Is this Canon Rebel XT a good deal?

Since I joined NPN last week, I've been scanning the forums and galleries, looking at the different types of cameras used and trying to decide which I should get. My first and only digital camera, until now, has been a Nikon Coolpix 800. I've pretty much decided that the EOS 350D Rebel XT (boy, it has a lot of names) would be a good next step for me. I can't even imagine the difference the jump from the 2.1 Megapixel Coolpix to the 8.0 (!) Rebel will make in my image quality.

I looked on craigslist in San Francisco, where I live, and I found a posting for a Rebel XT, with all original accessories, for $725. It includes a Canon EF-S 18-55mm lens. Is that a problematic lens? Seems I remember reading some negative comments about it on this board. The seller of this camera said he would sell the kit without the lens for a lower price. Should I only go for the body? Any ideas on what I should ask?

Around $700 is really the limit of what I can spend right now on a body and glass. Really, since I just got back from a trip abroad, it's more money than I have, but I'm so eager to start making better pictures that I'm thinking of dipping into my emergency savings account and paying myself back later.

What do you think?

Hi Rina,
the XT is a very nice camera, and the new XTi (400D) is even better, if you can invest a little more.

In my portfolio you can see some photos taken with the 350D and some lenses : http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/juza_portfolio.htm

If you have a very tight budget, the 18-55 is useable, in particular if you stop down a little. A slightly better choice is the Sigma 18-125, that is nearly $ 250. A much better choice is 17-40 L + 70-200 f4 L, but they are way more expensive.

Hello

Have you considered the Nikon D50? I think it should be a bit cheaper than the Canon. Ok, it has 6 MP compared to 8 MP for the Canon. However, I think that the lens is much more important for the image quality than the sensor resolution (unless you have fantastic lenses - but since you're on a budget, I guess you can gain more by buying a slightly better lans than by those 2 more MP which aren't all that much, really). Or in other words: If you have a bad lens, it doesn't matter whether you have 8 or 6 MP, both images will be blurry, but the 8 MP one will eat more space on your hard disk.

Well, which lens... on a budget? I have heard good things about the Sigma 17-70, particularly if you like doing close-ups. Otherwise you may also get the 18-70 DX Nikkor.

regards

Basil

This may sound risky, but have you considered buying a used camera off ebay? I've bought 4 used bodies off ebay over the years with zero problems (knock on wood). With the new Nikon D80 coming out you may be able to pick up an older D70s pretty cheap. I don't keep up with Canon new offerings but they may have a similar situation. Just a thought....

I'd rather buy the camera new. You never know how much it's been used, and it would be unfortunate the have the shutter die on you sooner than expected.

I'd stay away from the 17-40 and find a less expensive but equally as good if not better alternative. Such as the Tamron 17-35 2.8-4 or the Tokina 17mm. Depending on your priorities, maybe the 18-55 will suffice.

Thanks for all the good advice, everyone. Basil, you've now got me thinking seriously about the Nikon D50. You're right, I really don't need 8 MP and probably couldn't appreciate the difference at this stage of my experience.

Juza, your fantastic photos were part of the reason that I was considering the Rebel XT to begin with. Does anyone know who on NPN (if anyone) shoots with a D50? I'd love to see some examples of landscapes shot with that camera.

Bill, I'm an inveterate ebayer. I bought my old Nikon Coolpix from a dealer on ebay. However, in this case, since I'm so unfamiliar with what's available, if I'm going used, I was thinking I'd rather buy from someone local so I can hold the camera and get a feel for it before I make the decision to buy. If I decided to go with the D50, I could probably afford to buy it new. My only reservation with the Nikon is that it uses SD cards, not CF. Maybe that's not a negative, but it's unfamiliar. Oh, decisions, decisions...

I held out on buying a canon or nikon dslr for a long time because I wanted to see if Nikon would release a reasonably affordable camera with good image quality. At the time I finally needed one, (October 05) Nikon still had only the D70S or D50. From the examples I'd seen in dim lighting, the image quality was very disappointing to me. Excessive noise and lack of detail.

The Canon 20D at the same time was almost the same price as the D70S and offered a lot better image quality across all ISO's, so I went with that based purely on image quality. Of course the Nikon D200 came out two months later, but I don't think my decision was foolish because I'm very pleased with the image quality I'm getting. then a few months later, my mom wanted a camera. I then weighed the pros and cons of the Rebel XT v.s. the D50. and came to the same conclusion. For the same price as the D50, the Rebel XT had image quality on par with my 20D. Another factor was that I didn't like that the D50 only takes SD cards. at somepoint I was sure my mom and I might have to borrow cards off each other on a trip so the Rebel made sense. the drawbacks are that the camera is too small for my hands, while the D50 feels better to hold.

I think Nikon is making a big mistake by not at least having a dual card option of SD and CF in their D50 and their upcoming D80. cards are expensive and a lot of people have invested hundreds if not thousands into them. it makes stepping up from the SD card cameras to the CF card cameras less appealing and vice versa. In a tight market, every little bit counts. My ultimate dream woudl be to have a camera that can take any mount lens from any manufacturer so no one would have to commit to any particular brand and just go for the best product available.

p.s., I don't mean to start any debates, I'm just stating the reasons for my own personal choices.

I've liked the idea of the Foveon chip since the Sigma SD9. Unfortunately the SD9 and the later SD10 were not quite there as far as I was concerned , although they have produced some excellent images. I'm eagerly awaiting the SD14 which will be announced on 26th September at Photokina.
see http://www.dpreview.com
The recent DSLRs from Sony. Nikon and now Canon are well worth considering, as I too am waiting to buy my first DSLR, but with this new Sigma waiting in the wings I'll have to wait
a little bit longer.

I haven't used the Canon XT, but have used the older 300D Rebel and currently used a Canon 20D, have played with a Nikon D50 for a while and use a Nikon D1x occasionally.

The Canon kit lens does a great job. It's light, and sufficiently wide for most applications and has a decent zoom. I think you will be very happy with it until you can afford better. It was good enough quality to win a national award in Cave photography, so I think it will support your endeavors. It's the photographer first then the equipment.

I personally didn't like the feel and the menus of D50 at all, but I'm used to Canon gear and the D1x. The 300D was nice but felt a little crippled for my use. The XT has more options.

Go to Best Buy or a camera store and play with the various bodies, and see which one feels right. I wouldn't worry about the kit lenses, the quality differences is pretty small at that price range.

Hi Rina First of all, welcome to NPN. I'm quite new here also and am thoroughly enjoying the experience. I thought I'd offer up another alternative since you seem to be on a pretty tight budget. I can appreciate that because I am a low budget photographer myself. You don't necessarily have to jump into a dSLR system to enjoy and learn photography. There are many fixed lense cameras out there that may require some compromises in speed and flexibility but still have the same set of controls and options and will give you very high quality photos. First of all, you need to think about what type of photography you want to start with. If you are most interested in landscapes you won't necessaryily need high magnification. If you want to shoot wildlife you will need considrable zoom or magnification. If you want to shoot wildlife and you decide on the 350XT, what you need to understand is that Juza shot almost every one of those gorgeous bird photos with a 600mm lens. That lens, I'm sure, would cost you almost 3 times the price of the 350XT. If you can hardly raise $700 to start with you just plain aren't going to get there from here. On the other hand, you can purchase a Sony H5, 7 mpxl, 12X zoom (approx. 420mm) for $450 and get some very fine wildlife shots as well as macros. You can still shoot in manual, manage your white balance and ISO, use your histogram to gauge your metering and learn almost all you need to learn about photography. The camera has a very fine Ziess lens and will produce sharp clean photos. It also happens to produce some very nice macros. You can then use the remaining $250 to buy a copy of Photoshop Elements (or Paintshop Pro), a 1 or 2 gig memory card, spare batteries and a couple basic filters. If it is landscapes that thrill you, you might think about the Sony R1. It is presently selling for $700 - $750. You would have to spend as much as $1700 (for body and an expensive wide angle, 24-120mm lense) on a 350XT to get the same quality and clarity of photos. The R1 is what I am using now and I am extremely happy with it. Thats just two options. There are a lot more out there. I can assure you that the higher range of fixed lense cameras are perfectly capable of producing prints that are saleable and if you become very good with one of them the print sales can pay for your eventual upgrade to a dSLR system. Just remember that dSLR does not automatically equal super photo, there is a photographer in that equation and its a very big factor.

Good luck with your endeavor! I hope you make your decision soon and get out there and start shooting

I own an XT with 3 Canon lenses and a Tokina 28-70 f2.8 AT-X Pro SV.

I think that the XT is a good value, but the price you quoted is not. A new XT body-only should now be running $699 after the XTi announcement. I would think a used one should be a bit less.

I think that the XTi is an even better value. The anti-dust feature is really nice and the 9 point AF should be a nice improvement over my 7 point system. The 2 extra mega-pixels aren't that big of a deal. But at only $100 more than the current model

I think that the kit lens can definitely help you learn alot, but it is a slow lens and for just a little more money I think there are some good options out there. Of course my Tokina I feel is a good value. At $250 for a fast zoom lens that you can use on any Canon camera, its very good (but heavy). This would be about $150 more than you'd pay for the kit lens. It isn't as wide as I'd like sometimes. The Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 seems like an excellent value in the same price range. From what I've seen, the image quality is better than the kit lens for a little more than the Tokina I mentioned before.

I really think that if you can save up until you have $1000, you'll be able to get better quality and have more options in Canon or Nikon.

And I agree with Gary that a advanced digicam may also be a great option for what you want to do. They are slower to zoom, focus and startup, but capable of very good images. I used a Kodak model for about a year while I decided on what SLR system to get into and what I'd like to be able to do. Here is an example of what you can produce with a digicam. It was shot in full manual mode.
sample

RE: Gary's response. Certainly a very viable alternative; all you have to do is look at some of Gary's work too see how good the quality is. As someone else in an earlier response, it ain't the camera!