File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
dearest /p/, I'm on a budget.. rebel xt for 450, or rebel xs for 530...

im thinking XS.. comments?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
nikon d40 for $400

winner
>> Anonymous
>>224258
fail harder
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
sony a200 for $499
>> Anonymous
</thread>
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
Wait...are you talking about the new XS/1000D or the film XS? I'm guessing film by the picture.

So uh...why are you asking us? I mean, they're not even the same type of camera, what do you want?
>> Anonymous
>>224262
both digital (350D/1000D), pic is courtesy of google.
>> Anonymous
>>224263
basically what im asking is, if money is tight, is it worth the extra $80 for the XS...

as in OP im leaning to yes, but I want some comments from people who know better.
>> Anonymous
it's a crap shoot

both the XT and XS have the inferior AF system

XT has faster shooting and buffer but no spot meter

XS has live view (no matter what you faggots say, it's great for macro) and other niceties like auto ISO and digic 3 which may improve image quality a bit

also the XS kit comes with the better IS lens already
>> Anonymous
How seriously are you going to be taking photography? If all you want is a high quality point and shoot, get the Nikon D40. If you actually plan on gathering a set of lenses and accessories, go with the Canon 1000D, the 300D is good but is just plain old. You can also consider the 400D. The 450D is a bit too expensive.
>> Anonymous
>>224271300D

xt=350d

old but not that old
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
The XT is pretty crap. At least get an XTi or XS. The menu system and controls on the XT are archaic compared to the XSi. Not to mention, the XS will be smaller, lighter, and have a longer battery life. Plus you can see the iso info in the viewfinder.

Look at the chart I made that compares the XS to the XSi and the XTi.
>> Anonymous
that chart is from gizmodo you idiot
>> Anonymous
>>224295
>The menu system and controls on the XT are archaic compared to the XSi

How the hell can a menu system and controls be archaic? It's not like the human eyes, brain, and fingers have radically changed between the introduction of the XT and the XS. And it's not like it went from aperture controls on the lens and a shutter speed dial on the top of a camera to a control wheel or whatever.
>> Anonymous
>>224299

someone's never used a 350d

main settings have to be confirmed by the SET button or it doesn't register

the new models can confirm via half press of the shutter and you're automatically back in shooting mode

it's just plain faster that way

and starting from the XTi, you DO have an improved user interface sourced from the higher end models
>> Anonymous
>>224299
Have you ever used the XT menu system? It's terrible. Not that the XSi menu system is much better, but at least it's easier to navigate.

>>224298
I made it on excel back in June. Also, the price for the 1000D is 699, not 500 as I was led to believe. I don't know what the body only price is.
>> Anonymous
>>224301
>>224306

Fucking around in a store I might have, but that's it, so I won't argue anything on that point.

Being bad does not mean something is archaic. It means it's bad.
>> Anonymous
>>224306I don't know what the body only price is.

The XS won't be sold body only, at least not in the US.
>> Anonymous
>>224307Being bad does not mean something is archaic. It means it's bad.

If something newer and better comes along, it makes it archaic.
>> Anonymous
>>224309

> archaic

"of or relating to the period from about 8000 b.c. to 1000 b.c. and the North American cultures of that time"

Winrar!
>> Anonymous
>>224311

lol butthurt about being wrong
>> Anonymous
>>224309
No, not really. "Archaic" has certain connotations and meanings that just don't apply. One could say (I wouldn't, but that's not the point) the control set-up on a Spotmatic is "archaic" because camera design went on to a whole different era since then.

One could say a car from the year 1937 is archaic, but not that a car from 2007 is archaic, even though we have 2008 model cars now.

Etc. Etc.
>> Anonymous
>>224311
Is not the guy who started this discussion and is being snarky for really no reason.
>> Anonymous
>>224309

try to tell that to all the people here using film, and claiming insta-art.
>> Anonymous
Christ, who died and made you vocabulary police?

Anyone reading the word archaic in this day and age knows it means it's outdated.

Keep on keeping on with your textbook definition though.

The 300D has an archaic user interface. That just burns you, doesn't it?

It's so archaic.
>> Anonymous
>>224323

I don't own a 300D so I wouldn't care if it was.

"Archaic" is related to "outdated," but neither of them simply means that something newer and better has come along. Is a 2007 model car "archaic" or "outdated?" Hell no.

A Leica M3 is "archaic" but it isn't "outdated," to give another example of how you're entirely barking up the wrong tree here.
>> Anonymous
>>224323

I have a 300D. It definitely has an outdated user interface (and a tiny screen and slow load speeds to boot, though the pictures are still just as good as any of the other Rebel series).

Archaic may be a technically correct word, but it implies a much greater disconnect than you're talking about. Today, a camera obscura is archaic. A daguerrotype setup is archaic. A Leica III is probably archaic, but it still takes pictures on 35mm film.

Calling a user interface that's existed for only four years "archaic" is just dumb. This isn't a CLI -> GUI shift we're talking about...it's just a rearrangement of the exact same fundamental elements and a few refinements to the user psychology.

Your use of the term is acceptable, but it's not the correct word. "Outdated" is the proper choice here. Using a BIG UNCOMMON WORD just because you can doesn't make you seem smart, particularly when the proper word is simpler. It just makes you seem like a stuck-up faggot with a superiority complex.
>> Anonymous
>>224326

Wow, you're really butthurt over this aren't you?

The 350D being so archaic makes you cringe, yeah? Why are you so upset that you can't accept the 350D has become archaic? Does it bother you every time I use the word archaic?

>> Is a 2007 model car "archaic" or "outdated?" Hell no.

That's a flawed analogy. What if the car is end of cycle and just so that the next model is a complete revamp?

Use a better example next time.

Just because a new model comes out and the other is outdated? No, please point to where I have said that.

But it just so happens that the models that replace the 350D _are_ better. And that makes it oudated.

Oh, and it makes it so archaic.
>> Anonymous
>>224326

GET OUT OF MY HEAD

(I'm>>224329)
>> Anonymous
Gosh, my 20D is so archaic. :[
>> Anonymous
>>224331

>Wow, you're really butthurt over this aren't you?

Call it what you want, but precise language is important.

>Why are you so upset that you can't accept the 350D has become archaic?

Because it hasn't become archaic. Just because something is an older model does not make it archaic. If it was as archaic as a Daguerre's camera I wouldn't give a damn because I don't own one, have no plans to own one, etc.

>Does it bother you every time I use the word archaic?

It bothers me whenever anyone uses a word incorrectly.

>What if the car is end of cycle and just so that the next model is a complete revamp?

Well, it depends, but usually even then still no. A late nineties car of the same name is usually from a different cycle than a contemporary one, but the late nineties one isn't archaic. They're from the same general era. One wouldn't call the Nikon F4 archaic just because there's an F5 and an F6, but one could call an F archaic.

A difference in the menu system is not some radical thing; it's like if a car company changed the layout of the dash display between model years.
>> Anonymous
We sure have a butthurt grammar faggot here.

The 350D is so archaic that Canon said fuck it, we're going to discontinue it because it became archaic.

What's hilarious is I'm not even the guy who brought the word up. Where's Excel chart boy when you need him?

But you being butthurt at a camera being archaic is hilarious for me.

The D3x will make the D3 archaic because it has higher resolution. I called it here first.
>> Anonymous
>>224343
You don't understand what "archaic" means.

>The D3x will make the D3 archaic because it has higher resolution

No, just no. I guess the D3 was archaic when it was introduced because the 1Ds Mk. III has higher resolution.

The D3 and D3x are meant for different purposes.
>> Anonymous
>>224295
I posted this. Didn't see this coming. <_<

Let's not get too hung up on terminology. All I was trying to say was that the menu system is much worse than the newer models to the point of inconvenience.
>> Anonymous
I lold at butthurt grammar police.

Those are different brands.

The D3x isn't even out yet! So the D3 isn't archaic yet. Get it right, man.

I think the D700 will make the D300 archaic because it's like, the same thing, but with a bigger sensor.

Everyone will be selling their D300 because it will be archaic.
>> Anonymous
>>224346

You got called out by a butthurt grammar police who has a 350D and is being a butthurt faggot because you said his camera is archaic.

But no, he's just bothered when people use a word incorrectly.

Windows XP is so archaic.
>> Anonymous
Pfft... you all are buying this crap that 10 years from now will be so obsolete...

enjoy your paperweights.

I'm waiting until laser projected holographic sensors are common.
>> Anonymous
Star Wars actually happened a long, long time ago in a galaxy far away so they really have archaic technology compared to us.

lol @ lighsabers, we've got depleted uranium shells.
>> Anonymous
>>224347
Bigger sensor isn't better for everyone, D700's viewfinder isn't full coverage, though it has more magnification, so that depends on your subjective priorities.

>Windows XP is so archaic.

I lol'ed hard. Vista. Ahahahaha.
>> Anonymous
...umm... thanks?

heh <3
>> Anonymous
>>224355

It doesn't matter, it's newer. It makes the other one archaic.

And XP is so archaic, lol @ NT kernel and technology from 2001. 64-bit and 4+ GB of RAM makes it archaic.
>> Anonymous
size of the camera, menu system, and all that sort of thing aside, how does the picture quality compare between XT/XS.. The megapixels themselves are irrelevant to me, I think 8 is fine, just fine.

>>224295its the pictures im more worried about, so im not counting the XT out, especially since its price is closer to my range, thus making your (admittedly handy) chart, quite unhelpfull...

Also, with things like auto ISO, does that actually result in better quality pictures overall, or only better because ISO done manually would not be used as well as automatically...
>> Anonymous
the newer models make your life easier and possibly make you faster

pure image quality will be about same

auto iso means the camera may automatically boost the iso. that's an example of a nicety on the newer cameras that may help you get a picture when you couldn't

and the newer cameras have, uh newer, image processors which again may have better quality but the impact is small
>> Anonymous
>>224359
sorry for the misquote, must have slipped in a... well, come to think of it, what is that key called? I don't know to be honest. Sadly the best I have to offer is 'greater than' sign.
>> Anonymous
>>224361
is it worth going (about) $100 (I would have to travel quite a bit [gas money...] to pick up the XS) over-budget though, for those potentially-small differences?
>> Anonymous
>>224364

i already listed the small differences in>>224270

if the XS you said does come with the IS lens, it's worth it i guess, at least you'll have a better lens to start with
>> Anonymous
>>224364
That's a personal decision based on how much $100 is to you and how much the new stuff is worth to you.
>> Anonymous
>>224367
>>224368

Hmm alright, I'll think about it some more....

The lens, by the way, is not the IS one...
>> Anonymous
>>224351

>laser projected holographic sensors

wat
>> Anonymous
My penis is archaic, but fucking is never outdated.
>> Anonymous
>>224377
lets me and you have some sexual relations.. you seem hot.
>> Anonymous
>>224377
>butt fucking is never outdated.
>> Anonymous
>>224373
>>non IS
Then don't get it. It is worthless and softer than a 100 dollar point and shoot lens.

Also, camera body will not effect the image quality at all, except for more megapixels meaning more detail (sometimes). Only lenses will affect quality.
>> Anonymous
>>224384
buttfucking has reversed the law of outdating.

it use to be taboo and a sin; now it is protected by law