Why isn't the Xti the best wildlife camera, period!

[Gary Clark]

I've been going through a lot of soul searching on whether 'tis time to upgrade my camera body again (have 20D). At first I was coveting the most expensive model out there, the 1DS, because of its total pixel count. However, my thinking took me down this path:

Point 1: I rarely get as close to a critter as I'd like (venomous snakes are an exception). Therefore, I'm always cropping a small subject from a larger frame. If there aren't enough pixels left in the cropped image, it ends up viewable, but not printable.

Point 2: DSLRs with sensor chips smaller than the 35mm standard 24mm x 36mm effectively crop the center out of the image produced by the lens. This is why they have "focal length" multiplication factors, such as the 1.6X on my Canon 20D. This is a good thing for wildlife (See Point 1.)

Point 3: The body with the highest pixel count in that capture area is the Digital Rebel Xti, with a linear pixel density of 175 px/mm. The Canon 1DS, even with its impressive total pixel count, has a linear pixel density of only 139 px/mm, because the sensor is the full 24x36mm. My 20D, for comparison, has 156 px/mm. (I calculated these numbers based on total pixel count and sensor dimensions.)

Conclusion: I could spend $7000 on a 1DS, and have less pixels to work with in a typical wildlife shot than if I spent $700 on an Xti.

Request: Somebody please tell me what is wrong with this argument, because it violates the "You get what you pay for" principle. Hopefully I will learn something new from your responses, before I get out my credit card and make a big mistake. I do realize that there are aspects to the camera beyond the simple pixel count, but the Xti has a pretty impressive feature list on its own. :brains:

[Malcolm Stewart]

...
Point 3: The body with the highest pixel count in that capture area is the Digital Rebel Xti, with a linear pixel density of 175 px/mm. The Canon 1DS, even with its impressive total pixel count, has a linear pixel density of only 139 px/mm, because the sensor is the full 24x36mm. My 20D, for comparison, has 156 px/mm. (I calculated these numbers based on total pixel count and sensor dimensions.)

That's one of the reasons I use a 30D for birding, and a 5D for landscapes, townscapes etc. When birding, I use an EF300 f2.8L and either the 1.4x or 2x Canon extender.


...
Request: Somebody please tell me what is wrong with this argument, because it violates the "You get what you pay for" principle. Hopefully I will learn something new from your responses, before I get out my credit card and make a big mistake. I do realize that there are aspects to the camera beyond the simple pixel count, but the Xti has a pretty impressive feature list on its own. :brains:

You'll find many people prefer the better AF on the 1 series of Canon bodies, and I'm certainly hoping that the 1D MkIII will make its way to dealers' shelves some time soon so that I can see how good it is.

[mjmw]

The size of the 'pixels' on the sensor make a difference to the final image quality - put simply, a larger 'pixel' is able to gather more light, so generate a stronger signal and therefore give better definition of tone, colour etc. So, whilst you will have more pixels to play with, you may not have as much definition in all areas of the image (e.g. increased noise in areas such as shadows).

This ignores the other advantages of the 1 series bodies such as construction, AF performance, fps (on the 1D bordies) etc.

[Tannin]

Nondeploom, I own a pair of 20Ds and recently bought a 400D (XTi in the US market). The short answer is "don't do it". I've tried it and it doesn't, all things considered, make a change for the better.

Let's deal with the megapixel nonsense first. You do not get a better quality image from the 400D, not even when you are cropping a lot. Pixels ain't pixels. The 20Ds deliver better colour, and on a per-pixel basis are sharper. The extra 2MP really doesn't make a pennyworth of difference. (Yes, I would up going for the 10MP 400D instead of the 8MP 30D when I needed a spare body while one of my 20Ds has the shutter replaced. But it wasn't too long before the 400D got consigned to spare body duties, while my "spare" 20D got promoted to the bird camera role.)

Speed. The 3FPS of the 400D is OK, but you still sometimes miss stuff you would have got with a 20D or 30D.

Focus accuracy: no difference that I can tell.

Metering. The 20D is a lot better. The 400D underexposes by about 1/3 to 1/2 a stop a lot of the time, but not all the time. Quite annoying.

Controls. No contest: the 20D is simpler and faster to use than the 400D, and much more difficultto make accidental mistakes with.

Menu: the 400D menu screen is ridiculously difficult to read in sunlight. The 20D screen, though smaller, is better laid out and easier to read. (Not "easy", "easier" - more improvement is required, Mr Canon: forget pretty colours, give us lots of contrast please.)

Build quality. The 20D/30D is bigger, more rugged, feels better in the hand, just an all-round better build. The 400D is OK, but the bigger units are still better.

Battery life: 400D does OK, 20D/30D does better.

Small but important things: shutter is twice as fast, bigger ISO range, much better manual exposure control system.

There you have it: for the bird photographer, the 20D/30D is clearly superior to the 400D. But there are good things about the cheaper model:

Dust shaker. It really works. I'll never buy another camera that doesn't have one. You still get dust, but very rarely is it the problem it is with the 20D/30D.

Quieter shutter. Quite a big difference in the sound, and it bounces less in your hand too.

Delightfully small and light. (This is both good and bad.)

There must be other things that don't come to mind right now, but that sums up the main points, I think.

[gmax]

Seconded Tannin, well done ... same conclusions I reached when comparing my 350D and 20D

[David Smith]

[QUOTE=
Dust shaker. It really works. I'll never buy another camera that doesn't have one. You still get dust, but very rarely is it the problem it is with the 20D/30DQUOTE

That confuses me even more-if you look are my thread re' 400D plus 100-400 Paule Good gave a good response but says the dust cleaner just doesn't work-on the latest outing it came back full of dust whereas his wifes 30d(I think it was) was relatively clean ??
I think I'll go back to my Brownie 127 (and if you know what that was you must be as old as me)

[paul goode]

[QUOTE=
Dust shaker. It really works. I'll never buy another camera that doesn't have one. You still get dust, but very rarely is it the problem it is with the 20D/30DQUOTE

That confuses me even more-if you look are my thread re' 400D plus 100-400 Paule Good gave a good response but says the dust cleaner just doesn't work-on the latest outing it came back full of dust whereas his wifes 30d(I think it was) was relatively clean ??
I think I'll go back to my Brownie 127 (and if you know what that was you must be as old as me)


Oh dear, I saw this as well after my post and thought, that'll confuse things!

I suppose it just confirms how different people have different experiences of products.

Up until the Norfolk trip the 400d hadn't done too badly for dust. It arrived as new with a couple of specks but they were in the corners and not a problem.
Over 3 months it acquired a few more specks to the point that I cleaned the sensor before we went away. Then in Norfolk, with a few lens changes, mainly indoors, it ended up filthy.

As I said, maybe I should be a little more careful where I change lenses but a quick sensor clean isn't a problem.

Paul

[normjackson]

I think I'll go back to my Brownie 127 (and if you know what that was you must be as old as me)
Hey if you're really that old there's no chance you'd remember to wind on the film between shots |:D|

[Tannin]

I started with a Brownie, David. :) (Didn't we all in those days?)

Dust has been a consistent problem for me with my 20Ds. I partly beat the problem when I bought a second body: the main camera stayed on the 100-400 pretty much all the time, so it was OK, but the second body still had lots of lens changes (wide-angle, normal, macro, back again) and I live in a dry, dusty country. Cleaning became a real drag.

Then I got the 500/4 and the problem got worse again - every time I put the 1.4 converter on or take it off, there is another changce for the dust bunnies to get me.

When I bought the 400D, I deliberately switched the dust shaker [b[off[/b] to start with. I'm not sure why, mostly because I didn't want to have to wait while it did its thing (didn't realise at the time that it stops the instant you half-squeeze). Sure enough, I was soon having dust problems.

Being out in the field, I didn't get the sensor wipes out, I tried switching on the shaker. Pretty soon, the dust disappeared. In fact, I have yet to manually clean the 400D sensor at all, and this is the camera I use for all the short-lens stuff - i.e., the one that gets most of the lens changes. I'm a believer.

(I'll probably swap back to using a 20D as my 2nd body when I get the other one back, but if I do, I'll miss the dust shaker a lot. I have a 1D III on order for the bird camera, but I'll probably sell the 400D and one of the 20Ds, then buy a 40D (or whatever it gets called, the 30D replacement which is certain to have a dust shaker) for 2nd body use.)

Anyway, the dust shaker works brilliantly for me. Others say the same - but others again (like Paul) say it does little or nothing, and I have no reason to doubt their word.

Why the very different results?

Maybe it is a different sort of dust? In my environment, humidity is generally low and temperature high. (Australia varies a lot, of course, it's a big place and very unpredictable, but I mostly heads for the dryer places because I love the dry country birds the best). That suggests lots of dust, but dry, non-sticky dust.

If you are in a cooler, damper environment, or live near big cities with dirty air, then your dust will be stickier than the stuff I mostly get.

Just a blue-sky theory, but there must be some rational explanation for the very different user experiences we all hear.

[Tannin]

Huh? Wind on? I don't hold with this new-fangled film stuff. Why should you have to wind anything on? Just change the plate and you are ready to go. Takes less than two minutes.

[David Smith]

Huh? Wind on? I don't hold with this new-fangled film stuff. Why should you have to wind anything on? Just change the plate and you are ready to go. Takes less than two minutes.

I would have thought it was obvious! by the time you've changed the plate the bird has moved on-if you only have to wind on you have a chance. Believe me progress is good.

[postcardcv]

I use a 400D and find it a very capable camera for bird photography... sure the frame rate could be faster and the build could be more solid, but neither of these have given me any problems. In my experience the dust removal system is effective, the odd dust spot I've had has been removed when I've next turned the camera on. As for the controls I find them very easy to use, I guess it's easier as I'm not using two cameras with different layouts. The battery life is excellent I usually get 1000+ shots out of a charge, overall I've got no complaints. It's got be be the best value for money of any of the Canon DSLRS. Personally I wouldn't pay the extra for a 30D, but I'd jump at the chance to own a 1D mkIII...

It all comes down to how much you have to spend... the lenses you use will have a much greater effect on image quality than the camera. I'd recommend a 400D with a big prime lens over a 1D with a cheaper lens.

[David Smith]

Thanks postcard-that has put my mind at rest.
What lenses do you use ?

[postcardcv]

Thanks postcard-that has put my mind at rest.
What lenses do you use ?

My main birding lens is a Sigma 500 f4.5 prime, it's a big lump of glass, but by far the best lens I've ever owned. I recently got a Canon 100-400 IS as a second birding lens, it compliments the Sigma 500 very nicely.

[Gary Clark]

Excellent responses, just what I was hoping for. I guess I'll wait until something comes along with the same features and build quality as the 20D, but a significantly higher pixel count (double would be significant; all other things being equal, that would be like adding a 1.4X focal-length multiplier to your lens, without the inevitable distortion.)

The discussion of dust removal was also interesting. This is one of my biggest problems. Short of never changing lenses, I have not found a solution to this - I can never get the sensor truly clean, and after a careful cleaning, it gets dusty very fast (I live in a very dry environment, where your hair stands on end frequently due to static charge.)

Once again, thanks for the responses! :clap: :hi: :clap: :hi:

[Keith Reeder]

Maybe it is a different sort of dust?

Must be something along those lines, T.

As I've mentioned before I routinely shoot on my local beaches, which are invariably windy, and where the sand is really fine, "gets everywhere" stuff.

I use the 100-400mm on my 30D too - a "dust pump" according to some.

And yet while I do occasionally get dust on my sensor, there's never much of it, and I can always sort it out with nothing more than a quick blast from my Rocket blower.

I can only put this lack of hassle down to the nature of the dust I'm encountering.

Mind you, I don't often change lenses outside, but even when I have it hasn't made much apparent difference to the amount of dust I deal with.

Another possibility is that although the local sand is itself very dry, the air isn't - maybe the small amount of moisture in the air is enough to prevent the kind of static build-up you and Nomdeploom talk about?