Nikon D40 vs. Canon EOS Rebel XT

I'm in the market for a good starter camera. And well those are pretty much my choices. I know there is a megapixel difference but what else is going to help me make a choice?

I've got about a month before I'm going to buy so please help me out.

Also if anybody had any cameras for sell let me know.

Thanks

consider the lens...really look at the lens you will be using and take that into consideration...

bodies depreciate pretty quickly - high quality lens retain their value and make a big difference in quality.

the body is the cheapest part of the whole equation.

I agree the lens IS the most important part, the difference between good shots and great shots is the glass. You can buy so many lenses these days that I wouldn't base your decision of the camera on the "stock" lens it comes with though. I would go with the camera that takes the most shots per second. Mega pixels shouldn't be a huge factor in your decision, anything over 8 is overkill anyways. I have the Rebel XTI and I love it! But I already want to upgrade to the Mark 5 because it will shoot 10 frames a second instead of 3. Just my opinion.

(Message edited by elicitwake on May 07, 2007)

Hey guys ... I'd have to disagree with you somewhat. The glass doesn't make the camera. The camera ... makes the camera. The camera and the functions it offers is what you need to be concerned about. What is it you need or require the most. Frames per second speed, ISO range, pixel size, amount of focusing points in the frame, etc.

I'm a sports photographer and have a business that provides action photography at events. You need a camera that has fast frames per second ability and good pixel size options. I do agree with Riley's point that pixel size is over rated. Again ... what do you plan on doing with your shots after you've captured them. If you want to print large prints 12x18 or larger ... then pixel size comes into play. If you are never going to print anything larger than an 8x10 ... then stay/shoot easily under 5 pixels. When I'm doing only 8x10's or less I ran at 3.25 pixels.

Yes .... cameras age and depreciate and glass ... well it's pretty much timeless and holds it's value much better ... but don't be purchasing this kind of gear thinking you'll be able get your money back when you sell it (if you should). At the end of the day ... it's all an expense to you and definitely not an investment. Back to the glass, it will always work on any (same camera bodies) even as new camera bodies become available. Where glass comes into play is it's ability to get you 'tighter' to your subject. The glass that comes with these camera body when you purchase them is 'useless' ... FOR action photo's. This lense is good for point and shoot type of stuff and that's it. I would STRONGLY recommend a 70-200mm F2.8 OR 70-200mm F4. Both are fast lenses and actually the F4 is better suited for the Rebel as the 2.8 is overkill and drains the camera's batteries faster. Both lenses give you enough range to zoom in and out and are certainly fast enough to freeze action ... coupled with a good consumer camera like the Rebel. I'm a Canon guy .... so buy Canon (ha,ha).

To conclude ... glass doesn't make a camera. It helps you achieve what it is you are needing (i.e. zoom range, wide angle, etc). For you, I'd say buy the Rebel, get yourself a 70-200mm F4 (will cost you about as much as the camera itself) and get the nickel lit recharge batteries and charger and 1gig card and you'll be set!

Have fun!

Now I may not be the most experienced camera man, but I do have a pretty good working knowledge in the way of cameras. I can see where you are coming from saying that the lens does not make the body, but it is pretty important. Also, I'm not sure where the fact that the 2.8 uses more battery came from, but I highly doubt that that is true. This is just my $.02 though.

(Message edited by lsurulzes on May 11, 2007)

I'm not sure why the f2.8 would drain the battery faster then the f4 either, leaving IS on with either lens will take a bit more battery power however. The XTi is a great body with great IQ. Here is a shot from the XTi / 70-200 f4L IS:

rich,

great shot !! btw, what lens filters do you use ?

I'll use a polarizer if I'm shooting midday and I've tried a few ND grads but most of the time I can get the enhancements I want to the shot using curves and highlite/shadow adjustments with RAW files.

I can't say enough good things about the 70-200f4 L IS, if this lens is any worse then all the primes I've owned in comparable focal lengths from an IQ standpoint I can't see it!

Look at a 100% crop from that shot:

Hey guys ... nice shot Rich! Regarding the battery life on the camera regarding a 2.8 or F4 ... the 2.8 DOES draw more battery juice (it's a bigger lense) than that of the F4 ... we've ran similar cameras side by side and the body with the 2.8 died first. The F4 lense is 1/2 the price and will work absolutely just fine for any/all action shots.

bigger USM motor so I guess that makes some sense. I wouldn't not pick a lens because of greater battery consumption as these bodies get a ton of shots on an existing battery to begin with. If you need f2.8 then there's no way around it. The next generation of Canon bodies should give us usable images at ISO6400 and I wouldn't be surprised if the next XTi had 3200 when all the bodies go to digic3.

Each level of ISO is worth 1 aperture f stop (although you do loose some viewfinder brightness and AF sensativity with slower aperture lenses.)

Rich- let's not forget that the noise reduction algorithms have also become really damn good lately. I shot some stuff at 1000 ISO and didn't even realize it until I accidentally hit a hotkey in Lightroom that brought up the metadata!

So yeah, I definitely think that ISO 6400 will be fully usable in the consumer-end cameras in a few years...for Canon. How has Nikon been lately w/ noise at high ISOs? Have they improved lately? Perhaps they will do so in their next pro body (which will trickle down to the consumer line...).

So basically I was looking for the difference in the camera's themselves. Not the camera with a lens that's going to possibly kill my battery.

I do appreciate the responses though. Just try to give me something to work with people.

Thanks again.

When you buy a brand's camera body, you are essentially buying into their lens system. Canon and Nikon are the two heavy hitters of the industry, and each has its own set of lenses. Over time, the body will get "old" like your computer will, and will need to be replaced. Camera lenses wont...in fact, they'll probably last a lifetime.

As far as the cameras are concerned- if you have to ask which is better, then I'm sure that either body will do the trick just fine. You probably won't be using half the controls on the camera, which is fine (and to be expected if you're a beginner), and if you get serious and want a better camera then you can always move on to a Canon 30D/Nikon D80...but see? You'll probably wanna be able to use those lenses you already own from when you bought your XT/D40 on your new 30D/D80. That's why people are kind of stuck on the whole lens thing.

And then you have the fact that this same question has been asked a few times before. Perhaps search this forum for previous questions that might be similar to yours? I know for a fact that there have been quite a few "which camera should I buy" threads started before.

The differences between bodies are subtle and until you're really into it not worth discussing. As Scott says the lens systems are much more different then the bodys.

Battery issues are insignificant and not even worth consideration at all.

This is like explaining all of the technical details of a wakeboard to someone who has never strapped one on, they won't know what you're talking about. I'd pick a system and go for it, you can't go wrong with either.

I fall into the " the lens is more important" camp.

Besides sequences there really isn't a single shot that you can't get with a XTi/ D40X that you can with say a 1DIIN or D2X. And as far as I know there isn't a workaround for soft glass yet.

"Besides sequences there really isn't a single shot that you can't get with a XTi/ D40X that you can with say a 1DIIN or D2X."

Sean, have you ever tried AI Servo on an XTi compared to a 1D2?

I have and it wasn't pretty, XTi can't tack worth a shizz. But in general I'd say that is pretty much the case.

No, I use a 30D and 1D2 (mark1) but I've seen plenty shots from the same shoot I did but with a XTi and more then a couple of them were better then what I got with the superior camera.

XTi can get great shots but the AF has a mind of it's own.

i tried the xti and sold it within 3 days for the 30d...i agree with what rick said..

It's still the better option for Dustin's price range and needs.

Dustin-the D40x is now 10mp as well and probably the best bang for the buck at this point in time

I agree with you, I was merely commenting previously on you comparison to the 1D2. The low end Canon and Nikon bodies are great but obviously they have some limitations one will run into at some point if you really get into it.

I see shots from the original Rebel all the time that blow doors on anything I've ever managed to take. It will always be more about talent then anything else. My problem is after owning top of the line bodies like the 1D/1D2 and 5D it's tough to go "down" to XTi ergonomics.

yea, I definitely agree with you on that one. (if the 1D2 was lighter I wouldn't own a 30D) I just think a lot of people are steered into buying more equipment then they actually need (or want).

I have thought about considering the D40X, I would just have to wait probably another couple months.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?productCategoryId=pcmcat99300050011&id =pcmprd71600050002&skuId=999971700050002&type=prod uct&count=1

What do you think of the price? And the package?

That price is average, you can get that same bundle off ebay with a few more goodies included for around the same price. I'm not a big 75-300 fan but you've got to start somewhere. The 18-55 is a good little lens if you get a good one. Canon doesn't put a whole lot of QC into those, I've seen from that lens that are pretty sharp and some that are pretty unsharp!