i have been looking at the canon 40D for a while now, but i was recently looking at pictures taken by a girl with a canon rebel xt, and they had very good quality. i was just wondering what the better choice would be.
the canon 40D i was looking at cost around
1, 400$ what about the other one?
Related Blogs
- Canon NB-2LH Rechargeable Battery Pack for Rebel XT/XTi Digital SLR Cameras and VIXIA HV Series and ZR Series Camcorders « Store Info Reviews
- House season finale shot entirely with Canon 5DmkII | Philip Bloom
- Canon Digital Camera: Express, Shoot and Share | The Tech And Gadget Blog
- Central Camera » Blog Archive » 5-Piece Deluxe Cleaning Kit – for Canon Digital Rebel XT, XTi, EOS 20D, 30D & 40D, Fujifilm Finepix, Nikon D40, D40x, D50, D70, D80, D100, D200, D300 & D3, Olympus Evolt E300, E330, E410, E500 &
- Canon MT-24EX Macro Twin Lite Flash for 5D, 1DS, 20D, G3, G5, G6, Pro 1 & Rebel XT/XTi « Best Prices
Other articles you might like;
- article submissions » The Snappiest Snaps – The Best Digital Camera Prices under $250 will Fetch You
- Compact Digital Cameras Can Satisfy Even the Most Power Hungry Photographer | Article Drop
- Compact Digital Cameras Can Satisfy Even the Most Power Hungry Photographer | Family Articles | Ezine Articles Store | Ezine Article Directory Store
- Great Suggestions On Canon Camera Accessories | Interviewhelper Articles
Tagged with: canon • canon 40d • canon rebel • canon rebel xt
Filed under: Canon Rebel XT Reviews
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
You’ve got some words of wisdom from Hipp5 that you’d be good to heed. I’ll tell ya, there is not doubt in my mind that if I were to present a print made from a Rebel XT and a print made from a 40D, no one in this thread could tell the difference. I mean, I couldn’t tell the difference either. All this squealing going on that the 40D is so much better, but I’ve not seen one feature mentioned that actually has any bearing on the quality of your images with the exception of shooting speed for some types of photography. Heck, we’re throwing out the higher price of the 40D as if it were a good thing — I dunno about you guys, but money that I save on a camera can be spent on gas to go on a photo shoot. When it comes down to making pictures, both will capture the same image. I mean, we can throw around MTF charts and pixel density statistics as well, but in the end, they make the same picture.
I’ll tell ya, if you’re looking to get the 40D, know why you’re getting it. The girl that took that nice pictures did so because she was a good photographer. If she had a "Prosumer" DSLR instead of an "Entry-level" DSLR, guess what? The pictures would still look good. What you’re buying with the 40D allows the camera to get out of your way a bit more. The build quality on the 40D is larger and more durable, it can stand up to a beating and still deliver. If you plan on your camera being abused throughout your photographic endeavors, then perhaps that’s reason to buy the 40D. It takes more pictures during continuous shooting, and it takes them twice as fast. I can’t count how many times I’ve the RAW Wall — the point at which the camera’s buffer fills up and your continuous shooting ends — when taking macro and wildlife shots on DSLR’s. The 40D also has a larger, brighter viewfinder, which is very helpful when focusing manually (especially in low light). The 40D is larger and fits more comfortably in average or large hands — it also feels generally more solid. If you find these to be important to the photography that you plan to make, then I would say the 40D is justified. Just don’t get it in your head that the 40D will take better pictures than the XT, or that you need the newest technology to make great pictures. If you wish to save money, you can pick up the 350D/XT for around $350 new-in-box (it’s been discontinued, however), and you’ll have about $1,100 left to play with. Get some nice lenses, a sturdy Manfrotto tripod, a decent flash, a big fast memory card, an extra battery, and some instructional books on the basics of photography as well as more detailed books on your fields of interest. That, to me, sounds like money better spend than a larger LCD, nigh-useless Live View, and bragging rights to say you have the newest "Prosumer" technology.
Rebel by far!!!!!
WHAT?!
The canon rebel xt is only four hundred and fifty dollars, with an 18-55mm lens, and the canon eos 40d, body only, is around one thousand dollars. So, the 40d is twice as expensive, and for a reason. The canon eos 40d is a ‘ prosumer ‘ camera, which means, as it’s name suggests, it’s more professional that a starter digital SLR. However, the XT is only a starter camera. There’s a big difference. Here are some of those differences for you:
a) the rebel has a 1.8" screen, and the 40d has a 3" live view screen, so, the 40d wins that by far.
b) the rebel has an 8 megapixel sensor, and the 40d has a ten megapixel camera.
c) the rebel can shoot at only 3 frames per second, and the 40d can shoot at five. I mean, how can you think the xt is better?
get the EOS 40D camera, don’t regress to the xt.
The Rebel Xt – BY FAR???? You have got to be kidding!!! The Rebel Xt doesn’t even come close to the EOS 40D in so many ways. I’m not saying the 40D is a perfect camera – it isn’t. But it outperforms a Rebel Xt any day. I MIGHT be mistaken, but I could swear that the Xt has been discontinued – but I could be wrong. There is always the Canon Xti, which is a step up from the 8 megapixel Xt line. But anyway….
To answer your question, I personally would go for the EOS 40D. BUT, I would get the 40D body ONLY (not with a kit kens included), and add a high quality lens that fits my needs and expectations. The ‘kit’ lenses aren’t really bad lenses. Not at all. They’re just not as good as many of the other available Canon lenses. Read some reviews on both kit lenses, and you’ll see what I mean.
In my opinion, the Xt is not a bad camera, but it IS outdated. But, if you are looking for an inexpensive entry level DSLR, then you may want to look into an XT, an Xti, or even an Xsi a bit further. The Xsi includes many of the features of the 40D, and is getting good reviews all around.
You can pick up a 40D body for about $970 – depending where you look it could be a bit higher, or lower. But thats in the ballpark anyway. An XT will run you about $400 (body only), and about $470 with an 18-55mm EF-S lens. BUT, for that money, you can get a Nikon D40 – a much better camera. You will get more bang for the buck with the Nikon D40, in my opinion.
An Xsi with a similar lens will cost you about $699. The price has come down quite a bit since it’s debut earlier this year (April?) when it was selling just about everywhere for $899. The prices have been steadily dropping, as they normally do as the camera’s get a bit older and have been on the market for some time. At least that is MY understanding.
One last thing. If money is not really a concern, and seeing that you seem to be willing to spend at least $1,400 on an EOS 40D with a 28-135mm kit lens, then why not spend a few hundred dollars extra, and really go for the gold: A Nikon D300. I am a Canon fan personally. But, there is NOTHING in the same price class as the D300 that even comes close to the superiority of this very fine camera. It’s a VERY highly regarded camera, and well worth the money, IMHO. You can get the D300 (body only) for about $1,625. Add on a high quality 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Nikkor Zoom kit lens, and now you are up to about $2,250. But the difference in performance, image quality, and much more is substantially better than any Canon near that same price range. This camera is a true top performer, and it won’t let you down!
Just some things to think about.
By the way, I am NOT an expert photographer by ANY means! So, it’s quite possible that someone else will post a more qualified, and expert opinion on these camera, and lenses. There are several real experts, and a few pros on this section of Y!A. Unfortunately, I am not one of them
(Maybe, just maybe – one of these days I will be!!!)
BTW, when looking at sample pics, make sure you use sites which provide un-retouched photos, and not ones like Flicker which have almost all been Photoshopped (or edited with any other software). There can be a large difference between pics straight from the camera, and pics that have been edited with software. This difference can be misleading in many cases. Again, just my purely amateur opinion. Take it for what its worth…
The truth is you can take equally good pictures with either camera. Once you have an SLR it really only comes down to your skill as a photographer. As far as features go, the 40D is much better than the XT. That being said, those features won’t make your pictures any better (but they might make them easier to take).
As for cost, the 40D can be purchased for about $1100US without a lens. You can actually now get the XT for $300US without a lens if you’re lucky.
Since you’re new to SLRs I would suggest you not be dazzled by the "professionalness" of the 40D. Yes, it’s a great camera but you don’t NEED it to take good pictures.
Perhaps a nice middle ground would be for you to get the XTi. It’s a little more capable than the XT without the cost of the 40D. Then you can spend your extra money on some quality lenses.