PDA

View Full Version : dpreview has 350D/Rebel XT complete Review up



Bluedog
04-06-2005, 04:35 PM
Some very surprising results when comparing the D20 and ISO quality: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/ and some excellent photos using top notch glass in their photo gallery.

TheObiJuan
04-06-2005, 04:42 PM
wow, thanks for the link. I had been checking daily for the past few weeks. :D

I wonder why the D70 was excluded from the image testing but the E300 was not?? Throught the whole review the three cameras and the 20D were compared. Then the image quality pops up and the D70 is gone.. :confused:

Either way it was a fantastic test. I am 100% happy with my purchase. Having not purchased the 20D I was able to put the money towards the 50mm f/1.8, two 1GB CF cards, 1 extra battery, 135mm f/2.8 SF lens, 420EX, and a few other things here and there. Note, all items purchased are used save for the 50mm which I purchased new for $58.

gabester
04-06-2005, 11:51 PM
Indeed, an excellent review which confirmed what many of us XT-philes knew already from other reviews and/or first-hand experience. The most interesting thing about Phil's update was that the kit lens has actually been "tweaked" over the original 18-55 (I), improving wide angle performance at large apertures but diminishing telephoto performance at smaller apertures. Since (at least for me), the 18-55 is primarily a wide angle lens (and the cheapest one out there), this is good news.

Rex914
04-06-2005, 11:52 PM
That's nice to hear although Canon denied anything new (quality wise) about the kit lens when the XT was first announced.

gabester
04-07-2005, 11:13 AM
That's nice to hear although Canon denied anything new (quality wise) about the kit lens when the XT was first announced.

I still can't find anything on the Canon website to prove that the 18-55 II lens is different from the I, other than cosmetically. Do we believe DP Review?

Jeff Keller
04-07-2005, 11:18 AM
I still can't find anything on the Canon website to prove that the 18-55 II lens is different from the I, other than cosmetically. Do we believe DP Review?

Well he's got the photo evidence so I sure would believe him...

gabester
04-07-2005, 11:26 AM
Well he's got the photo evidence so I sure would believe him...

Then that's great news! A cheap decent lens gets even better. I always shot wide and open with the 18-55, so this is a great bonus. I'm glad I sold the kit lens (i) with my dReb; it's nice to know that I get a little extra something when my XT kit comes. :) Thanks Jeff!

gabester
04-07-2005, 11:35 AM
Then that's great news! A cheap decent lens gets even better. I always shot wide and open with the 18-55, so this is a great bonus. I'm glad I sold the kit lens (i) with my dReb; it's nice to know that I get a little extra something when my XT kit comes. :) Thanks Jeff!

I'm re-thinking this one over, actually. I noticed a marked difference between two 18-55 lenses (both "I" which came from two dRebs). So perhaps I had one fair copy and one good copy. I wonder if such a variance would account for the differences in Phil Askey's results.

Of course, I'm hoping Phil's right since the II (and XT) are en route to my house. :)

Bluedog
04-07-2005, 04:05 PM
I've been getting fairly decent results out of 18-55mm II Kit lens. I've got a Sigma 18-125mm coming soon but will probably keep the Canon Kit as a Macro alternative until I can come up with something better in the Future.

24Peter
04-08-2005, 09:15 AM
Hi guys - I got my XT (with the kit lens) from Dell yesterday. I'm moving up from a Panasonic FZ20. I also got a Sigma 18-125DC (and 70-300) from Adorama. I only had one day to test so far but I must say I am really disappointed in the Sigma 18-125 (the 70-300 was a bit better). Admittedly I was all over the place yesterday in my excitement to try out the new camera. I will do some more formal testing of the lenses this weekend when I have some time. But in over three hundred shots yesterday I could not get ONE sharp shot from the 18-125 (I got better results from the 70-300 and only took about a dozen with the kit lens so won't comment.) Many were handheld but I also did a bunch on a tripod. Late last night (I really need to get a life :o ) I think I finally discovered a "sweeter" (but not quite "sweet") spot around F10/11 but need to verify it today. But if that's where I always need to shoot with this lens, I'm not a happy camper. I must say, I suddenly appreciate my FZ20 even more because between a pretty good lens and built in Image Stabilization I could get some tack sharp shots pretty regularly. So sharp you could see the pores on a person's face during portrait shots. So today I'm faced with the reality I may need to purchase at least a wide zoom lens for my XT that approaches the entire cost of the FZ20 in order to get the same quality (sharpness-wise at least) of photo. Not dissing Canon or
Sigma. I guess this is just my (rude) awakening to the $ involved in higher end digital photography... :(

Bluedog
04-08-2005, 10:20 AM
Peter thanks for the heads up on the Sigma as I should have one on Monday from Adorama also. I'll give it try out and if not pleased with the results will return it within the 14 days.

TheObiJuan
04-08-2005, 10:52 AM
howdy peter, it took me a while to adjust and move away from the p&s mindset of 1 lens only. now I have spent more than the cost of my camera in gear alone. and I am not done yet ;)

I liked the idea of the sigma at first, but then decided that optically I could do much better and the lens is too slow too. To get much better I would have to pay a lot more though, and sacrifice a lot of range.

24Peter
04-08-2005, 01:43 PM
ObiJuan - tell me your lens selection again?

Bluedog - let us know how you like the lens. Others seem to love it so maybe I just got a dog -oops, eh lemon. :)

TheObiJuan
04-08-2005, 03:46 PM
I have the 50mm f/1.8, just got the 135mm f/2.8 SF, ordered the sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and saving for the tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4.

This along with a teleconverter and an extension tube should hold me over until I can afford the sigma 120-300 f/2.8. :D

but my money has mostly gone towards the tripod, head, bag, ex flash, memory cards, and etc.

D70FAN
04-08-2005, 04:03 PM
Hi guys - I got my XT (with the kit lens) from Dell yesterday. I'm moving up from a Panasonic FZ20. I also got a Sigma 18-125DC (and 70-300) from Adorama. I only had one day to test so far but I must say I am really disappointed in the Sigma 18-125 (the 70-300 was a bit better). Admittedly I was all over the place yesterday in my excitement to try out the new camera. I will do some more formal testing of the lenses this weekend when I have some time. But in over three hundred shots yesterday I could not get ONE sharp shot from the 18-125 (I got better results from the 70-300 and only took about a dozen with the kit lens so won't comment.) Many were handheld but I also did a bunch on a tripod. Late last night (I really need to get a life :o ) I think I finally discovered a "sweeter" (but not quite "sweet") spot around F10/11 but need to verify it today. But if that's where I always need to shoot with this lens, I'm not a happy camper. I must say, I suddenly appreciate my FZ20 even more because between a pretty good lens and built in Image Stabilization I could get some tack sharp shots pretty regularly. So sharp you could see the pores on a person's face during portrait shots. So today I'm faced with the reality I may need to purchase at least a wide zoom lens for my XT that approaches the entire cost of the FZ20 in order to get the same quality (sharpness-wise at least) of photo. Not dissing Canon or
Sigma. I guess this is just my (rude) awakening to the $ involved in higher end digital photography... :(

One of the drawbacks to dLSR lenses is that they can be shipped slightly out of calibration, even Nikkor D and Canon L lenses sometimes need to be sent back for calibration.

That said, don't expect a $270 zoom lens to have the same quality operating range as a $800 zoom lens. Also don't expect a lens with 7X zoom capability to be as good as a lens with 3X zoom capability. The Sigma 18-125 is a unique lens and it has limitations.

When shooting in the extreme ranges (18 and 125) you will get some barrel distortion and vignetting (below f8). I have found that the (fully) usable range is about 20mm-110mm (still pretty good) and that like most consumer lenses aperture at about 6.3 to 16. At the wide end (about 18-35) you should be able to run the aperture wide open without much problem.

Of the 5 or 6 people using the Sigma 18-125 on these boards (on Canon and Nikon) you are the second to have poor results with this lens recently. So maybe Sigma needs to look at their QA/QC.

Anyway give it a go with the above in mind.