[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by HellwratH

Bigger sensor? Didn't know that.

All APS-C SLRs have same sensor size. Right from 350D to 7D and including all the in betweens.

[HellwratH]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

All APS-C SLRs have same sensor size. Right from 350D to 7D and including all the in betweens.

Yeah, I just wanted to pull Jaguar's leg :P. Wrong info to newbies can be dangerous .

[nvldvr]

I have considered the buyback of non IS kit lens. Will get 1000d for about 23.5 with the buyback and IS lens. Another 5k for the 50/1.8. For a budget of 30k, is this a better option than 500d?
Am also getting 450d with IS lens. But that is w/o bill / warranty (quote - 27k).
Interested in landscpaes/portraits for now. Will see if i need the tele / macro lenses a bit later may be.
Going for canon mainly because of the 50/1.8 nikon not autofocussing on d3000/d5000.
Can the experts here please guide me.

[Sheel]

Nikon Coolpix L110 or Canon PowerShot SX120IS?

Advise... Thanks

[Jaguar]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

All APS-C SLRs have same sensor size. Right from 350D to 7D and including all the in betweens.

Originally Posted by HellwratH

Yeah, I just wanted to pull Jaguar's leg :P. Wrong info to newbies can be dangerous .

Ok Ok my bad I was trying to convey all these in one word

But hey, as per dpreview, the sensor is slightly bigger

[shajufx]

Yes its 00.1mm X 00.1mm bigger Does that make a difference really ?
I remember a post by tanveer or someone that 500D is the worst sensor canon has ever produced till date. May be that explains the difference in sensor size too. Anyway I am a Nikonian so I dont want to get crushed by the fan-gang !! Please dont search for me.

[aa_asif]

Originally Posted by Jaguar

Attachment 412709
But hey, as per dpreview, the sensor is slightly bigger

The chart shows that EOS 500D has a bigger sensor but also a higher Pixel density (4.5 MP/cm^2) compared to 1000D's lesser pixel density which is 3.1 MP/cm^2

It is always good to have lesser Pixel density which results in a better Low light performance (Lesser Noise at Higher ISO)

[rishabh.asthana]

Originally Posted by rangaraj

Amazon.com: Kata Ergo-Tech Series Sensitivity V Personal Gear Backpack for Digital Camera and 12 Inch Laptop Computer, Black: Camera & Photo
Cool bag for a DSLR and a laptop..

bought the bag from smart shopper for 3.8k (shipped) found it a bit restricted in space. After putting the netbook+ipod+camera+1 lens+headphones there is no space left for my diary and other itsi bitsy things though its the cheapest DSLR bag available atm
also the laptop space is kinda weird you need to move the shoulders straps to take out the laptop

[amitk26]

Why cosidering only 500D and 1000D if you are considering 500D surely 450D and 40D are in your budget too. IMHO If you do not need Video 40D is best if you can get your hands on it.

1000D is avoidable because you will outgrow it too soon. 500D is fine balance between desirability and availability off the shelf.

Well 1000D and 500D has lots of basic differences. Some of the useful differences are

1. 500D has next faster canon processor Digic 4 compared to Digic 3 of 1000D. Generally next generation processor comes with improved Jpeg mode and noise reduction. It can be said that who cares about incamra image processing when we shoot in raw but fact of life is how many amateurs have time to spend on PS / GIMP for hours and most of the time you will shoot in Jpgeg.

2. Live view , very very useful in my opinion , whatever experts say but you can appreciate if and only if it is there on the cam rest is just I am doing without it so not required hubris.
3. Spot metering.
4. Auto bracketing ( not sure if 1000D has this or not)
5. 720P Video , I find it useful after all who wants to carry a separate camcorder along ?
If you don't want video go for 450D or still better 40D.

6. bigger and better LCD
7. Both 1000D and 500D and 450D offer 1/4000 shutter speed at max whereas but 40D/50D provide 1/8000.
8. 1000D provides 3 Frames / sec , 500D is 3.4 frames /sec and 40D /50D are 6.5 f/s

About sensor , It is theory that noise increases if pixel density goes up but how much that noise is visible ? At-least I could not see till ISO1600 in low light. Someone just made a comment that 500D had worst sensor but that does not make it worst camera ever. It is still better then lot of others

If low light performance is only criteria why not Pentax Kx ?

[sriturl]

Originally Posted by amitk26

Why cosidering only 500D and 1000D if you are considering 500D surely 450D and 40D are in your budget too. IMHO If you do not need Video 40D is best if you can get your hands on it.

Sorry to hijack the discussion, but its related.
How about 550D? How is it compared to 40D?
I read that 550D is better than 500D.

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by sriturl

Sorry to hijack the discussion, but its related.
How about 550D? How is it compared to 40D?
I read that 550D is better than 500D.

In Canon XXD are semi-professional bodies ( read faster shutter , magnisium alloy bodies , more frames per second) but they cost a bomb when compared to Armature XXXD bodies. 40D is phased out model and in professional series but price level is comparable to 500D these days so I suggested it.

Well 550D has different sensor 18MP and Full HD Video ( 1080P) . If you are not concerned about video then does not make much of difference.

Hey your user-name suggests that we know each other, If you are Srikant Turlapati call me we can catch up.

[tsk1979]

550D has the sensor which is similar to one in 7D. Inspite of 18MP, it does high ISO very well.
OTOH the 15MP series which does duty on 50D and 500D has some noise issues, esp long exposure high ISO shots.

Regaring XXD and XXXD the differences are as follows
1. Speed - XXDs are faster, good for sports
2. Weather sealing in XXD
3. XXDs are Bigger with brigher viewfinders
4. You can do micro focus adjustments

[HellwratH]

Originally Posted by amitk26

Why cosidering only 500D and 1000D if you are considering 500D surely 450D and 40D are in your budget too. IMHO If you do not need Video 40D is best if you can get your hands on it.

1000D is avoidable because you will outgrow it too soon. 500D is fine balance between desirability and availability off the shelf.

<snip>

About sensor , It is theory that noise increases if pixel density goes up but how much that noise is visible ? At-least I could not see till ISO1600 in low light. Someone just made a comment that 500D had worst sensor but that does not make it worst camera ever. It is still better then lot of others

If low light performance is only criteria why not Pentax Kx ?

Confusing, IMO. On one hand you suggest that he might outgrow 1000D soon and on the other you say about how noise is not that big a factor. Then, why 500/550/40D over 1000D? I have a 350D since a year, and still haven't outgrown it. And does newer processor mean anything to a newbie like me? Does higher FPS mean anything to me? For most shooters, 1000D is good, save the difference and buy a LENS 50mm or a 55-250mm.

[shajufx]

Originally Posted by HellwratH

I have a 350D since a year, and still haven't outgrown it. And does newer processor mean anything to a newbie like me? Does higher FPS mean anything to me?

Please understand Veeresh is only ONE, nobody can duplicate him . You will do the same magic even if its a P&S given to you, so let the less talented newbies like me hunt for the best affordable equipment one could.

I also feel, when someone is using a high-quality PRO level body and lens, people expect the shots to be of that standard if not the 'best'. Less miserables can produce pics that may or may not come into that PRO quality shots. BUT.. if someone is producing THE BEST from an outdated body, its not the gadget anymore, but the man behind it. If I have confused enough, thats all for now .

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by HellwratH

Confusing, IMO. On one hand you suggest that he might outgrow 1000D soon and on the other you say about how noise is not that big a factor. Then, why 500/550/40D over 1000D? I have a 350D since a year, and still haven't outgrown it. And does newer processor mean anything to a newbie like me? Does higher FPS mean anything to me? For most shooters, 1000D is good, save the difference and buy a LENS 50mm or a 55-250mm.

What is confusing here ? Is the lack of some essential features on 1000D body and low noise related in some way ?

How come FPS is not everything for newbie but low noise is everything ?
How-come sensor is not an issue for 50D which has a good fan-base but only for 500D ?

High FPS and faster focus is much more important IMHO for average user. More users are likely to shoot children running around ,sports, humming birds etc. then taking long exposure shots of night sky.

Even if usecase is long exposure shots then

1. Live view is very handy for long exposure shots, 1000D does not have it.
So even if I assume low light performance is very good on 1000D compared to 500D/50D/40D how does it help if I will be shaking the body peeping in to view finder? Of-course one can compose and then use remote trigger but it is about ease of use.

2. 1000D does not have spot metering , Now imagine you get a 300mm Image stabilized lens to fit on body but don't have spot metering essential for the purpose you bought that expensive telephoto ? Yes there are workarounds but then again ease of use suffers.

Originally Posted by tsk1979

550D has the sensor which is similar to one in 7D. In-spite of 18MP, it does high ISO very well.
OTOH the 15MP series which does duty on 50D and 500D has some noise issues, esp long exposure high ISO shots.

Regaring XXD and XXXD the differences are as follows
1. Speed - XXDs are faster, good for sports
2. Weather sealing in XXD
3. XXDs are Bigger with brigher viewfinders
4. You can do micro focus adjustments

Spot on that's what I advised if you can get XXD body in same budget as XXXD it is the best buy. But 1000D is avoidable until you have extramly limited budget.