[Merged] Boxing Day Deals: XS vs XSi vs D40

[nietzsche]

Alright, I know there is approximately 127,543 threads titled "tell me what DSLR to buy guyz" on this forum, but this thread is specifically about the deals in the Future Shop and Best Buy boxing day flyers (and any other boxing day deals as they become available). I'm looking for an entry-level DSLR, but I want something that I'm going to be able to use for a couple years at least and eventually buy lenses for (though I plan to use the kit lens at first so it would be nice if it was decent). The most interesting deals I saw in the flyers were the XS with IS lens for $449.99 (online only), D40 kit for $399.99 (cheapest I've seen it so far without coupons), and the XSi with IS lens and a bunch of accessories (bag, battery grip, extra battery) for $699.99.

My main questions are:
1) Is the IS lens that comes with the XS the same one that comes with the XSi kit? (I'm assuming yes)
2) Is the $250 difference between the XS and XSi justified?
3) Which one would you guys get and why?

Also, if you guys know of any other deals better than the ones I listed, by all means share them. It seems to me that from the listed deals the XS seems like the best deal, but I'm curious to hear input from others. Thanks a lot in advance.

-D

[Kasakato]

I cant speak specifically about the XS or XSi, but I was in a similar situation a few months ago. I ended up choosing Nikon because I liked their zoom lens selection, and iTTL flash ability. I find Canon cameras awkward to hold...not necessary the best thing when your shooting a 5 hour concert with a 70-300.

[TenzoR]

Alright, I know there is approximately 127,543 threads titled "tell me what DSLR to buy guyz" on this forum, but this thread is specifically about the deals in the Future Shop and Best Buy boxing day flyers (and any other boxing day deals as they become available). I'm looking for an entry-level DSLR, but I want something that I'm going to be able to use for a couple years at least and eventually buy lenses for (though I plan to use the kit lens at first so it would be nice if it was decent). The most interesting deals I saw in the flyers were the XS with IS lens for $449.99 (online only), D40 kit for $399.99 (cheapest I've seen it so far without coupons), and the XSi with IS lens and a bunch of accessories (bag, battery grip, extra battery) for $699.99.

My main questions are:
1) Is the IS lens that comes with the XS the same one that comes with the XSi kit? (I'm assuming yes)
2) Is the $250 difference between the XS and XSi justified?
3) Which one would you guys get and why?

Also, if you guys know of any other deals better than the ones I listed, by all means share them. It seems to me that from the listed deals the XS seems like the best deal, but I'm curious to hear input from others. Thanks a lot in advance.

-D

I don't see any question relating to the actual flyer. All you've asked are generic questions that were answered in tons of threads from before.

[nietzsche]

I cant speak specifically about the XS or XSi, but I was in a similar situation a few months ago. I ended up choosing Nikon because I liked their zoom lens selection, and iTTL flash ability. I find Canon cameras awkward to hold...not necessary the best thing when your shooting a 5 hour concert with a 70-300.

Which Nikon did you choose, out of curiousity?

I don't see any question relating to the actual flyer. All you've asked are generic questions that were answered in tons of threads from before.

Sorry if I didn't make it clear enough, but I meant discussion of the cameras and their prices in the context of the deals in the flyers, not questions about the actual flyers themselves. Questions like "is the extra $250 justified" are certainly related to the flyers since I am comparing two specific cameras and prices as opposed to generically asking if the extra money for an XSi is worth it.

[TenzoR]

Sorry if I didn't make it clear enough, but I meant discussion of the cameras and their prices in the context of the deals in the flyers, not questions about the actual flyers themselves. Questions like "is the extra $250 justified" are certainly related to the flyers since I am comparing two specific cameras and prices as opposed to generically asking if the extra money for an XSi is worth it.

Well you can easily search on people's opinion on these camera bodies/lenses because it seems like that's all you really need. As to if it is worth that extra $250 is a question only you can truthfully answer yourself. What may be worth to me, may not apply to you. Either gives us more information about yourself, your skill level, your interest, etc and perhaps we can guide you to a right choice. As of now, it just seems like a hardware pissing contest to decide which camera is better.

[Kasakato]

Which Nikon did you choose, out of curiousity?

D40 with 18-55. The cheap price of the camera allowed me to pick up an SB400 with the camera. The flash alone improves indoor pictures 100x. I then inherited a 50mm f1.8, and bought a 70-300 this past summer. Tomorrow looks like a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 will be joining the family.

[nietzsche]

Well you can easily search on people's opinion on these camera bodies/lenses because it seems like that's all you really need. As to if it is worth that extra $250 is a question only you can truthfully answer yourself. What may be worth to me, may not apply to you. Either gives us more information about yourself, your skill level, your interest, etc and perhaps we can guide you to a right choice. As of now, it just seems like a hardware pissing contest to decide which camera is better.

Well, I have done research on the cameras I mentioned and realize that all of them are basically good cameras, so for me it comes down to value for the money. I disagree that it is irrelevant to ask if it is worth the extra $250 - of course "worth it" varies from person to person, but opinions of others still help me form my own.

But yes, it would be helpful if I gave more background information. I am a student, and don't have an unlimited budget, thus the concern with cost. I wouldn't call myself experienced, but I have been interested in photography for quite some time with point and shoots. The reason I want to buy a DSLR is that I feel I have basically pushed my P&S to the limit in terms of experimenting with its manual settings. The biggest thing I want out of a DSLR is better low-light performance (which my P&S is horrendously bad with), so I guess cameras that are better in this area would be much more attractive to me.

D40 with 18-55. The cheap price of the camera allowed me to pick up an SB400 with the camera. The flash alone improves indoor pictures 100x. I then inherited a 50mm f1.8, and bought a 70-300 this past summer. Tomorrow looks like a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 will be joining the family.

I've heavily considered the D40 as well - how do you find the kit lens? One of the reasons I started considering the XS/XSi over the D40 was that I heard good things about the IS lens. Or do you even use it really?

Thanks for the replies.

[Kasakato]

I've heavily considered the D40 as well - how do you find the kit lens? One of the reasons I started considering the XS/XSi over the D40 was that I heard good things about the IS lens. Or do you even use it really?

Dont expect excellent low-light shots with a DSLR. Consumer grade SLRs have crap high ISO performance, your generally limited to 400-800 without excessive noise. Your looking at D90, $1000+ for better high ISO. Long exposures and better flashes are the best advantage over P&S, in terms of low light, low end SLRs.

I use VR (Nikon's IS) on my 70-300. I find that its useful, but only up to a point. VR/IS do not stop motion, so its only good for still shots. I probably would not benefit from it on the 18-55 as I mainly shoot moving objects or landscapes with it. This is why Im upgrading to the f2.8 lens. I value VR on my 70-300 as the longer focal length requires me to faster shutter speeds, which the VR counteracts.

[nietzsche]

Dont expect excellent low-light shots with a DSLR. Consumer grade SLRs have crap high ISO performance, your generally limited to 400-800 without excessive noise. Your looking at D90, $1000+ for better high ISO. Long exposures and better flashes are the best advantage over P&S, in terms of low light, low end SLRs.

I use VR (Nikon's IS) on my 70-300. I find that its useful, but only up to a point. VR/IS do not stop motion, so its only good for still shots. I probably would not benefit from it on the 18-55 as I mainly shoot moving objects or landscapes with it. This is why Im upgrading to the f2.8 lens. I value VR on my 70-300 as the longer focal length requires me to faster shutter speeds, which the VR counteracts.

My P&S actually allowed up to 30 second shutter speed, so I was able to take some decent low light pictures, but most of them were still pretty grainy. Are you saying the APS-C sensor in the cameras I mentioned vs the smaller P&S sensor won't help much (I don't know enough about sensors to answer that question myself)? I was under the impression that with an IS lens I would be able to take decent low light shots without a long exposure, but maybe I'm mistaken?

Thanks.

[shrugs*]

But even a consumer-grade DSLR will yield much better low light results than a PnS (mainly due to sensor size, IS will help too-- as mentioned, in still shots).

I can't speak for Nikon, but in the Canon-camp low light ISO performance across the consumer-prosumer offerings (Rebel vs the 50D) is near identical.. and will take a solid swing at the pro level bodies with proper usage.

Even 'consumer-grade' bodies are amazingly capable... again, I can't speak for Nikon, but the only real differences between a Rebel and the ##D bodies is a bag of ergonomics (more switches & dials, better build/feel). The hardware behind them is comparable if not the same with minor tweaks that allow them to slot it in a different market.

http://wvs.topleftpixel.com --- primary camera was once a Rebel 350D.

[Kasakato]

My P&S actually allowed up to 30 second shutter speed, so I was able to take some decent low light pictures, but most of them were still pretty grainy. Are you saying the APS-C sensor in the cameras I mentioned vs the smaller P&S sensor won't help much (I don't know enough about sensors to answer that question myself)? I was under the impression that with an IS lens I would be able to take decent low light shots without a long exposure, but maybe I'm mistaken?

Thanks.

Thats certainly not when I meant. If you were to look at an ISO 1600 D40 picture, it would be very grainy. The same picture on something like the D300 would be acceptable. Expect gains over a P&S, but dont except to shoot over 800 with usable pictures.

IS only stabilizes the lens up to 3 stops, allowing a longer shutter speed. A long exposure time is still required. IS simply allows you to hold that longer exposure time handheld.

[KorruptioN]

If you were to look at an ISO 1600 D40 picture, it would be very grainy. The same picture on something like the D300 would be acceptable.

That's not because it's a cheap consumer-level body, but because it's two generations old. The sensor goes even further back if you look at the D70, D50 (and even D100).

[shrugs*]

I just want to share a few shots I've taken with a consumer-grade body (Canon 30D). IMHO, ISO800+ is very usable in any DSLR.

ISO 3200 (software simulated bump from 1600, in camera)






ISO 1600


ISO 1600 .. the grainiest of the bunch as exposure had to bumped up a few stops.


If you're interested I can post a few ISO 1600 from a 1st generation DSLR (Canon's first DSLR, the D30 from 2001).

[Oni-kun]

I'd say the extra 250 for the XSi is not worth it because their are negligible differences between the XS and XSi

Please refer to this chart
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1000d/page2.asp

The 1000D = XS

The only differences worth noting is spot metering and the fact that it shoots a little faster in RAW mode if you decide to shoot in burst mode. In my opinion for the average user its not worth the $250. Spot metering would be nice on my XS but its only useful under some circumstances. Another thing is its got 2 more autofocus points but again they're not that useful under most circumstances. In my opinion its not worth the extra $250, the 250 is better spent on a lens. I personally have the XS myself.

I may be wrong but if i recall correctly the Canon sensor performs better on high ISO setting than the Nikon cameras. ISO 1600 is quite acceptable.

Also the 50mm F1.8 Canon Lens is quite cheap $100-$150 and is a great portrait lens for low light situations. I think the Nikon Equivalent is more expensive.

Also note that the D40 needs special lenses because it does not have a focusing motor built into the body.

Here is a pic I took last night ISO 1600 with the 50mm f1.8

[Kasakato]

That's not because it's a cheap consumer-level body, but because it's two generations old. The sensor goes even further back if you look at the D70, D50 (and even D100).

Ya, your right. But who makes this crappy (err, old) sensor...SONY?!?!