PDA

View Full Version : XT with Sigma lens???



D70FAN
04-01-2005, 09:56 AM
Hi Jeff,

Just curious as to why you are posting new pictures taken with the XT using a Sigma 15-30? I'm not questioning the lens choice as it is probably pretty good for $580, but why the switch? Why not the Canon 18-55 USM?

Again, just curious. Thanks.

jamison55
04-01-2005, 10:13 AM
Hi Jeff,

Just curious as to why you are posting new pictures taken with the XT using a Sigma 15-30? I'm not questioning the lens choice as it is probably pretty good for $580, but why the switch? Why not the Canon 18-55 USM?

Again, just curious. Thanks.

I'd wager that it's to show the inherant quality of the camera without the handicap that the "kit lens" provides.

Comparing DSLR's with the "kit lens" that each comes with may lend an unfair advantages to the kits with better bundled lenses (if memory serves right, Canon loaned Jeff a couple of "L's" to test the 20D with).

Personally, I'd prefer Jeff buy a copy of the respective 50mm primes for the DSLRs he tests, and post a shot or two using those. They are all sharp and relatively inexpensive.

A few hundred should get him into the basic fi-tty's for Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and Minolta. Anyone want to start a donation thread? I'm in for $20 (or about 1/4 the cost of one of the lenses) :D

D70FAN
04-01-2005, 01:30 PM
I'd wager that it's to show the inherant quality of the camera without the handicap that the "kit lens" provides.

Comparing DSLR's with the "kit lens" that each comes with may lend an unfair advantages to the kits with better bundled lenses (if memory serves right, Canon loaned Jeff a couple of "L's" to test the 20D with).

Personally, I'd prefer Jeff buy a copy of the respective 50mm primes for the DSLRs he tests, and post a shot or two using those. They are all sharp and relatively inexpensive.

A few hundred should get him into the basic fi-tty's for Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and Minolta. Anyone want to start a donation thread? I'm in for $20 (or about 1/4 the cost of one of the lenses) :D

I've already been accused of slandering the XT, so I certainly don't want to read anything into this move on Jeffs part. But I just don't remember a precedence.

Since most people buying a consumer dSLR will buy the kit lens I would think that this would be a better representative for a review.

TheObiJuan
04-01-2005, 02:27 PM
I feel that the tests are comparing the maximum quality that the camera can output. Why not use canon L glass for all of the canon cameras. Although canon is not trying to push L glass on thier consumers, I am going to own some. ;)

I like jamison's ideas about the fitty primes, as they all have great quality and are fairly inexpensive.

George, I apologize if I have insinuated that you have been slandering the XT. :D

ReF
04-02-2005, 04:59 PM
no response eh? maybe he's on vacation? the homepage still says it's march 31. the 50mm primes thing sounds like a good idea. but it kinda sucks if he's gotta pay for them all out of his own pocket. maybe they'd be easier on the wallet if the lenses were aquired one at a time when needed. either way, i'm in on a donation if he goes with the primes thing. anyone else?

gary_hendricks
04-02-2005, 06:20 PM
Yes, I tend to use the recommend kit lens when buying an SLR.

Jeff Keller
04-02-2005, 07:25 PM
Hi Jeff,

Just curious as to why you are posting new pictures taken with the XT using a Sigma 15-30? I'm not questioning the lens choice as it is probably pretty good for $580, but why the switch? Why not the Canon 18-55 USM?

Again, just curious. Thanks.

I wanted to show that you could get sharper images by not using the kit lens. Simple as that. I'd like some nicer glass but I don't have any and don't personally need a 50mm lens, so I'm not about to buy one.

D70FAN
04-02-2005, 08:42 PM
I feel that the tests are comparing the maximum quality that the camera can output. Why not use canon L glass for all of the canon cameras. Although canon is not trying to push L glass on thier consumers, I am going to own some. ;)

I like jamison's ideas about the fitty primes, as they all have great quality and are fairly inexpensive.

George, I apologize if I have insinuated that you have been slandering the XT. :D

Who the heck uses a 50 prime for day-to-day shooting? All-in-one dSLR newbies (remember this camera is supposed to be for them) would go insane without a zoom. Which is exactly why camera manufacturers don't sell their dSLR's with a "kit" fixed-prime.

If the 18-55 is crap, then call it that. However, I do find it interesting that the (crappy?) kit lens was good enough for the 300D.

D70FAN
04-02-2005, 08:50 PM
no response eh? maybe he's on vacation? the homepage still says it's march 31. the 50mm primes thing sounds like a good idea. but it kinda sucks if he's gotta pay for them all out of his own pocket. maybe they'd be easier on the wallet if the lenses were aquired one at a time when needed. either way, i'm in on a donation if he goes with the primes thing. anyone else?

Again, my question is: Why doesn't the XT perform well with the, Canon recomended, "kit" lens?

If you add $450 to $550 to the price of the XT for a lens, that makes it look good, then couldn't you buy a D20 with a "kit" lens that does?

Bluedog
04-02-2005, 11:02 PM
Actually I'm getting pretty decent results from the Canon Kit Lens but one that knows a little about quality and has an idea of its limitations knows what to expect. Heck just look through the Nikon 18-70 Kit vs Canon 18-55 Kit gallery's at Pbase.com and you can get all kinds of good and bad results from both lens.

As for that I want wider focal range that what the Canon provides so the Sigma 18-125mm could be my next investment.

Rex914
04-02-2005, 11:17 PM
Who the heck uses a 50 prime for day-to-day shooting?

I guess I'm not normal, but I see myself doing exactly that for the work that I do. With food, 50mm is a perfect focal length. :)

Regarding the comments here... didn't Jeff use a 24-70L on the 20D review? It's very difficult to rate image quality if all you've got is the kit lens. What if the kit lens is mediocre like in this case? Does that really drag down the image quality rating even though the camera is really not at fault? I understand that it's reasonable to use the kit lens because that will be most commonly used, but it's probably more fair in the interest of reviews to use a mid-range common zoom lens as he has done in this review. Not anything fancy, but something that portrays the camera in a fairer light.

gary_hendricks
04-02-2005, 11:40 PM
I guess I'm not normal, but I see myself doing exactly that for the work that I do. With food, 50mm is a perfect focal length. :)

Regarding the comments here... didn't Jeff use a 24-70L on the 20D review? It's very difficult to rate image quality if all you've got is the kit lens. What if the kit lens is mediocre like in this case? Does that really drag down the image quality rating even though the camera is really not at fault? I understand that it's reasonable to use the kit lens because that will be most commonly used, but it's probably more fair in the interest of reviews to use a mid-range common zoom lens as he has done in this review. Not anything fancy, but something that portrays the camera in a fairer light.


Yes, George has a point there - to be objective in the reviews, I guess Jeff needs to use a lens other than the kit.

Rex914
04-03-2005, 12:02 AM
And by that merit, he could and should be fair and use a non-kit lens for reviews of other DSLR's. If it's a Sigma, it should have mounts for every type shouldn't it?

I've been a bit out lately and haven't caught wind of what seems to be a heated debate about the XT. Why is it being pounded so much? Feature-wise, it's a better camera than the original Rebel. Canon listened up and added in many of the missing features from before, but oddly enough, I'm seeing more recommendations against the XT than for the original Rebel. Could somebody explain the seemingly odd reasoning behind this? I have no basis for endorsing the XT as I don't own one and haven't been reading up, but by common sense, it shouldn't be a worse camera than the original should it? DIGIC II and stronger feature base weren't enough to make it an improvement over the Rebel? What else could Canon have done?

Jeff Keller
04-03-2005, 12:54 AM
What do you guys think about me getting a Canon F1.8 28mm lens to use? That would be more useful for me, as I don't have a need for a 50.

ReF
04-03-2005, 01:12 AM
And by that merit, he could and should be fair and use a non-kit lens for reviews of other DSLR's. If it's a Sigma, it should have mounts for every type shouldn't it?

I've been a bit out lately and haven't caught wind of what seems to be a heated debate about the XT. Why is it being pounded so much? Feature-wise, it's a better camera than the original Rebel. Canon listened up and added in many of the missing features from before, but oddly enough, I'm seeing more recommendations against the XT than for the original Rebel. Could somebody explain the seemingly odd reasoning behind this? I have no basis for endorsing the XT as I don't own one and haven't been reading up, but by common sense, it shouldn't be a worse camera than the original should it? DIGIC II and stronger feature base weren't enough to make it an improvement over the Rebel? What else could Canon have done?

yup, people like to complain and nit-pick even though it is a significant improvement over the 300d. maybe people were expecting to pay $900 for a plastic 20D with a few feature disabled. i'm not quite sure why it got so small though; the tiny grip is a bit uncomfortable in my not-so-large hands. even the G6 has a larger and more comfortable grip. that's the one thing that i felt wasn't an improvement.

ReF
04-03-2005, 01:15 AM
What do you guys think about me getting a Canon F1.8 28mm lens to use? That would be more useful for me, as I don't have a need for a 50.

i've been shopping around for a 28mm myself after realizing the canon 35mm 2.0 was that much wider than the 50mm. from reading the reviews on fredmiranda.com the canon 28mm 1.8 seems to have much more negatives than the 28mm 2.8

TheObiJuan
04-03-2005, 04:47 AM
Who the heck uses a 50 prime for day-to-day shooting? All-in-one dSLR newbies (remember this camera is supposed to be for them) would go insane without a zoom. Which is exactly why camera manufacturers don't sell their dSLR's with a "kit" fixed-prime.

If the 18-55 is crap, then call it that. However, I do find it interesting that the (crappy?) kit lens was good enough for the 300D.

perhaps I have become spoilded over the past year. The lens I use day-to-day is the canon 50mm. But I am not the average dslr noob though.
I had the chance to use a friends 75-300 f/4-5.6 lens today. When scrolling through the images on the TV, everyone asked why some pictures looked "better" than others. the detail, contrast, colors, and etc from the 50mm f/1.8 were great. Even with his lens at f/8, it was a bit soft.

gary_hendricks
04-03-2005, 04:58 AM
yup, people like to complain and nit-pick even though it is a significant improvement over the 300d. maybe people were expecting to pay $900 for a plastic 20D with a few feature disabled. i'm not quite sure why it got so small though; the tiny grip is a bit uncomfortable in my not-so-large hands. even the G6 has a larger and more comfortable grip. that's the one thing that i felt wasn't an improvement.

Hee ... I've been reading quite a bit of the objections against the Rebel XT as well. Personally I don't think it's worse off than the original Rebel in any way.

jamison55
04-03-2005, 06:23 AM
Who the heck uses a 50 prime for day-to-day shooting?

I never meant to suggest that the 50 prime is the lens for day to day shooting. My suggestion about the 50 primes was simply a way to paint all of the cameras reviewed in the best light at a low cost. The cheap 50 primes from each manufacturer are legendary for their sharpness and color rendition, yet they each cost less than $100 (I was trying to be value conscious for Jeff). My original point was that measuring each camera with a more comparable lens is a more fair assessment, since DSLR quality is so dependant upon the quality of the optics. Reviewing each camera with the kit lens is seriously flawed, since a bad kit lens will kill the image quality of an excellent camera. Why do you think Canon sent Jeff an "L" to test the 20D with? I can take a better picture with my 80-200L on my DReb, than with the Kit lens on the 20D. Does that mean the DReb takes better pictures? In the eyes of the DSLR newb it might. From what I've seen, both Nikon and Pentax provide a better kit lens with their $1K DSLR's. Does that mean that they are more capable that the XT of taking better pictures? Only a test with a comparable lens can tell you that!


If the 18-55 is crap, then call it that. However, I do find it interesting that the (crappy?) kit lens was good enough for the 300D.

Ok, the 18-55 is crap...now. When the original DReb was released there weren't as many fine DC, DI, EFs, affordable superwides, etc. to compare it to, so for bang for your buck, it was (and still is) a pretty good lens. On top of that, everyone was in awe of the new sub $1K DSLR. The DReb was a remarkable upgrade for Canon's target audience: the advanced PnSer. As such the kit lens is/was better than the glass on my A80, and by comparison the DReb kit shone. Fast forward to now, and our expectations have changed. Every other manufacturer has a better kit lens that Canon, and there are many third party lenses that are superior as well. With more DSLR's to compare the XT with (all of them with superior optics in the kit), image quality is not as impressive by comparison. The DReb Kit still beats the h*ll out of the Canon A95, but no one is comparing those any more...therefore the kit is not good enough for guaging the image quality of the XT.

jamison55
04-03-2005, 06:30 AM
What do you guys think about me getting a Canon F1.8 28mm lens to use? That would be more useful for me, as I don't have a need for a 50.

Looks like the Sigma 28 1.8 is a bit more highly reviewed, though I've not used either so I can't personally comment. How 'bout a Canon 16-35L. You ought to be able to get Canon to send you one as a thanks for all of the cameras you have sold for them :D (Just kidding, of course)

jamison55
04-03-2005, 06:40 AM
And by that merit, he could and should be fair and use a non-kit lens for reviews of other DSLR's. If it's a Sigma, it should have mounts for every type shouldn't it?

Thus my suggestion of the 50's...


I've been a bit out lately and haven't caught wind of what seems to be a heated debate about the XT. Why is it being pounded so much?

It is not being pounded because it is a bad camera, per say, but because the <$1k DSLR market is more competitive than it was 1.5 years ago. Back then the DReb was the best camera you could buy for 1K. Now it is not necessarily, with excellent competiton from Nikon and Pentax at the same price point. By comparison it is slightly unremarkable (which is what most people are saying...not that it's a bad camera). It's a little unfair because I can't think of any features that Canon could have added that would have made it a better camera in its category...

One thing's for certain: at $600 the original DReb remains what it always was...the best value in DSLR cameras!

D70FAN
04-03-2005, 09:01 AM
Thus my suggestion of the 50's...



It is not being pounded because it is a bad camera, per se, but because the <$1k DSLR market is more competitive than it was 1.5 years ago. Back then the DReb was the best camera you could buy for 1K. Now it is not necessarily, with excellent competiton from Nikon and Pentax at the same price point. By comparison it is slightly unremarkable (which is what most people are saying...not that it's a bad camera). It's a little unfair because I can't think of any features that Canon could have added that would have made it a better camera in its category...

One thing's for certain: at $600 the original DReb remains what it always was...the best value in DSLR cameras!

I couldn't have said it better.

And I will say no more. I promise. No, really. ;)

D70FAN
04-03-2005, 09:07 AM
I guess I'm not normal, but I see myself doing exactly that for the work that I do. With food, 50mm is a perfect focal length. :)

Regarding the comments here... didn't Jeff use a 24-70L on the 20D review? It's very difficult to rate image quality if all you've got is the kit lens. What if the kit lens is mediocre like in this case? Does that really drag down the image quality rating even though the camera is really not at fault? I understand that it's reasonable to use the kit lens because that will be most commonly used, but it's probably more fair in the interest of reviews to use a mid-range common zoom lens as he has done in this review. Not anything fancy, but something that portrays the camera in a fairer light.

Then how do you judge the merit of value? If a camera with a kit lens costs $1200 and takes wonderful pictures, and it's compared to a $900 camera requiring a $400 lens to bring it up to par, then which is the better value?

And basically that's my point here.

Rex914
04-03-2005, 11:41 AM
Thus my suggestion of the 50's...



It is not being pounded because it is a bad camera, per say, but because the <$1k DSLR market is more competitive than it was 1.5 years ago. Back then the DReb was the best camera you could buy for 1K. Now it is not necessarily, with excellent competiton from Nikon and Pentax at the same price point. By comparison it is slightly unremarkable (which is what most people are saying...not that it's a bad camera). It's a little unfair because I can't think of any features that Canon could have added that would have made it a better camera in its category...

One thing's for certain: at $600 the original DReb remains what it always was...the best value in DSLR cameras!

I totally agree but... how is this any different from the situation one month ago when the XT wasn't available? We were all still recommending the original rebel with enthusiasm, and it was still priced at the $900/$1000 price point still. I'm confused. :confused:

jamison55
04-03-2005, 12:13 PM
I totally agree but... how is this any different from the situation one month ago when the XT wasn't available? We were all still recommending the original rebel with enthusiasm, and it was still priced at the $900/$1000 price point still. I'm confused. :confused:

Way back then the D70 was still $1200- $1300 - and we had a lot more examples of shots with the original DReb and decent optics! In a few months we'll have hundreds of examples of the XT with "L" glass, and the furor will calm down a bit. I also think that the XT suffers from the fact that the original DReb was such a breakthrough product. The XT is an improvement in every way, but it can never be the breakthrough the DReb was (and unfurtunately most people's expectations were a little higher than they should have been...)

Jeff Keller
04-03-2005, 12:41 PM
Looks like the Sigma 28 1.8 is a bit more highly reviewed, though I've not used either so I can't personally comment. How 'bout a Canon 16-35L. You ought to be able to get Canon to send you one as a thanks for all of the cameras you have sold for them :D (Just kidding, of course)

Actually I might be able to get that lens... let me try.

Rex914
04-03-2005, 07:33 PM
Way back then the D70 was still $1200- $1300 - and we had a lot more examples of shots with the original DReb and decent optics! In a few months we'll have hundreds of examples of the XT with "L" glass, and the furor will calm down a bit. I also think that the XT suffers from the fact that the original DReb was such a breakthrough product. The XT is an improvement in every way, but it can never be the breakthrough the DReb was (and unfurtunately most people's expectations were a little higher than they should have been...)

I won't try and get technical, but this was the small sliver of time, about a month between the time when the XT was announced and when it was available. The D70 was already on discount and the original Rebel actually left discount. Oh well, point well made. I guess that when you do something good, the next time you do it, it's gotta be even more breakthrough than the first time. That's tough to top. Let's just sit back and wait for Canon's next (DSLR) act (hopefully a 30D).

D70FAN
04-03-2005, 08:08 PM
I won't try and get technical, but this was the small sliver of time, about a month between the time when the XT was announced and when it was available. The D70 was already on discount and the original Rebel actually left discount. Oh well, point well made. I guess that when you do something good, the next time you do it, it's gotta be even more breakthrough than the first time. That's tough to top. Let's just sit back and wait for Canon's next (DSLR) act (hopefully a 30D).

It will be intersting to see if Canon uses 30D after already using D30. ;)

D40 is still open as is 40D. Why would Canon want to replace the 20D? It's in a catagory all to itself.

It will be interesting to see what happens when the D50 hits the market.

Rex914
04-04-2005, 12:55 AM
Any idea on what form factor the D50 will be (based on the manual)? Is it the same size as the current D70 or is it gunning directly for the "compact DSLR" market instead?

ReF
04-04-2005, 02:02 AM
It will be intersting to see if Canon uses 30D after already using D30. ;)

D40 is still open as is 40D. Why would Canon want to replace the 20D? It's in a catagory all to itself.

It will be interesting to see what happens when the D50 hits the market.

there's plenty of improvements that i can think of for the 20d replacement :D . main things are hopefully better ISO performance, even better dynamic range, and something like 10mp. other stuff could be faster flash sync, auto MLU with self timer, 2 sec self timer, support for wireless remote, higher total # of burst shots in RAW. who knows, canon might even get crazy and include an ISO setting higher than 3200 (not likely though). i have high hopes for this cam, because i'm already planning to get it!

jamison55
04-04-2005, 04:35 AM
Actually I might be able to get that lens... let me try.

It is one of the finest wide zooms currently made. It will definitely show the true potential of Canon DSLR's...

D70FAN
04-04-2005, 07:13 AM
there's plenty of improvements that i can think of for the 20d replacement :D . main things are hopefully better ISO performance, even better dynamic range, and something like 10mp. other stuff could be faster flash sync, auto MLU with self timer, 2 sec self timer, support for wireless remote, higher total # of burst shots in RAW. who knows, canon might even get crazy and include an ISO setting higher than 3200 (not likely though). i have high hopes for this cam, because i'm already planning to get it!

I should have added... "without affecting their professional camera sales." So what you are suggesting, while appealing to us all, suggests a detuned version of the 1Ds which is an 11.1MP full frame. At the rate that Canon is introducing new consumer dSLR's that might not be far off. Let's hope they can keep the excellence of the prosumer 20D.