Rebel XT vs DSC-R1

[Spook E]

I couldn't find anything via search but this question is starting to eat away at me a bit

Have the choice of buying either the XT or the R1 but can't decided between the two. I really like the look, feel and idea behind the R1, but for some reason think that by passing up on the chance to buy the XT I'm going to be missing out on some cool features, advantages that I won't get with the R1.

I know the basic stuff like the ability to change lens, being able to look straight through the lens rather than the EVF on the R1, slightly better auto focus in low light and better burst mode are in the XTs favour, but other than the burst mode the others aren't a huge worry.

So has anyone got both and can comment on which they prefer and why? Anyone else feel to jump in and point me in the right direction to

Thanks All

[timmciglobal]

I'm not impressed by the sony, its got a slow lens and a fixed lens. Horrible burst rate and more noise then the XT.

The new panasonic DSLR seems nice, depends on price with the leica kit lens but a 28>100 stabailized F2.8>3.5 kit lens sounds hot.

Tim

[mediyoga]

I agree with timmciglobal. Maybe you should wait for the new Panasonic with the leica lens. The rebel Xt is always there---
Krishna Raman

[capedeci]

It depends on what will you do with it.

If you stay with one kit lens on the XT, it can't come close to R1 in terms of quality and speed. The R1 lens is fast compared to kit lens or other budget f/3.5~5.6 or f/4~5/6 lenses.

A good 24-120 range at XT needs at least two good lenses. The closest single lens is the 17-85IS, but that adds extra price.

XT have lot more accessories, like battery grip, nice flash, etc.

But if you want to only spend the money on a "Camera" without any accessories and equipment, R1 is a better choice.

Camera only, R1 is a better one (except the burst mode), but after XT is loaded with lenses and accessories, the XT blow R1 away. But it take at least $1500 to build the SLR system, while R1 costs below $900.

But the flashes and lenses you might get for the XT is always usable for your next body, which will cost around $600 for its class.

Just make sure after you invest you won't change brand, because it'll make you lose lot of money

[robertbilling]

Originally Posted by mediyoga

I agree with timmciglobal. Maybe you should wait for the new Panasonic with the leica lens. The rebel Xt is always there---
Krishna Raman

Isn't the Pana + lens going to cost around twice the price of either camera?
I imagine the new lens alone will be worth a stack of bucks.

[coldrain]

The lens of the R1 is not very fast anyway. It also vignets quite badly, and there is no way to upgrade that in future. Its range is limitted and conversion lenses are not a great solution. Its noise is quite a bit worse, but the mentioned Panasonic will be worse in that area still.

An XT with Canon EF 28-105mm USM II lens will beat the Sony R1 easily in image quality, concerning both noise, colour, distortion and vignetting. It will focus faster too. You either get a kit lens to fill in the wider angles, or you get a dedicated wide angle zoom like the Canon EF-S 10-22mm USM or the Tokina 12-24mm f4 lens. Both offer great wide angle that the R1 can not reach in quality.

If you do not need to go that wide, but want to have a better quality lens than the kit lens for the wider end, the cheap Tamron 19-35 f3.5-4.5 lens is quite a steal, if you do not mind to spend a bit more the Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-f4 is a great lens for the money.

Since image quality is the most important thing, I would surely choose an XT over the R1. It also allows you to grow with it.

My least expensive choice would be:
XT
Tamron 19-35mm (under $150?)
Canon EF 28-105mm USM II (under $250)
together giving a range of 30-168mm.

A step up:
XT
Tamron 17-35 (under $450)
Canon EF 28-105mm USM II (under $250)
giving a range of 27-168mm.

Extra wide:
XT
Tokina 12-24 (under $450?)
Canon EF 28-105mm USM II (under $250)
giving a range of 19-168mm.
or with Canon EF-S 10-22mm USM (under $750) giving a range of 16-168mm.

[capedeci]

just a reminder that the optics of R1 is an excellent one, and the cheap lenses cannot be compared in sharpness. It's in class of an L lens, but yes, at tele it is slow, and high ISO noise is terrible, horrible, etc

In low ISO daylight shot, high quality is what the R1 is best doing at.

These information is taken from reviews, I have only played with R1 for a few minutes myself, and don't want to buy it. It don't suit my need, I need lot of available light photography.

[coldrain]

While the R1's lens is not crap, it certainly is not "excellent" and no way near "L" or other expensive lens quality. It is an ok lens just like the lens of the Panasonic FZ20/30, but it has its drawbacks like vignetting and distortion.

A lens like the EF 18-105 USM II easily matches or betters it in the different areas on an XT.

[D70FAN]

Or for less money, you might want to include the Nikon D50 in this decision. With the very nice AF-S 18-70 DX lens it's still cheaper than the Sony R-1 (~$970 vs. $999). Add the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro ($184), and you are good to go. 18mm to 300mm (equivalent to 27mm-450mm on 35mm, or 16X in all-in-one terms) with 2 good quality consumer lenses... still for less than $1160. Probably cheaper if you shop around a little.

Just offering an alternative...

[capedeci]

Originally Posted by coldrain

While the R1's lens is not crap, it certainly is not "excellent" and no way near "L" or other expensive lens quality. It is an ok lens just like the lens of the Panasonic FZ20/30, but it has its drawbacks like vignetting and distortion.

A lens like the EF 18-105 USM II easily matches or betters it in the different areas on an XT.

well, I don't know. I just read the comparisons in the imaging-resource review. Haven't seen actual results either