Canon Rebel XT opinions

Price?

It depend on price

I not too long purchased one for $500 new....and have been absolutely in love with it. The kit lens is decent for average shooting scenario's (it's a bit soft, when compared to Canon's more expensive glass), but I would highly recommend the purchase of a couple new lenses when afforded the opportunity.

The camera is quite fast at auto-focusing and shooting. The only negative I can see (for some), is the size of the camera, if you have big hands.....its not that comfortable to hold, due to it's small stature (although the optional battery pack handle helps alot).

You could do better, either through eBay (+ live.com cashback if possible) or craigslist. A similar deal on our local craigslist has sit unclaimed for weeks now.

Unless you're in a hurry, wait until Black Friday and buy the XS. 450 is a pretty bad deal for the XT.

I got a brand new Nikon D60 with the 18-55mm VR lens for around that price (after live.com rebate). The 300mm Quantaray lens sells for under $100 all day long on eBay, so it's probably a pretty crappy lens to begin with. Or, alternatively, you can get a Sony Alpha A200 with both a 18-70mm and and a 70-300mm lens for $599 directly from Sony. If you apply for a Sony credit card, they'll even give you an extra $100 off. So, all that camera for $500 is surely a pretty good deal (even without the $100 credit, it's still a good deal). The review for this from dpreview is pretty good, too. I would have bought this if my distaste for Sony isn't so overpowering.

How do you intend to use the camera? Will you use it for architecture, randome snapshots, wildlife, birds, planes, underwater, portraits, or sports? Will you shoot in lots of places with low light or bad environmental conditions (water, snow, sand, dust)? How you intend to use a camera can largely affect your selection. Do you mind carrying big lenses? Do you want an upgrade path?

I would never buy a camera before considering its use first. There are deals to be had all the time, so there's never any hurry to act. And btw, many times the included memory cards to make a kit look good are shit. And a 300mm lens is useless if it's too slow for the conditions you'll be shooting in. Oh, and without seeing the actual case in question, if you get even a little bit serious with your dslr, you'll probably end up buying something like a LowePro.

I went with an Olympus system because i want all of my gear to be well sealed against the elements. I don't want to put my camera away because its pissing rain. I like to take trips to places with bad environmental conditions so it's important to me that I still be able to get good pictures. The 2x crop factor also means that for an equivalent amount of reach, the lenses I use are much less bulky than the equivalent in Canon or Nikon. If you're in to architecture or landscapes, Olympus also has a sick 7-14 wide angle lense (14-28 equiv). I'm not saying you should go with Olympus, but that you should think about these things, do some research into the various systems, and then decide.

At the low end, if you really want a canon or a nikon, I prefer Nikon, but that's a personal choice. I don't think you could argue convincingly that one is significantly better than the other. I would personally base my decision on the lenses that I saw myself acquiring. A lot of amateurs really love the 18-200mm VR that Nikon offers. If you were going to spend just a little bit more, I'd give serious consideration to the Olympus e-510 or e-520. I'm not sure if the e-420 (their smallest dslr) has IS, but the others do. Check Cameta on ebay. They always have good deals. And the Olympus kit lenses are the best of the 3.

Actually 400-450 is about right for a used XT, you'll rarely see much cheaper, especially with accessories. The XS is suspected to price at $700 on the cheap end, but it seems like a very viable consideration (the only negative is the slow shooting speed in RAW mode).

The only problem I see with the entry level Nikons.....are they don't AF with all lenses. Otherwise they make a good camera.

ya good point. The d40 don't, right? Instead of going to canon i'd probably just get the next one up so that I could get the 18-200vr.

I honeslty don't see what the point of an slr is if you don't have a specific purpose in mind. If you're not going to make an investment in glass then there is no point in getting an slr imo.

Even if you're just going to use the kit lens, kit lenses have gotten good enough in this generation (well, maybe just Canon and Olympus and very debatably Nikon) that there's reason if you know your way around a camera and want to actually be able to control it. If not, though, there are plenty of very good and useful point and shoot cameras, and I don't understand why you'd spend a lot of money on something you aren't going to really use.

Many of the new Nikon lenses have built-in motors in the lens, so you don't actually need a camera with motors in the body for the AF function. For example, most of the new VR lenses, including the 18-200, are set up this way. So, the AF function will work just fine even with the D40. But, if you must, the D80 is the first entry-mid level Nikon with a built-in body motor.

IMO the XTI wasn't really a viable upgrade from the XT, it didn't really iron out any concerns, other than the bigger LCD screen. However the XSI or even the XS are great choices for someone looking to step-up, due in part to the live view screens and improved IS lenses.