Is the new Canon XSi good for a beginner?

sh0tyme83

sh0tyme83

New member
I'm new to digital SLR camera photography and was wondering if the XSi is good for beginners? I've always had point and shoot cameras and the current one I have is about 4 years old, so I think it's time to move up to the big boys. I will be trying to get very close SPS shots for ID, so I will need something that can take close ups of the polyps when I want, but something that can also be used for everyday use. I know the D40 will limit my options because of the lack of lens autofocus, but does the XSi have the same problem. I have been trying to research the XSi but I haven't seen any reviews on it lately. Does anyone have this camera that can help me out?
 
I don't own an Xsi, but I do have the next step up, the 40D. I think the Xsi would be a great camera for a beginner. As far as picture quality goes, it should be just as competent as the 40D. That said, it doesn't have as many of the bells and whistles that make life as a photographer easy. If you think your really going to get serious into this stuff, get a 40D and 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens. If you want a great camera to take pictures of your fish, get a Xsi and 100mm /f2.8 Macro lens. You can always upgrade your camera later. The lenses you choose are much more long term decisions.
 
Personally, I'd go for a Nikon D80, or, better still, a second-hand D200. Nikkor glass is far better for macro and general photography. Canon is better for long, fast shots that you'd need for sports' or paparazzi shots.

Nikon builds better gear, too.

I own and use both Canon and Nikon gear.
 
i am running an XTI now with a 100 mm cannon lens for macro, I truly love the camera, I am sure you will love the XSI...
 
I think it would be a great camera for a beginner. Any DSLR would be a great camera for a beginner. Depends on what you can afford. All have programmable functions as well as the ability to move into the more advanced functions later. I believe that a beginner should start with good equipment. Then you don't beat your brains out trying to figure out what went wrong when it was your equipment. Get that problem out of the way.

Mike
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12446543#post12446543 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Bluemorningwind
Nikkor glass is far better for macro and general photography. Canon is better for long, fast shots that you'd need for sports' or paparazzi shots.

Nikon builds better gear, too.
Click to expand...

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. The fact that Canon still has the highest market-share among professionals (and consumers) could indicate otherwise however. ;)

Every DSLR on the market will produce excellent images when used properly. You will be the weak link in the chain. With an SLR, lenses matter more than the camera body so if buying a used, or less expensive body leaves more money for glass; you should do it.

As far as which body to buy, the best recommendation I can offer it to go to the camera store and hold all of them in your hand. Work the controls, shuffle through the menus, and buy the one that fits your hand the best and feels the most intuitive. You can't create good images if you're comfortable with your equipment.

Cheers
 
Come come now...the educated know that Nikkor produces far better glass than Canon.

Peep show shots are expected to come in the familiar Canon look...editors love peep show shots that look a certain way.

Canon-cheap is the look editors lust for because it is so two dimensional. It fits so well on the back page of a tabloid or the front cover of a gossip mag' ...8-)
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12447411#post12447411 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Bluemorningwind
Come come now...the educated know that Nikkor produces far better glass than Canon.
Click to expand...

Nope. The only thing that I will concede is that Nikon consumer grade lenses are generally better than Canon consumer grade lenses. You'll have to pry away my cold dead fingers to get me to give up my L glass. ;)

Cheers
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12446543#post12446543 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Bluemorningwind
Nikkor glass is far better for macro and general photography. Canon is better for long, fast shots that you'd need for sports' or paparazzi shots.

Nikon builds better gear, too.

I own and use both Canon and Nikon gear.
Click to expand...
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12447411#post12447411 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Bluemorningwind
Come come now...the educated know that Nikkor produces far better glass than Canon.

Peep show shots are expected to come in the familiar Canon look...editors love peep show shots that look a certain way.

Canon-cheap is the look editors lust for because it is so two dimensional. It fits so well on the back page of a tabloid or the front cover of a gossip mag' ...8-)
Click to expand...

Your not even making sense. All the "educated" know Nikon makes better lenses than Canon?
Just to educate you...the specific reason I own Canon and NOT Nikon is because Canon makes better lenses. Nikon has slightly better camera bodies, Canon has better glass. The lenses are the biggest piece of the pie in my opinion, so I shoot Canon.
Now if your talking about the gimmie lenses i.e. Canon 18-55 Mk1 or 75-300 that come in the box, which no "educated" photographer actually uses anyway, then yes I'll give Nikon the upper hand in their equivalent lenses. You can't touch our 85mm f/1.2, 135 f/2, 500mm f/4, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 IS (you do have a 70-200 f/2.8 VR but ours is better), 17-55 f/2.8 IS, the list goes on and on and on. Nikon makes a good product, but save your self from looking sheepish buy touting their lens line over Canon.

One thing that really makes me love Canon...even though our best (what I'm interested in) is better than anything available from Nikon, its generally less expensive too.
 
Oh I almost forgot this

"editors love peep show shots that look a certain way.

Canon-cheap is the look editors lust for"

How can you say say magazines which make FORTUNES off of pictures prefer Canon, which is true. Then you say these magazines and the professional photographers who work for them use Canon because its a worse product...your just so silly.
 
I tested both XTI and XSI, I would say they almost perform the same except the XSI has live view function (in which I don't think it's worth for extra $300.00) and 3" LCD. You can buy the XTI and save some $$$ for the lenses.
 
I use live view a lot for Macro work. The 10x digital zoom feature really helps get spot on focus with SUPER thin DOF. Its also nice in a crowd of people holding the camera way over my head. These situations probably encompass 1-2% of my photography (but it lets me get shots otherwise impossible in that 1-2%). Everything else is shot through the viewfinder.
 
Last edited:
Oh I have another question. Does anyone know if these cameras have additional cases that will make them waterproof? I'm going diving in the Caymans in November and I was hoping to have a great underwater camera for that.
 
Wow thanks TitusvileSurfer. I knew they sold one for my point and shoot olympus. I didn't realize there would be that big of a difference to make a XSi waterproof.
 
There are many controls you have to be able to change, and do it waterproof. If one leaks your camera is toast. To make an underwater case for such a camera is therefore very expensive. I would save the point and shoot for underwater stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

raidendex
Fixing White Balance
Replies
2
Views
328
wvned
wvned
W
Cycling new Tank
Replies
2
Views
321
C.Eymann
C.Eymann
Justin Hill
Help! Recover camera photos after SD card crash?
Replies
10
Views
971
midnightbast
M
obarrera
Is this a good set up? (fiji cube 108)
Replies
6
Views
433
Reefing102
Reefing102
Kremis
Red sea reefer 425xl G1 for sale
Replies
0
Views
140
Kremis
Kremis
Back
Top