much. I can see what the older top of line digital cameras can do with a lot less mega pixels, so I know that it is a publicity stunt more than anything, when they market them. But its the one thing the average consumer can immediately understand, measure and compare on when it comes to cameras.

as I see that more as "staying power" as the resolutions advance. I am still amazed and impressed with what I can get out of the 10mp I have on my XTi, and I'll likely be happy with it for some time to come. I will admit I was a little disappointed that the ISO didn't go below 100. Remember the film "TechPan 25"? I'd love to have an ISO rating go that low on a digital :D (unless there's some 'trick' to mimicking that...)

I learned that doing astrophotography.

Unless you are making huge enlargements or severely cropping, ten or twelve megapixels is more than sufficient for most purposes..

What really gives the most visible improvements in your pictures is low noise, high sensitivity and high dynamic range, all of which are compromised in the race for ever more pixels in the image. Fewer pixels usually means larger photosites on the sensor chip and, all else being equal, larger photosites give lower noise and higher sensitivity and, in a backhanded sort of way, higher dynamic range.

The very best amateur planetary astrophotography these days is being done with Philips webcams using image stacking to achieve high dynamic range and low noise. Hundreds of exposures are taken and analyzed individually for sharpness with the less sharp images being discarded and the sharpest images aligned with each other and added together. In planetary photography sharpness is strongly influenced by atmospheric phenomena, I've literally seen the Moon look like a pot of boiling oatmeal through a telescope in conditions of strong atmospheric turbulence. Basically, if the stars are twinkling then high resolution photography of the skies is very difficult to impossible.

http://www.darkerview.com/photography/webcam.php