xsi but thinking I should have got a 50d...

[nickds7]

I've heard of the 24-70l lens needingre-calibratedover some time.... only from 1 source, so I'm sure it isn't that big of an issue..or one to worry about.

[randmc]

I've had the XSi for about 20 months, and I find it to be a great camera. Sure, I'm starting to find its limits, but I'm also learning ways to compensate. I'm investing in better lenses: added the 50 1.8, then the 28-135, and the 17-55 arrives today! I'd like to get my skills up before I sink more money into a body.


You may already be feeling 'maxed out' on the XSi with your experience, but it certainly isn't a weak or lacking camera. Good luck either way!

[neuroanatomist]

What is af microadjustment? ...is that a problem with the lens or camera that occurs over time/usage?

It shouldn't change over time, no. Also, it's not a problem with either the lens or the camera, usually (unless one of them is defective). It's really about manufacturing tolerances, and pairing a lens and body that are on opposite ends of those tolerances. Roger at LensRentals.com explains it very well in his article, "This lens is soft and other myths."

[Madison]

Better gear rarely makes for better photographs.


Spectacular classic photographs from world famous potographers were made with gear FAR inferiour to todays entry level gear.





So unles you have technical reasons to upgrade (like needing megapixels or burst rates etc because of the type of prints you make or the type of photography you do) just shoot and shoot and shoot and you will see your work improve.








My 2c


(I photographed with a 400D for YEARS until I needed a full frame with more pixels because of very very large prints required by some assignments).

[Gina Franco]

So, I am new to digital photography, however I took 6 years of photography classes in high school and college combined using film.


I recently purchased the xsi about 5 months ago, and I feel as though I should have spent a few extra hundred dollars on a better camera such as the 50d which really appeals to me. I went with the xsi because it was more entry level for a newbie to dslr such as me.


I have read the reviews on this site for both the xsi and the 50d, however I had a hard time getting through all the tech lingo on the 50d review and it was just too much for me to comprehend.


So, my question is: did I make a mistake buying the xsi (since I already am an experienced photographer)?


And, what real advantages can you list in simple english that the 50d has over the xsi?


**If I do sell my xsi at a loss and buy a 50d, will the 50d be considered a suitable/serious enthusiast camera that i can utilize for many years to come?**





Thank you very much for all and any feedback!!
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I started out a year ago with the Rebel XSI (from a similar place as you now--somewhat familiar with photography, but new to digital), and I love it. The Rebel is a great camera, especially paired with good lenses. I've just upgraded to a 5DII, but ONLY because I really wanted a full-frame wide angle view, and I'll tell ya: there is a lot to learn when you upgrade beyond your skill level. I'm not yet making photographs with the 5DII that match the quality (in terms of exposure and composition) of what I learned to do with the Rebel! All that great resolution is going to waste on my lack of know-how!


You'll probably be itching to upgrade at some point (if you're already itching to upgrade now), but if you didn't understand Bryan's review of the 50D, you're likely in a good place to learn a whole bunch from the Rebel. I learned tons in my first year from that camera, and still didn't learn everything the XSI can do. So don't knock it. Seriously. I'll be keeping my XSI around as a backup camera for those times when a crop sensor can provide more reach, or for travel when the 5DII might be too heavy to carry around all day. The image quality of the XSI is excellent: enough for the needs of most enthusiasts. I had XSI images blown up for a small gallery show recently, some at 24x36, and they turned out gorgeous. Where those blown up images were muddy (in the corners, mostly) it was the photographer's fault, or a shortcoming of the lens. Not the fault of the XSI.


Sink the extra money into a good lens if you're itching to upgrade now. --Just my 2 cents!! Good luck!

[Sheiky]

I kind of agree with everybody here that you bought a good camera, which should be capable of getting you good quality pictures for the first few years.


I started out with the 450D as well and the only reason why I got the 50D was the frame-rate and shutterlag-difference. Since I did a lot of sports-photography I really needed those better specifications.


Tell us what sort of subjects you shoot, what you'd expect from the 50D that the 450D can't give you and why the 50D appeals to you, then I guess we could be of more help to you. Because if you really don't need the better "action"capabilities of the 50D (the 450D can do the trick as well, but the 50D just makes it a little easier) the sell and buy thing will only waste your money.


There are a few other differences of course, but better action-capability is the biggest in my opinion.


Jan

[Gina Franco]

Jan, you are always so clear and helpful! []

[Sheiky]

Thanks Gina, that's what I try []hmmm I probably shouldn't point you at a few threads where I ain't so helpfull [A]


I just hope I helped Darren a bit since I made the same choice myself for about a year ago []

[scalesusa]

I've bought many new and used Canon lenses both L and non L, some almost 30 years old. Only one needed adjustment of +2 (almost insignificant).

[neuroanatomist]

I've bought many new and used Canon lenses both L and non L, some almost 30 years old. Only one needed adjustment of +2 (almost insignificant).

Most of my lenses have some adjustment applied, usually ranging from -2 to +2, and that's for L and non-L lenses. My calibrations are fairly accurate (probably more so than eyeballing sharpness), thanks to use of a LensAlign Pro. The only lens I adjusted more than 2 units is the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, at +5. But, I hesitate to say any of them needs the adjustment, and I doubtscalesusa's lens needs it either. Each adjustment unit is approximately 1/8 of the lens' DoF at it's max aperture. Canon's AF spec is accuracy within the DoF for lenses &gt;f/2.8, and within 1/3 of the DoF for lenses f/2.8 or faster (on the more recent bodies with high-precision center AF points). So, an adjustment of 2 units is 1/4 of the DoF, and the AF system itself is less accurate than that. +5 (more than half the DoF) would be a meaningful adjustment on an f/2.8 lens, not really on a slower lens, and in my case since it's a UWA lens where I'm usually on a tripod and stopped down to increase DoF, the +5 adjustment for that lens also isn't really needed.


But, to the extent that we all strive for perfection, and on the principle that a properly microadjusted lens will give a slightly higher frequency of in-focus shots (because the center of the -/+ AF tolerance will be the true center, rather than offset), I say adjust 'em if you got 'em!