Damned DSLR Purchase Decisions....

[TheObiJuan]

I need something to hold me over until I decide in which ship I will sail.

At the moment I am not heavily invested into Canon lenses or gear. I don't even have a flash. :( I have sold or traded away most of my gear over the years.

I now need to takes pics and have no body.
I could go for a 20D used [new price is still retarded] for 450-600.
I could go for a XT used for 350-500.
I could go for an XTI used for 500-650.

Or I could go for a new XT for $449 at canoga?
I would prefer a freaking used 20D over a new 350D, [owned both for a while], but a new 350D would be easier to resell later or give to my girlfriend.

Any ideas?

At the moment I am just looking for something to hold me over until Christmas when I may go Nikon or Sony or even Oly if it's worth a damn. The 40D doesn't do anything for me... I dunno why.

[coldrain]

I don't know why it does not do anything for you either. Must be all the D300 hype?

It does everything better and more than the other models you list.
Better, faster and more accurate AF, great colour and dynamic range behavior, brighter view finder with optional manual focus or grid line focus screens, 14 bits headroom, useful and good life view.

Why does an A700 do it for you? Its high ISO noise performance is BAD... Unusable at ISO 6400! And in my opinion also unusable at ISO 3200 too. the EOS 40D performs a lot better there... Which makes me also think that the D300 will not beat the 40D in high ISO performance.

So, why would the D300 do it for you? Its 51 point AF? We have no idea yet about its AF performance. Its high ISO performance does not seem to be very impressive, not noise wise and not contrast/saturation wise. The higher res. display? People are going ape about a silly comparison on dpreview, where Phil zoomed in totally on a portion of the screen to show difference in pixel arrangement. Does it say anything about the quality and usability of the 40D screen? Uhmm.. no.
If you like the idea of live view (I do... I need it often for unusual camera view points), the 15 fps of the D300 seems a whole lot less attractive to me than 30fps. How both behave with MF judgement is not known yet.
The D300's AF with its sensor for me is unusably slow (dpreview shows it in a video), it would hunt way too much for my outdoor stuff.

I would prefer the XTi over the XT for its better AF system.

I would prefer the 40D over the XTi except for size and weight.

I think I will prefer the 40D over the A700 and the D300, because of the EOS lens line-up, the sensor performance (judging on the samples of the D300, A700 and 40D floating around), and the function clutter "hell" from the D300 menu/options/buttons.

Olympus? If you like the 4:3 image format (I don't), the fly by wire MF, the 2x crop factor and the dynamicaly challenged Panasonic sensors with a LOT of noise... and the price of the E-P1/E3 would be comparable, sure...

[TheObiJuan]

LOL, I always love your posts.
Whew, where to start....

I don't know why it does not do anything for you either. Must be all the D300 hype?


Nope. All I know is I didn't become excited by it being released like I was with the 20D back in the day.
The D300 is a big ? right now. I am not affected by anything I read until it gets properly reviewed. Will I give it a chance, yes, but do I blindly follow it, hell no.


It does everything better and more than the other models you list.
Better, faster and more accurate AF, great colour and dynamic range behavior, brighter view finder with optional manual focus or grid line focus screens, 14 bits headroom, useful and good life view.

I agree the 40D is a superb camera, worth every dime, and priced incredibly. I don't need or care for live view, the 20D's LCD was good enough for me, and 14bit would be used 10/100 shots I bet.
I am eager to see how the 40D holds up in a head to head comparo with the D300 and A700.


Why does an A700 do it for you? Its high ISO noise performance is BAD... Unusable at ISO 6400! And in my opinion also unusable at ISO 3200 too. the EOS 40D performs a lot better there... Which makes me also think that the D300 will not beat the 40D in high ISO performance.

I have seen various photos of the A700 at high ISO. I was impressed, but must not have seen the ones you viewed. The 100% crops from the Italian weren't bad at all for ISO 6400 IMHO. Time will tell. I don't pixel peep, so if it isn't visible in a decent size print, I'm game.



So, why would the D300 do it for you? Its 51 point AF? We have no idea yet about its AF performance. Its high ISO performance does not seem to be very impressive, not noise wise and not contrast/saturation wise. The higher res. display? People are going ape about a silly comparison on dpreview, where Phil zoomed in totally on a portion of the screen to show difference in pixel arrangement. Does it say anything about the quality and usability of the 40D screen? Uhmm.. no.
If you like the idea of live view (I do... I need it often for unusual camera view points), the 15 fps of the D300 seems a whole lot less attractive to me than 30fps. How both behave with MF judgement is not known yet.
The D300's AF with its sensor for me is unusably slow (dpreview shows it in a video), it would hunt way too much for my outdoor stuff.

The D300's AF system, as you know, is new. More FP don't equate to better AF performance, so I am not so easily fooled. A thorough review and comparison would be necessary before a decision is made.
I don't care for how 'beautiful' the LCD is, I'd trade it any day for a 10% bigger viewfinder.


I would prefer the XTi over the XT for its better AF system.

I would prefer the 40D over the XTi except for size and weight.

I think I will prefer the 40D over the A700 and the D300, because of the EOS lens line-up, the sensor performance (judging on the samples of the D300, A700 and 40D floating around), and the function clutter "hell" from the D300 menu/options/buttons.

Since I am looking for a body at the lowest cost to temporarily hold me over, the XTi would not be ideal since it is pulling a premium of $300.

The lens lineup is my only tie to Canon. I love the 135L/85L combo when I had it. I love the low costs of their lenses compared to other brands, and the availability on the used market.

A feature I really like about both the Nikon and Sony is the dynamic range boost options they have. This would necessitate far less post work.


Olympus? If you like the 4:3 image format (I don't), the fly by wire MF, the 2x crop factor and the dynamicaly challenged Panasonic sensors with a LOT of noise... and the price of the E-P1/E3 would be comparable, sure...

4:3 doesn't bother me, MF I never use, 2x crop factor isn't a problem, the sensor is! I would only consider it if the AF, viewfinder, and sensor was up to par. Noise is killer in those little guys. I hate noise.:mad:

[coldrain]

About the Sony samples:
http://www.fotopolis.pl/index.php?n=6327

And about the lenses you loved... Sony does not have those in their lineup..

[jayfixit]

...I could go for an XTI used for 500-650...

You can get new for less than $650. I got mine on fleabay in July for $621. Sure, getting warranty service might be an issue with a private eBay seller; but you're already talking used, so why not look for a deal on a new one?

Here's what I bought for $621:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290136314749

[coldrain]

A new XTi camera body costs $618 at B&H... with US warranty.

[swgod98]

lol, leave it to coldrain to make the 40D seem so much better than a D300. I can't wait for the reviews, so it can be settled once and for all. Not that there's any question in my mind...that is, unless Nikon pulls a 1DmIII stunt.

ObiJ, if you're going to resell your camera in 3 months, it won't matter much which one you get. You'll lose money on it regardless. If you're not going to sell it, then get the cheaper one...I don't really recommend the XT, but it still takes pictures!!

A used 20D would be perfect IMO.

[DonSchap]

I do know who has one of those ... ;)

[Gintaras]

Coldy, XTi better AF 9 points??? who cares when you do a single AF point? As for AF accuracy I find XTi not delivering all the time, sometimes this is hit and miss. At the end I slowly came to the conclusion that single centre point selected would do best and 9 AF points is a gimmick suitable only for ideal light conditions. So in this sense I do not see much difference between XT and XTi... although it might be XTi is a tad faster AF than XT... that s it. For the rest I seen some people praising XT for greater detail in images thanks to its less pixel crowded sensor.

If speaking about 20D I personally would opt for 30D prices for which are slowly tanking as I can see. Also some 30D owners might sell and go for 40D whichi should be good for anyone planning to take second hand 30D IMO.

[coldrain]

Yes, the XTi has a BETTER Af system. Nothing to do with 9 or 7 AF points.
And anyone saying the XT is sharper just has to buy better lenses.

[TheObiJuan]

Don, check your PM.

[Gintaras]

Coldy, I think outside 9 AF points XTi has just a slightly faster AF, not better compared to XT...IMO

as concerns sharpness, i am passing what many people around say, including some reviewers. of course i cannot judge as i got XTi and no XT. For me XTi sharpness is fine ... and this is mostly a question of lenses, not XTi.

[coldrain]

Well, that just shows you just don't know. SInce you never held an XT, and you obviously base yoru opinion on just reading the specs, why do you have the impression AF would be faster on an XTi?

It is just a fact that the AF on the XTi is a lot better, but not faster, and that that has nothing to do with 2 more AF sensors. It just is a hell of a lot more accurate. That is not just a vague opinion of me, but it is a well documented and well known fact .

Just accept it as a fact, a debate about it has little use.

[Gintaras]

ok Coldy, i accept.

[coldrain]

More A700 samples... The ISO 1600 shows a lot of noise (which would be fine) and coarseness and loss of detail (which are a bit less fine).
http://foto.ixbt.com/?id=photo:127790

So, for now it does not seem like the A700/D300 sensors will actually beat the 40D's sensor in higher ISO performance..

But as the following website shows, the A700 cetainly is not slouch at high ISO either. Just that ISO 6400 is unuable.

http://www.quesabesde.com/noticias/sony-a700-fotos-prueba,1_3619

**edit: ooops I forgot to paste one link.

[TheObiJuan]

Thanks for providing some images, I appreciate it!