Just got the Rebel XT - Questions...

[Goldorak]

Hi all,

I've just purchased the Silver Rebel XT with the Kit lens. After playing with it, my 1st impressions are good but not as WOW as I was with my wife's Nikon D50.
For some reason, photos don't look as crisp and there is too much color cast. Now, since the camera is supposed to be a very good one, it is probably my fault.

The reason I went for the Canon and not the Nikon D50 is for:
- Better frame rate: Need continuous shooting for tennis lessons
- RAW+Fine JPG together is a must (D50 only has RAW+Basic JPG)
- 7-pt autofocus system
- Back-lit LCD
- 8MB pixels

I have a few questions:
----------------------
1- What parameter is best suited for skin tones: I think the defaults are too over-saturated and so I've tried # 2 which seems better but still not perfect though.

2- What focus is best for capturing moving kids (face tracking really) and tennis swings? AI Servo never seems to focus. Should I use AI Single with center focus and then keep moving this focus point on the target? This is a major change for me as the D50's continuous focus is a real pleasure to use.

3- Camera shake: I've noticed that I slightly move the camera upon the shutter release, thus producing blurry/ghosting pics sometimes. Since I have not had this problem with the D50 I can only assume that this is due to the very compact design/size of the Rebel XT. Any tips on holding this camera securely?

4- Built-in flash: Flash WB still produces too much warm tones. I tried custom WB (white pic as reference) and it is better but not as good as I'd like it to be. Any recommendation?

5- Possible body defect: There is a clicking sound coming from the flash when tilting the camera. I presume this is due to the flash rails since they are kind of loose to allow proper sliding and the click is gone once the flash is popped-up. Is this normal? Since the unit is very new (came with Firmware 1.0.3) I almost sure it is not a design defect.

Thank you all for your help.
BTW, please don't say 'Get a Nikon and problem solved' as I need a camera like the XT and my budget is $ 900.00 max.

[aparmley]

Sounds like you should return the XT and pick up the D70s or a D50. :D

[cdifoto]

Get a Nikon and you and your wife can share lenses. *Problems* solved!

[Goldorak]

As stated earlier, I do have a specific need, thus my choice of the Rebel XT.
I can only assume that mockers are simply ignorant.

Anyway, I'd appreciate any useful comments...

[aparmley]

I have a few questions:
----------------------
1- What parameter is best suited for skin tones: I think the defaults are too over-saturated and so I've tried # 2 which seems better but still not perfect though.

I use the default - perhaps my knowledge of proper skin tones is not where it should be - I apply a little saturation/contrast/ and sharpening to all my photos.


2- What focus is best for capturing moving kids (face tracking really) and tennis swings? AI Servo never seems to focus. Should I use AI Single with center focus and then keep moving this focus point on the target? This is a major change for me as the D50's continuous focus is a real pleasure to use.

That would be AI Servo with Center Point focus selected.


3- Using iPhoto and viewing the pictures at 100% produces not as crisp details as with the D50. Could it be the 2MB pixels difference?

Hard to say with out seeing what you saw. 2 MP difference? I don't know, I know that when moving from 5 mp to 8mp I had to zoom in a little until the photo looked good, my computer monitor could not resolve the detail of an 8mp file. . . but that doesn't sound like your problem. I know that when I am at 100% zoom nothing is sharply in focus. IDK maybe just the XTs focusing issues.


4- Camera shake: I've noticed that I slightly move the camera upon the shutter release, thus producing blurry/ghosting pics sometimes. Since I have not had this problem with the D50 I can only assume that this is due to the very compact design/size of the Rebel XT. Any tips on holding this camera securely?

Use the proper lens/ISO/AV/SS settings for the scene. Don't be afraid to bump up the ISO to 800 or 1600. High ISO images are very clean with the XT, add a little neat image at the default settings and the images are very clean.


5- Built-in flash: Flash WB still produces too much warm tones. I tried custom WB (white pic as reference) and it is better but not as good as with the D50. Any recommendation?

Never cared for the pop up flash - can't help you there. I much prefer available light photographs. IF I must - bouncing the 550 off the ceiling.


6- Possible body defect: There is a clicking sound coming from the flash when tilting the camera. I presume this is due to the flash rails since they are kind of loose to allow proper sliding and the click is gone once the flash is popped-up. Is this normal? Since the unit is very new (came with Firmware 1.0.3) I almost sure it is not a design defect.

Thank you all for your help.

That click is normal, everyone I have spoken to who owns the XT has the same click in the pop up flash track.

Most importantly the performance of the XT is a function of the quality of lens you are using. What lenses are you using.

My suggestion to you is that if you are wanting to utilizing the Drive mode in DSLRS for tennis training, 3fps of the XT and even the 5 fps of the 20D are not going to catch enough of the serve or return to give you enough frames to use as intended. . . maybe the 8fps of the 1D MkII

[aparmley]

As stated earlier, I do have a specific need, thus my choice of the Rebel XT.
I can only assume that mockers are simply ignorant.

Anyway, I'd appreciate any useful comments...

Simma down there fella - we like to keep a light and fruity mood around here. . . I was getting to a response that you may find useful . . . :D

[jamison55]

I don't think anyone here is mocking you, just making light of the fact that you seem to prefer the look of the out-of-camera images of the D50. I don't know about the flash rattle (haven't noticed it in my XT, but I've never held it up to my ear and shook), but I think most people will agree that the image quality questions you have are purposeful differences on Canon's part. Take for instance the "softer" photos. Part of that has to do with the poor quality of the XT kit lens, which has never been accused of being sharp - especially at wider apertures. Even with great glass, however, Canon's philosophy has always been to let the user do the sharpening, not the camera. Nikons tend to apply more aggressive sharpening in camera. Canon images also tend toward the warm side, whild Nikon stays a little cooler. Both cameras can be made to create jpegs like the other by toying with the custom parameters. On the XT, turn the sharpening way up and lower the saturation, and the images will probably be a little more "Nikon like".

On the other hand, if both you and your wife had Nikons, you could share lenses, flashes, etc. Does seem a whole lot cheaper than having two different systems in the house.

[aparmley]

OH and I highly recommend the Battery grip for the XT - some may say that goes against the point of the XT - But I say it helps take better photos - and that should be the first priority of the XT. :D

Pay no attention to CDI - He is a professional Mocker! Don't tick him off though, he'll sick his 150 lb killer dog on you if you aren't careful [Isn't that a daisey. . . ]. :D

[You know its all in good fun CDI]

[Goldorak]

I use the default - perhaps my knowledge of proper skin tones is not where it should be - I apply a little saturation/contrast/ and sharpening to all my photos.



That would be AI Servo with Center Point focus selected.



Hard to say with out seeing what you saw. 2 MP difference? I don't know, I know that when moving from 5 mp to 8mp I had to zoom in a little until the photo looked good, my computer monitor could not resolve the detail of an 8mp file. . . but that doesn't sound like your problem. I know that when I am at 100% zoom nothing is sharply in focus. IDK maybe just the XTs focusing issues.



Use the proper lens/ISO/AV/SS settings for the scene. Don't be afraid to bump up the ISO to 800 or 1600. High ISO images are very clean with the XT, add a little neat image at the default settings and the images are very clean.



Never cared for the pop up flash - can't help you there. I much prefer available light photographs. IF I must - bouncing the 550 off the ceiling.



That click is normal, everyone I have spoken to who owns the XT has the same click in the pop up flash track.

Most importantly the performance of the XT is a function of the quality of lens you are using. What lenses are you using.

My suggestion to you is that if you are wanting to utilizing the Drive mode in DSLRS for tennis training, 3fps of the XT and even the 5 fps of the 20D are not going to catch enough of the serve or return to give you enough frames to use as intended. . . maybe the 8fps of the 1D MkII

Thanks a lot, your comments are useful. I agree: While photography techniques are universal, cameras and lenses are not.
3fps might suffice as I don't really need to break down all the swinging motion frames, just some.

Do you have any recommendation on a telephoto lens or a lens that is about 28-200mm? I see a lot of folks here using the Sigma, so I might opt for that one...

[aparmley]

I don't think anyone here is mocking you, just making light of the fact that you seem to prefer the look of the out-of-camera images of the D50.

Thank you sir. I read his orgin. post the same way. . . I'm quite certain so did CDI.

I don't know about the flash rattle (haven't noticed it in my XT, but I've never held it up to my ear and shook), but I think most people will agree that the image quality questions you have are purposeful differences on Canon's part. Take for instance the "softer" photos. Part of that has to do with the poor quality of the XT kit lens, which has never been accused of being sharp - especially at wider apertures. Even with great glass, however, Canon's philosophy has always been to let the user do the sharpening, not the camera. Nikon's tend to apply more aggressive sharpening in camera. Canon images also tend toward the warm side, whild Nikon stays a little cooler. Both cameras can be made to create jpegs like the other by toying with the custom parameters. On the XT, turn the sharpening way up and lower the saturation, and the images will probably be a little more "Nikon like".

very good info there and very nicely put.


On the other hand, if both you and your wife had Nikon's, you could share lenses, flashes, etc. Does seem a whole lot cheaper than having two different systems in the house.

The point CDI and I were subtly after. It would make more sense. I understand you wanted the FPS of the XT for tennis but I think you will find that 3 is about as useful as 1.5 or 2 whatever the D50 is. I could be wrong though. . .

Good luck.

[aparmley]

I don't think anyone here is mocking you, just making light of the fact that you seem to prefer the look of the out-of-camera images of the D50.

Thank you sir. I read his orgin. post the same way. . . I'm quite certain so did CDI.

I don't know about the flash rattle (haven't noticed it in my XT, but I've never held it up to my ear and shook), but I think most people will agree that the image quality questions you have are purposeful differences on Canon's part. Take for instance the "softer" photos. Part of that has to do with the poor quality of the XT kit lens, which has never been accused of being sharp - especially at wider apertures. Even with great glass, however, Canon's philosophy has always been to let the user do the sharpening, not the camera. Nikon's tend to apply more aggressive sharpening in camera. Canon images also tend toward the warm side, whild Nikon stays a little cooler. Both cameras can be made to create jpegs like the other by toying with the custom parameters. On the XT, turn the sharpening way up and lower the saturation, and the images will probably be a little more "Nikon like".

very good info there and very nicely put.


On the other hand, if both you and your wife had Nikon's, you could share lenses, flashes, etc. Does seem a whole lot cheaper than having two different systems in the house.

The point CDI and I were subtly after. It would make more sense. I understand you wanted the FPS of the XT for tennis but I think you will find that 3 is about as useful as 1.5 or 2 whatever the D50 is. I could be wrong though. . .

Good luck.

[George Riehm]

Thanks a lot, your comments are useful. I agree: While photography techniques are universal, cameras and lenses are not.
3fps might suffice as I don't really need to break down all the swinging motion frames, just some.

Do you have any recommendation on a telephoto lens or a lens that is about 28-200mm? I see a lot of folks here using the Sigma, so I might opt for that one...

You might want to try both the Sigma 18-125 (~$270) and 18-200 (~$370)DC lenses, but several Canon owners seem to have AF problems with Sigma lenses, so maybe the Tamron 18-200 (~$400) would work better. The Tamron does have faster AF, but from my experience is noticably softer than the Sigma (on a Nikon D70).

I have the Sigma 18-125, and it has a few warts that I live with just for the optical quality and 7X zoom range. It does vignette at some aperture and focal length settings (although probably a little less on the 350D due to it's slightly smaller imager), and it is a bit noisy when focusing. Again, Sigma is not necessarily a Canon favorite, in the AF department, but again for the price...

The following is a lens that you should probably be aware of in case the D50 is reconsidered and may be reason enough to work around the D50 shortcomings in your applications:

Nikon is about to introduce (End of December) the mother of all wide range zooms with the AF-s 18-200 DX VR II. Adorama is listing this lens for $669. Test shots look very promising, but only real world reviews will tell the real story.

http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?addtocart=NK18200DXU&src=itemlist

Also to address your reasons for going with the 350D:

- 3fps (XT) vs 2.5fps (D50) is not a real big difference.

In RAW+JPEG Fine (350D) you can only shoot 4 frames before the buffer is full anyway, and the continuous rate drops to less than 1fps after that. In JPEG Large/Fine you get 14 frames before slowing down. The D50 can shoot in Large/Fine at 2.5fps for up to 137 frames. RAW is about 3 frames for the D50.

- RAW + Fine JPEG... Why not just JPEG Fine? I shoot almost exclusively in RAW for everything except sports/racing, where I switch to Large/Fine for the higher frame rate and buffer depth.

- 7 point AF vs. 5. If you have them I guess you use them. I find 5 is enough, but this is an individual thing.

- Backlit LCD. I have to admit I rarely use this on my D70. But I do use it and it is a dumb thing to omit on Nikons part.

- 8MP vs. 6MP... From personal experience printing 13 x 19 there is no visible difference. If you like viewing 100% crops then there is a minor improvement at 8MP.

Just my opinions.

[Alnath]

The default level for the saturation on the 350D is set at +1

[Goldorak]

You might want to try both the Sigma 18-125 (~$270) and 18-200 (~$370)DC lenses, but several Canon owners seem to have AF problems with Sigma lenses, so maybe the Tamron 18-200 (~$400) would work better. The Tamron does have faster AF, but from my experience is noticably softer than the Sigma (on a Nikon D70).

I have the Sigma 18-125, and it has a few warts that I live with just for the optical quality and 7X zoom range. It does vignette at some aperture and focal length settings (although probably a little less on the 350D due to it's slightly smaller imager), and it is a bit noisy when focusing. Again, Sigma is not necessarily a Canon favorite, in the AF department, but again for the price...

The following is a lens that you should probably be aware of in case the D50 is reconsidered and may be reason enough to work around the D50 shortcomings in your applications:

Nikon is about to introduce (End of December) the mother of all wide range zooms with the AF-s 18-200 DX VR II. Adorama is listing this lens for $669. Test shots look very promising, but only real world reviews will tell the real story.

http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?addtocart=NK18200DXU&src=itemlist

Also to address your reasons for going with the 350D:

- 3fps (XT) vs 2.5fps (D50) is not a real big difference.

In RAW+JPEG Fine (350D) you can only shoot 4 frames before the buffer is full anyway, and the continuous rate drops to less than 1fps after that. In JPEG Large/Fine you get 14 frames before slowing down. The D50 can shoot in Large/Fine at 2.5fps for up to 137 frames. RAW is about 3 frames for the D50.

- RAW + Fine JPEG... Why not just JPEG Fine? I shoot almost exclusively in RAW for everything except sports/racing, where I switch to Large/Fine for the higher frame rate and buffer depth.

- 7 point AF vs. 5. If you have them I guess you use them. I find 5 is enough, but this is an individual thing.

- Backlit LCD. I have to admit I rarely use this on my D70. But I do use it and it is a dumb thing to omit on Nikons part.

- 8MP vs. 6MP... From personal experience printing 13 x 19 there is no visible difference. If you like viewing 100% crops then there is a minor improvement at 8MP.

Just my opinions.

Thanks for your response.

I agree with RAW combined with continuous shooting: not a good idea. For family pics, portraits and others however, I do need the ability to shoot RAW+Fine JPEG and if the D50 had that I would have bought it.
As far as the LCD goes, at first I was like 'no big deal' when reviewers pointed this out; but then came Halloween night: very hard or almost impossible to set/check settings as some can only be set via the LCD.

[hermanmonster5410]

Hello,

My experience is very similar to yours:
1) pictures are pretty soft (especially faces);
2) in many cases the skin color of human faces is somewhat pinkish
3) when you shoot ourside in a broad daylight the camera has a tendency to overexpose, so in many cases it would be usefull to rely on exposure compensation
4) indoor shots are pretty noisy no matter whether you use low or high iso
5) the 1.8" LCD screen is quite useless in a bright sunny weather - you cannot see anything.
6) even when you can see, its 1.8" does not allow you to evaluate how good and sharp your picture is.
7) you may have to buy circular polarizer filters, if you get pictures shot in a bright sun look washed out and impressive blue sky becomes boringly light gray
8) I blamed the kit lens, so I went higher: first I tried $200-$300 Sigmas and though they were no not too bad, they were not too good either (in my humble opinion). These 3rd party lenses do not have image stabilization (IS).

My next step was to buy more expensive Canon lenses (but still not the L series professional grade lenses). Making a trade off between the digital EF-S 17-85 (got very good reviews and mid $500 price tag) and a regular (not L)
EF 28-135 with IS ($419) I tried both and decided to keep the 28-135 because of the IS and its ability to work with Canon 35mm cameras. However the impovement in picture quality (assuming there was any) did not correspond to the price ratio of this lens to tht of the kit lens ($139).
I am still (emotionally) big on getting one or two L class lenses (spending close to my monthly salary) but my rational part tells me that even this WILL NOT help. I could assume that both you and I got 'lemon' cameras. After two months of torturing myself by reading forums, buying/trying and returning lenses I bought another XT (its firmware was one version later than mine) and discovered that it was not much different from mine.

My camera, I'd say rather accidentally produces approx. 5-7% of very good pictures though.

At the very same time my friend from Eastern Europ asked me to buy him Nikon D50. I did and then I tried it (as my friend wished) and I have to agree with your that its pictures were better (sharper, more natural colors) right out of the box. The 2 MP disadvantage in my opinion is not a big deal. The 2 Kit Nikor lenses (18-55 and 55-200) seem to be somewhat better built compared to the crude Canon kit lens (18-55). On the positive side XT D/rebel has very acceptable start up and shutter lags. Sometimes I find manual focus more practical than the automatic one.

When you shoot kids assuming they move and are somewhat spread over the room :--) rely on higher aperture numbers (use aperture priority or full manual control). Higer aperture numbers (5.6, 8, 11 etc) will provide a bigger Depth Of Field (i.e. bigger range of objects will be in focus). Closing the lens opening
(by using higher apertures) would require you (or the camera) to lower the shutter speed, and this may increase the blur. Usually with a shutter speed of 1/30 (of a second) or more the moving objects have a chance to look blurred. IS may help a little bit or provide more light (or increase the sensitivity).

Generally saying I think XT is not the best DSLR camera out there no matter what lense you put . Canon knows that it has a good name recognition and a plenty of royal admirers and it abused it.

XT competitors release several entry levele DSLRs, which seem to be betetr equipped that XT D/r (just look at teh size of their LCD). SOme of them offer IS as a feature of the body rather than lens thus sparing you the necessity to pay premium price for every IS lens you buy.


I honestly expressed what my personal experience with XT D/rebel was.


Good luck !

[hermanmonster5410]

Hello,

My experience is very similar to yours:
1) pictures are pretty soft (especially faces);
2) in many cases the skin color of human faces is somewhat pinkish
3) when you shoot ourside in a broad daylight the camera has a tendency to overexpose, so in many cases it would be usefull to rely on exposure compensation
4) indoor shots are pretty noisy no matter whether you use low or high iso
5) the 1.8" LCD screen is quite useless in a bright sunny weather - you cannot see anything.
6) even when you can see, its 1.8" does not allow you to evaluate how good and sharp your picture is.
7) you may have to buy circular polarizer filters, if you get pictures shot in a bright sun look washed out and impressive blue sky becomes boringly light gray
8) I blamed the kit lens, so I went higher: first I tried $200-$300 Sigmas and though they were no not too bad, they were not too good either (in my humble opinion). These 3rd party lenses do not have image stabilization (IS).

My next step was to buy more expensive Canon lenses (but still not the L series professional grade lenses). Making a trade off between the digital EF-S 17-85 (got very good reviews and mid $500 price tag) and a regular (not L)
EF 28-135 with IS ($419) I tried both and decided to keep the 28-135 because of the IS and its ability to work with Canon 35mm cameras. However the impovement in picture quality (assuming there was any) did not correspond to the price ratio of this lens to tht of the kit lens ($139).
I am still (emotionally) big on getting one or two L class lenses (spending close to my monthly salary) but my rational part tells me that even this WILL NOT help. I could assume that both you and I got 'lemon' cameras. After two months of torturing myself by reading forums, buying/trying and returning lenses I bought another XT (its firmware was one version later than mine) and discovered that it was not much different from mine.

My camera, I'd say rather accidentally produces approx. 5-7% of very good pictures though.

At the very same time my friend from Eastern Europ asked me to buy him Nikon D50. I did and then I tried it (as my friend wished) and I have to agree with your that its pictures were better (sharper, more natural colors) right out of the box. The 2 MP disadvantage in my opinion is not a big deal. The 2 Kit Nikor lenses (18-55 and 55-200) seem to be somewhat better built compared to the crude Canon kit lens (18-55). On the positive side XT D/rebel has very acceptable start up and shutter lags. Sometimes I find manual focus more practical than the automatic one.

When you shoot kids assuming they move and are somewhat spread over the room :--) rely on higher aperture numbers (use aperture priority or full manual control). Higer aperture numbers (5.6, 8, 11 etc) will provide a bigger Depth Of Field (i.e. bigger range of objects will be in focus). Closing the lens opening
(by using higher apertures) would require you (or the camera) to lower the shutter speed, and this may increase the blur. Usually with a shutter speed of 1/30 (of a second) or more the moving objects have a chance to look blurred. IS may help a little bit or provide more light (or increase the sensitivity).

Generally saying I think XT is not the best DSLR camera out there no matter what lense you put . Canon knows that it has a good name recognition and a plenty of royal admirers and it abused it.

XT competitors release several entry levele DSLRs, which seem to be betetr equipped that XT D/r (just look at teh size of their LCD). SOme of them offer IS as a feature of the body rather than lens thus sparing you the necessity to pay premium price for every IS lens you buy.


I honestly expressed what my personal experience with XT D/rebel was.


Good luck !

[cdifoto]

Hello,

My experience is very similar to yours:
1) pictures are pretty soft (especially faces);
2) in many cases the skin color of human faces is somewhat pinkish
3) when you shoot ourside in a broad daylight the camera has a tendency to overexpose, so in many cases it would be usefull to rely on exposure compensation
4) indoor shots are pretty noisy no matter whether you use low or high iso
5) the 1.8" LCD screen is quite useless in a bright sunny weather - you cannot see anything.
6) even when you can see, its 1.8" does not allow you to evaluate how good and sharp your picture is.
7) you may have to buy circular polarizer filters, if you get pictures shot in a bright sun look washed out and impressive blue sky becomes boringly light gray
8) I blamed the kit lens, so I went higher: first I tried $200-$300 Sigmas and though they were no not too bad, they were not too good either (in my humble opinion). These 3rd party lenses do not have image stabilization (IS).

My next step was to buy more expensive Canon lenses (but still not the L series professional grade lenses). Making a trade off between the digital EF-S 17-85 (got very good reviews and mid $500 price tag) and a regular (not L)
EF 28-135 with IS ($419) I tried both and decided to keep the 28-135 because of the IS and its ability to work with Canon 35mm cameras. However the impovement in picture quality (assuming there was any) did not correspond to the price ratio of this lens to tht of the kit lens ($139).
I am still (emotionally) big on getting one or two L class lenses (spending close to my monthly salary) but my rational part tells me that even this WILL NOT help. I could assume that both you and I got 'lemon' cameras. After two months of torturing myself by reading forums, buying/trying and returning lenses I bought another XT (its firmware was one version later than mine) and discovered that it was not much different from mine.

My camera, I'd say rather accidentally produces approx. 5-7% of very good pictures though.

At the very same time my friend from Eastern Europ asked me to buy him Nikon D50. I did and then I tried it (as my friend wished) and I have to agree with your that its pictures were better (sharper, more natural colors) right out of the box. The 2 MP disadvantage in my opinion is not a big deal. The 2 Kit Nikor lenses (18-55 and 55-200) seem to be somewhat better built compared to the crude Canon kit lens (18-55). On the positive side XT D/rebel has very acceptable start up and shutter lags. Sometimes I find manual focus more practical than the automatic one.

When you shoot kids assuming they move and are somewhat spread over the room :--) rely on higher aperture numbers (use aperture priority or full manual control). Higer aperture numbers (5.6, 8, 11 etc) will provide a bigger Depth Of Field (i.e. bigger range of objects will be in focus). Closing the lens opening
(by using higher apertures) would require you (or the camera) to lower the shutter speed, and this may increase the blur. Usually with a shutter speed of 1/30 (of a second) or more the moving objects have a chance to look blurred. IS may help a little bit or provide more light (or increase the sensitivity).

Generally saying I think XT is not the best DSLR camera out there no matter what lense you put . Canon knows that it has a good name recognition and a plenty of royal admirers and it abused it.

XT competitors release several entry levele DSLRs, which seem to be betetr equipped that XT D/r (just look at teh size of their LCD). SOme of them offer IS as a feature of the body rather than lens thus sparing you the necessity to pay premium price for every IS lens you buy.


I honestly expressed what my personal experience with XT D/rebel was.


Good luck !


I don't know what you're doing wrong but I would say it's definitely user error. Without samples, anyone on these forums would be hard pressed to offer accurate advice.

I'm not a very good photographer but I did manage to get these:

Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L lens:
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b100/nftn/fall/20051107-004b.jpg
----------------------------
Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6/3 EX lens:
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b100/nftn/20051010-140.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b100/nftn/20051010-143.jpg
----------------------------
Canon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 EF-S (aka kit) lens:
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b100/nftn/flash/20051010-007.jpg

[ReF]

Hello,

My experience is very similar to yours:
1) pictures are pretty soft (especially faces); 2) in many cases the skin color of human faces is somewhat pinkish
3) when you shoot ourside in a broad daylight the camera has a tendency to overexpose, so in many cases it would be usefull to rely on exposure compensation 4) indoor shots are pretty noisy no matter whether you use low or high iso
6) even when you can see, its 1.8" does not allow you to evaluate how good and sharp your picture is.
7) you may have to buy circular polarizer filters, if you get pictures shot in a bright sun look washed out and impressive blue sky becomes boringly light gray 8) I blamed the kit lens, so I went higher: first I tried $200-$300 Sigmas and though they were no not too bad, they were not too good either (in my humble opinion). These 3rd party lenses do not have image stabilization (IS).

I could assume that both you and I got 'lemon' cameras. After two months of torturing myself by reading forums, buying/trying and returning lenses I bought another XT (its firmware was one version later than mine) and discovered that it was not much different from mine.
My camera, I'd say rather accidentally produces approx. 5-7% of very good pictures though.

At the very same time my friend from Eastern Europ asked me to buy him Nikon D50. I did and then I tried it (as my friend wished) and I have to agree with your that its pictures were better (sharper, more natural colors) right out of the box. Sometimes I find manual focus more practical than the automatic one.

Generally saying I think XT is not the best DSLR camera out there no matter what lense you put . Canon knows that it has a good name recognition and a plenty of royal admirers and it abused it.

XT competitors release several entry levele DSLRs, which seem to be betetr equipped that XT D/r (just look at teh size of their LCD).

Good luck !

whether you were talking about a nikon, pentax, canon, or whatever, without example pictures and a lot more shooting details i honestly think it sounds like user error. the parts that are in bold really caught my attention and are the ones that really lead me to think that it's not the camera's fault. BTW, out of the box results are different from camera to camera due to the default parameter settings, which can be easily adjusted. it is also widely known that with dslr's, canon is usually pretty conservative with their in-camera sharpening, leaving that part for the user to control.

it would help your case if you gave us some more details, and info on what you were using before the XT.

[aparmley]

1) pictures are pretty soft (especially faces);

So if we have a photo that lacks faces we could count on it being sharp? IDK about that theory, Sounds like user error to me. There are far more circumstances that would result in soft photos than those that would create sharp photos so I'd be willing to bet it was user error.

3) when you shoot ourside in a broad daylight the camera has a tendency to overexpose, so in many cases it would be usefull to rely on exposure compensation

Depends really on which metering mode you use and the possible combination of focus points as well, I'll explain, say you use equivelant metering mode on the XT which translates to spot metering, it meters only about 10% of the image in the center - surround the center focus point. lets say you are using the camera in landscape mode and select the far left focus point for focus, well, its going to meter the center of the frame for exposure, but your subject is on the left, perhaps under very different lighting. - if you are shooting in manual then it sounds like you are using the wrong settings. However, you must know that the dynamic range of bright sky to shade is too much range for any camera to record. you need to either expose for the sky and flash your subject, expose for your subject only and live with the washed out sky, or create two different exposures and use the dynamic range merge tool in CS2 - or other combinations of layer masks/gradients to bring back a little color in the sky.

4) indoor shots are pretty noisy no matter whether you use low or high iso

I believe if you are shooting at a high ISO the exposure will control the amount of noise, mess up the exposure and noise is increased. I have absolutely no issues with the amount of noise I get when I shoot at ISO 1600 indoors. . . occastionally I will mess up the expsure and have to bring it back in PS which then elevates the noise level - a simple pass through the default settings of neat image and it cleans it right up.

6) even when you can see, its 1.8" does not allow you to evaluate how good and sharp your picture is.

Thats why you have the ability to zoom in 10x. on the display.

My camera, I'd say rather accidentally produces approx. 5-7% of very good pictures though.

My experience is that about 20% of my photos aren't keepers and of that 20%, 75% of those are probably user error on my part.


When you shoot kids assuming they move and are somewhat spread over the room :--) rely on higher aperture numbers

Well thats a contradictory statement for one. If they move and your indoors a lower aperture is what you want to allow for faster shutter speeds so that the kid isn't a blur. If you are shooting multiple kids that are spread out, then yes a higher aperture number is required to obtain all kids in focus, but then you just increased your light requirements dramatically requiring flash or lots of good available light.

Usually with a shutter speed of 1/30 (of a second) or more the moving objects have a chance to look blurred. IS may help a little bit or provide more light (or increase the sensitivity).

In my experience, using shutterspeeds below 1/250 can cause the subjects in your photo to be blurred during casual conversation - at 1/250 you may experience blur in those very animated arms of grandpa, at 1/100 any sudden movement like the beginning of chuckle or again animated arms during conversation. depending on Focal lenght, lets say for example I'm shooting indoors with my 50 1.8, at 50mm x 1.6crop factor = EFL of 80mm, anything at or below 1/80 of a second I will run the risk of blurry photos from camera shake - not subject movement, if your subject does move at those SSs combined with being prone to camera shake, you are lucky to get a sharp photos with out the use of flash. IS will not help freeze motion - it only aids in keeping the lens from being dramatically effected by camera shake on your end.

Generally saying I think XT is not the best DSLR camera out there no matter what lense you put . Canon knows that it has a good name recognition and a plenty of royal admirers and it abused it.

I hope its not the best DSLR out there - at 750 -800 bucks. You got the 20D at about 1300 and the 1d mkII at what, 3000 and the 1ds MkII at 8000. if the XT was the best. . . There might be a few upset photographers out there.

XT competitors release several entry levele DSLRs, which seem to be betetr equipped that XT D/r (just look at teh size of their LCD)

at $800 I don't think I'd invest in a camera instead of another simply because the lcd on the back was a nominal fraction of an inch larger - I'd go for things like image quality and iso performance. . . but to each their own.

[TheObiJuan]

5-7% is a result of user error or inability to shoot properly.
Learn to use the different metering modes and you wont get overexposed skies on bright days, if anything, the camera underexposes.
Improve your collection to include higher quality lenses,filters, and etc. Learn better composition and further develop the photographic eye.
I may have 5fps and can shoot alsmost as many pics as I want because of all the memory cards I have, but I dont.
I make each one count. It doesn't make sense to take 35 piss poor pics of the same scene when I can get one or two really good ones. Carefull planning, proper exposure, excellent sharpness, and etc are all visible with magnification on the 'poor' 1.8" screen. (less so in uber bright daylight)

Pinkish skin is a result of not using the correct WB mode or not adjusting the WB yourself.

Indoor shots are not noisy at all. I do plenty of shooting in low light with my kiss and did plenty with my 350D, but if you use a slow lens and underxpose to get the shutter speed up, then compensate by upping the EC in PS, then you will get noise, that's called pushing the ISO.

soft pictures are a result of a poor quality lens or poor focusing, often times the lens too. Fix that, if it still is a problem, then blame the camera. Expecting super sharp shots at 100% on a quantarray lens is like expecting a snow storm in hell.

[aparmley]

.

Pinkish skin is a result of not using the correct WB mode or not adjusting the WB yourself.



Thanks OBI I forgot that one. . . :D

I have to admit - I've started using a plain old white peice of paper to set my Custom WB on and man alive - I should have been doing this all along.