Canon EOS 450D / Rebel XSi brief hands-on: Digital Photography Review (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08012404canoneos450dhandson.asp)

More of an update than expected.

don't like the switch to SD cards though - although it means compact owners upgrading won't have to switch, nor some Nikon owners defecting :p

I find SD cards too fragile and fiddly, especially in cold and damp conditions.

don't like the switch to SD cards though - although it means compact owners upgrading won't have to switch, nor some Nikon owners defecting :p


I'd venture that's the point Pumpkin.

Defecting Nikon owners? Probably...

Foolish Canon, they have made it easier to switch to Nikon when the D90/D60 comes out and makes the 450D look like the usual cheap Canons.... ;)

Joking apart, I was reading on DPReview this morning, and people just slate all new models as they come out. It doesn't have this, it doesn't have that.

People would have killed for a camera at this price with this spec only 4 or 5 years ago.

I think until you can buy a full frame, 30fps, ISO 3,000,000 fully weatherproof camera with more dynamic range than the human eye for £200, no one will be happy it would seem!

Geezer

won't the 40D be largely redundant then - doesn't seem to be much in for the extra money?

depends on the quality. 40D still wins on looks (the back on the 450D looks cluttered), 3 custom modes on the PASM dial, 6.5 fps, iso in 1/3 steps, feel, handling and longevity. I don't regret getting my 40D.

I bet there is a lot of real world things where they've made the 450D less good than the 40D - like making the AF algorithms slightly less fast than the 40D

They just need to continually upgrade the features to satisfy the marketing department rather than the photographer who I suspect may start to suffer with increased noise due to too many pixels on a sensor.

Another problem is that its really going to start showing up the flaws with cheap lenses that a starter camera will often get used with

depends on the quality. 40D still wins on looks (the back on the 450D looks cluttered), 3 custom modes on the PASM dial, 6.5 fps, iso in 1/3 steps, feel, handling and longevity. I don't regret getting my 40D.

I bet there is a lot of real world things where they've made the 450D less good than the 40D - like making the AF algorithms slightly less fast than the 40D

They just need to continually upgrade the features to satisfy the marketing department rather than the photographer who I suspect may start to suffer with increased noise due to too many pixels on a sensor.

Another problem is that its really going to start showing up the flaws with cheap lenses that a starter camera will often get used with

but sales-wise, how many punters are going to see the benefits of the 40D? I think many people are sold once the salesman says megapixels!

(I'm really just upset that it's only slightly less MP than my 5D, which still isn't paid for!)

Lets face it, a huge proportion of new dSLR owners will just use the camera on green box idiot proof mode with the supplied kit lens. A few will buy one and use it properly, and will eventually climb up the range from the lowest consumer grade to the semi-pro models or higher and appreciate that despite headline specs being lower, the camera is considered superior to the one below.

Lets face it, a huge proportion of new dSLR owners will just use the camera on green box idiot proof mode with the supplied kit lens. A few will buy one and use it properly, and will eventually climb up the range from the lowest consumer grade to the semi-pro models or higher and appreciate that despite headline specs being lower, the camera is considered superior to the one below.

But the problem with the Cano lineup is that there isn't a big enoug difference between 40D and 450D to warrant the upgrade. OK, you get weather sealing, 6.5 FPS, a little better (as yet proven) AF and ISO, but how many amatueurs go out in the pissing rain or need 6.5FPS? Not many. The proper upgrade for really getting something worthwhile is 1DMKIII. That's quite a jump!

OK, you can argue they could go 5D, but it's slower with worse build quality and no sealing.

Nikon have clearly marked the bandings for upgrade. Get a D40 or D40X for real beginners. very limited functionality, but get a taste for SLR photograhpy. If you want to upgrade, there are two realistic and affordable upgrades. The D80 offers many more features than D40 series, dsoesn't cost an arm and a leg. Stretch another few hundred quid, and you have D300, with enough proper features to let you grow all the way to pro if need be.

It's a very clear path. Canon seemed to have lost the plot at the moment. Not that they are making bad cameras, they are great pieces of kit, but they don't know what to do with each market segement and so just make a muddle of it.

With people like Pentax bringing out the K20D, they need to keep a lid on it.

Geezer

When are they gonna get around to the 5D replacement as that model is looking distinctly lacking at the moment?

The 40D looks to be worth the upgrade from my 20D, almost, but a similar improvement on the 5D would be very tempting :wonder:

My Brother (no experience of DSLR's at all) bought the 40D because he preferred it to the 400D

And even now would still pay the extra for the 40D over the new 450D, and on the same token my Sister much prefers her 350D than mine or my brothers 30D and 40D

I'm going to pop my balls on the chopping block here, but here goes:-

I have the Canon 300D and have found that it does everything, if not more, than I require/desire.

Now, am I easily satisfied or do people buy the next model just because it's the next model - and lose loads of money in the process?

Can someone tell me how the 450D will make my life so much better than hanging onto my 300D? Really, is there a 'Killer Feature' which would make me buy it?

Please be careful with me, I'm a fragile, sensitive chap :D

Edit:- The big LCD Monitor would be nicer .... but not worth £100's to change, anything else?

I'm going to pop my balls on the chopping block here, but here goes:-

I have the Canon 300D and have found that it does everything, if not more, than I require/desire.

Now, am I easily satisfied or do people buy the next model just because it's the next model - and lose loads of money in the process?

Can someone tell me how the 450D will make my life so much better than hanging onto my 300D? Really, is there a 'Killer Feature' which would make me buy it?

Please be careful with me, I'm a fragile, sensitive chap :D

Edit:- The big LCD Monitor would be nicer .... but not worth £100's to change, anything else?

It depends what you want to do with it. I have the 300D and really enjoy it - I'm finding out loads about me as a photographer and enjoying a photo a day challenge. I've posted images on here and had really positive feedback from people whose work I really respect. I've replaced the kit lens with something half decent which improved the quality of th images no end. But, I would love a 5D for the huge improvement in image quality - I'm waiting to see the anticipated replacement sometime this year before going for the old or the new...
However, just because I have a great set of pans does not make me a good cook! There is no substitute for photographic vision and composition, regardless of the latest toy!:thumb:
Andy

Live View perhaps Pete, as your eyesight is starting to fail, you may find having Live View a great advantage in being able to see what you shoot :D

I had a D30 and replaced it for a 30D, that and I'm sure everyone on here will definately agree was a very wise upgrade :)

I had a 300D and upgraded to a 20D for all sorts of reasons but basically it's bigger and better.

Now the 40D is the only upgrade (great screen and some better/extra focus points) I would consider until they get the 5D's successor sorted out.

The 300/350/400/450 are all excellent cameras, a bit small for my huge hands but well capable of taking fantastic pics :thumb:

Agree with you CW, I prefer the larger body of the 30D and the thumbwheel

So my Sis has a 350D, me a 30D, my Bro 40D and our shots are about as good as each others, the plus side for me is I have started to learn PP :D so at the moment I do have a slight edge :lol1:

I went from a 300D to a 30D and found that there were significant differences that made the upgrade worthwhile:
I like shooting HDR images, so the frames per second improvement was huge and important to me.
The balance of the camera and the lens was much better being made from metal rather than plastic.
The response time from idle to live was hugely improved which made missing a shot because the camera wouldn't respond quickly enough a thing of the past.
Finally higher ISO was less noisy which made slowish lenses nore flexible.
BTW high ISO performance seems to be improving to such an extent that it seems that fast (and expensive) lenses may be not as crucial for low light in the future?

I'm going to pop my balls on the chopping block here, but here goes:-

I have the Canon 300D and have found that it does everything, if not more, than I require/desire.

Now, am I easily satisfied or do people buy the next model just because it's the next model - and lose loads of money in the process?

Can someone tell me how the 450D will make my life so much better than hanging onto my 300D? Really, is there a 'Killer Feature' which would make me buy it?

Please be careful with me, I'm a fragile, sensitive chap :D

Edit:- The big LCD Monitor would be nicer .... but not worth £100's to change, anything else?

This is one of the problems now with DSLRs. Some people think that because a new model comes out, your old has been pre-programmed to stop taking pictures!

If you are happy with the output from your 300D, then keep using it. The pictures are as good as the day you bought it.

However, technology does move on at a much faster rate than in the film days, and newer models not only offer greater funcionality (spot metering, better, better LCDs, faster, WB etc etc) but sensor technology is improving, so you get more dynamic range or less noise.

So, basically, is you like what your 300D does for you, great. But there are good reasons to upgrade (thoug not for every iteration I would say, there will always be people who must have the latest and greatest!).

Geezer

I love new toys, but am increasingly bored with new cameras. They are all much of a muchness now, and I doubt that anybody could detect any meaningful difference between an image from a 300D or a 450D. There are much more important things that make for good pictures. Mainly the photographer ;)

I have spent about four times as much money on lenses than I have on cameras, currently a 40D which is immensely capable and I can't imagine wanting to change it for several years yet. Why would I?

On the other hand, I really enjoy exploring different lens options such as macro, or my LensBaby, or the new Sigma 30mm f/1.4 that I got just this week. These lenses really open up different and interesting ways of shooting things that no new camera ever can.

Richard :)

Thats a good post Hoppy.

I do like the large screen and that Live View is interesting - but the Lenses and the improving ability of the photographer will improve the photos far greater than a new camera.

However, we must spend our money on something .......... :D

Thats a good post Hoppy.

I do like the large screen and that Live View is interesting - but the Lenses and the improving ability of the photographer will improve the photos far greater than a new camera.

However, we must spend our money on something .......... :D

Cheers 5A :)

I too like the big screen of the 40D, the viewfinder is pretty good, and the shutter is very fast and quiet compared to my previous 20D. But Live View? I've never actually used it. It just gets in the way and slows the camera down.

Yes, we need to spend our money on something and I'm pretty good at it. I have a wife who is also supremely talented. I've just dropped her off in town... :rolleyes: :D

Richard :lol1:

Richard,

Have you posted any shots with the 30mm ? be quite interested to see them, as by all accounts it is a very good lens, and in fact on a crop body better (more versatile) than the 50mm f1.8 I have

Richard,

Have you posted any shots with the 30mm ? be quite interested to see them, as by all accounts it is a very good lens, and in fact on a crop body better (more versatile) than the 50mm f1.8 I have

Sonic, I only got the lens two days ago so have not taken anything worth posting yet. I was thinking of going to Cambridge today to try some low light, wide-aperture stuff, but the weather's just been crap.

However, I have done some basic tests to ensure I have a good copy, and I have :) I tried two in the shop and they were identical, so no problems for me with Sigma's so-called variable quality control.

It's a very well made lens, certainly as good as similar Canons, and performs perfectly. It's quite usable at f/1.4 and has less sharpness fall-off at the edges than I expected. Stopping down improves things a bit, but this lens is clearly meant to be used at full bore, so well pleased so far. Vignetting and distortion are also well controlled, and so is flare. At home, I also tested it against my Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and was pretty amazed that the Canon, at 30mm @ f/2.8, is actually slightly sharper than the Sigma at f/2.8, particularly CA at the edges. However, I think that says more about that Canon's exceptional performance than anything meaningful lacking in the Sigma, and of course the Sigma is a whole two stops faster, which is a lot, both for low light and shallow depth of field.

I also have the Canon fantastic plastic 50mm f/1.8, but never use it. Just not a very useful focal length for me and that lens is certainly a bit soft used wide open. I also don't like its cheap build - it's just not a nice lens to use in that sense. The Sigma 30mm is a perfect 'standard' lens for cropped format D-SLRs and having f/1.4 available makes it unique amongst my lens options.

I like it :)

Richard.

Can someone tell me how the 450D will make my life so much better than hanging onto my 300D? Really, is there a 'Killer Feature' which would make me buy it?



Simple - speed of operation.

The 300D is slow to start up, whereas the latest cameras are almost instantaneous. I found it makes a massive difference to everyday shooting.

Although the 450D is a massive improvement over the 300D in almost every way, that doesn't mean you can't still take great pictures with the latter. I do think the 450D will maximise your chances though.

Definitely a good time to upgrade, IMO. :)

But the problem with the Canon lineup is that there isn't a big enough difference between 40D and 450D to warrant the upgrade.

I can't imagine anyone moving from a 450D to a 40D either, but not for the reasons you state.

The 450D is a newer camera than the 40D, so if anyone wants to upgrade their 450D in 18 months time Canon will have the 50D (or whatever) available.

Most users will never want anything more than what the ***D range offers anyway, because they probably only use their cameras for family shots and holidays. But, for those who get the bug and want to take their photography more seriously, there is the **D range - better build, more solid feeling, longer lasting, more user control etc.

Anyway, Canon are not stupid; the big profits are in the ***D range, because of the amount they sell - that is why they always get the latest headline grabbing features first, e.g. 12MP.

Incidentally, long time Canon users know that there is more to good quality images than the number of megapixels anyway - after all, probably the only area where the 12MP Nikon D300 lags behind the 10MP 40D is in the most important one of all, image quality! ;)