Hi folks,

I am thinking of getting my first DSLR in 2008. I have film experience in different formats, and have gotten back into photography over the last year. My digital experience (camera-wise) so far has been non-DSLR.

I am hoping someone can provide either guidance or caveat re the choice I seem to be arriving at.

The purpose of the camera will be landscape.

To anticipate a possible suggestion, the reason I am not going "full frame", is simply, money.

I intend to keep using 120 format film also, maybe... Sold my large format stuff quite awhile back, and am now just to lazy to consider it.

So anyway, DSLR.
I want to use the Canon 17-40mm f/4 L. At a 1.6 crop it will match the lense focal lengths I used to use for landscape in 6x7, and 4x5.
So, I need a sensor to hang on the end of it. I am thinking the ubiquitous Canon 400D/Rebel XTI.

I print 8x10 at home. Miniumum of 300dpi.

Thanks for any advice in advance.

Regards,

jay

From the perspective of the sensor, it will be fine. The XTi is a nice little camera. Emphasis on the little. Go try one out. Personally I find that the camera is a bit small for my hands. It has a lot of the functionality that larger bodies have, but accessing some of it may be a bit difficult.

If the question was "Given the 8x10 printing, is the sensor good enough?" the answer is yes. For all of the usability vs. price tradeoffs only going to your neighbourhood camera store and handling a couple of bodies is going to deliver your answer.

--dilip

Have checked it, and others, in hand. The price is what attracts me, not it's handling, build. It will spend most of its life on a tripod. For the intended use, I need a sensor and a few basic functions. Build/hand wise, the 40D, 5D, and any of the Nikon's win, to me.

If one samples up to print larger, wherebouts does it belly-out, as far as detail goes, (keeping in mind, that I am picky. i.e., in the past, I would rate on 100% being a contact print )

thanks

jay

That combination will work fine. (Although i'd get the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 or Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS instead of the 17-40L.)

Two quick thoughts: I think the beauty of the xti's small size is that it does lend itself to backpacking, if you hike to gain access to your landscapes plus it's weight advantage in setting up pano's with a rotating head.

The other idea is that this is probably a great time to pick up a well kept used 5D. As prices have come down and will continue downward until it's replacement. Although I have never purchased used digital gear off the internet and have no opinion as to how one should safeguard the transaction.

I think the money would be better spent on a 40D. In high dynamic range scenes the 40D will do a lot better than the xti
Marc

Yes, but the 40D costs more than double the XTi at the moment.

I started my digital adventures with a (cropped format) Canon 10D and eventually switched to a (full-frame) 5D, mainly because I got so tired of viewing such a tiny image in the optical viewfinder. I also have the Canon 17-40L which was my main lens (used over 90% of the time) with the 10D.

I think the xti with the 17-40L will give you very good service until you can save enough pennies for a full-frame.

As a travel camera I had a Nikon D80 and was disappointed in the tougher wide dynamic range situations compared to my 5D. Since the IQ/sensor of the 40D is on par with the 5D, I would think that one (if serious) would as I was, be disappointed in the xti/D80 level of performance and would be satisfied with D200/300, 40D/5D performance. If cost is the primary issue how about a used D200/18-200VR?
Just my 2 cents
Marc

Interesting you should mention both of those.

First thank you to those who have suggested purchasing used, but I am leary of doing that re a computerized, electronic device, generally.

I love the D200 body. I was interested in the Nikon 18-200mm. My old 35mm stuff, some of which I still have, was pre-AF manual nikon bodies and glass. I also liked their enlarging lenses. So actually, my "predisposition" is towards Nikon.

I have done a fair amount of research on lenses relevant to my interests, and that Nikkor zoom was very attractive due to its coverage, and that it would duplicate the coverage of my digital bridge camera. But in looking at lense tests, the Canon one seems to be pretty good for the dollar, compared to others. This is not a slight on the Nikkor, perhaps the shorter zoom range of the Canon accounts for some of its quality.

Like I said before, the the 17-40mm @ 1.6x crop also matches the range I usually "think" in, in landscape. The similar nikkor glass would be my first choice, due to my predisposition, but for its higher cost.

I have a 17-40. It is a great lens. Given it to do over, I would probably pick the 17-55 2.8 IS. larger f-stop, IS, equivalent sharpness and color. Many people feel that the only reason it ins't an 'L' lens is that it is an EF-S (designed for the crop sensor only). The extra length is also a plus. All-in-all the 17-55 2.8 Is is probably a better all-purpose lens than the 17-40.

As for the XTI issues, I object more to most of the functions requiring the use of the menu on the LCD than I do to the somewhat thin grip.

I'm assuming you knew this, but the XTI is being replaced by the XSi (450d).

Dealers may be dropping the prices on the XTi to clear them out, but from what I can see you might be better of waiting. Considering the new camera is 14bit, has the larger back LCD screen as well as several other new technologies it might be a good option. It sounds like it's a nice upgrade from the XTi.

Yes, so i heard, thanks.

I think the XTI will still be there, but its predecessor will be dropped.
I am hoping though a few more dollars will drop off the XTI, being the new one is coming out.