R1 or XT, with a twist

I had almost finalized the XT but in comes R!. Though the XT will fit me better, I am leaning towards R1. The reasons.
Canon costs 44000rs here, R1 46000rs.

In the US, R1 is 999$ and canon kit is 850$ approx. So price difference here is very less.
R1 comes with a 3 year warranty, XT with 2.

Wheres canon wins in term of low light and long exposures, sony wins in term of lens and capability of shorter DOF(As per dofcalculator.com).

Since my budget is going to be approx 55000-60000 odd for the next 3 years or so, I wont be adding any lenses or so, just some filters, memory card and a cleaning kit if I go for the XT. With sony I can go in for filters and memory cards, and I will lose out in low light performance.

Now this came to pretty tight comparison, with the advantage of interchangability holding no importance for me. However canon is lower noise whereas Sony is better for potraits if I want shorter dof.

I was leaning towards XT, but then a talk to the canon service center in Delhi(This is there I reside) made me jittery. Most dealers are not aware that there is something called sensor dust. They are only aware of dust on lens. India is a very very dusty country.

I called up canon india service center in delhi and asked them how much does it cost for sensor cleaning. The guy was not aware of that that is. They use a blower and do full "Service" which I dont know means what.

Based on this, and also the fact the nikon and oly do not actually sell DSLRs in india, I came to the conclusion that DSLR market in india is still in ites nascent stages. If I get hard to prove issues like front focus etc., in a DSLR, I will have a tough time running around canon service guys who are clueless.

Comare that to sony, they are much more professional and technically minded because of sony's long history of selling sophisticated equiment in India.

So my heart says XT. My head says sony.
If I had 20-30000 more to spend, I would have jumped at XT with a better lens.
IF sony had a bad lens, things would have been so easy.

I even held both cams and liked them both, through the sony's zoom will let me take better portraits, and XTs long exposures will be better!
So I ask you people
1. What do you guys do when heart and head collide.

2. How important are competent service centers. In india its almost impossible to get high quality isopropyl alchohol too!!.

Currenty I am leaning towards R1, and upgrade to canon(whatever SLR comes out then) after using it for 2-3 years.

--
Tanveer

The main point to consider is whether you want to stay with one lense or if you plan to use several lenses to get the best results.

In fact a canon 350D with a low cost prime 50mm f/1.8 lense can give better results than a sony R1.

A sigma lense 30mm F/1.4 is a little bit more expensive but can be awesome (very fast and sharp)

The canon with a sigma 70-300 lense opens you a range of focal the R1 cannot achieve still affordable price...

my view is:

-If you plan to buy a 350D and then buy some other lenses when you find out what your needs are, i'd say buy the XT.

-If you plan to use only one lense, then I think Sony can be a good choice (while I din't try it)

If you searsh on this forum you'll find a lot of threads about R1 vs 350D.

mmiikkee

Remember if you only get 1 lens with the XT you won't be changing it so dust will be minimal. Also as long as you can order 1 bottle of fluid and 1 packet of pec pads you can clean your sensor for years (its easy and doesn't need doing all that often even when you change lenses a lot)

Graham
--
http://gdonbavand.fotopic.net

Try to find some place that sells the D50 and 18-200 VR... This should be close to the price of the Sony and XT but will solve the problems of dust because you won't have to change lenses that often while still giving you a longer range than the R1 can deliver...

Now I know you said that Nikon doesn't really sell DSLR bodies in India but I would bet money that any camera shop can order the body for you (it's not like Nikon and Oly don't want to sell the camera)...

Now if you can't find the D50 (which I only recommended because of the 18-200 AFS VR) then I would seriously look at the 350D (this is the body I presently own and I live in Dusty Florida) as the dust isn't that bad with the body and I believe Methanol can used to clean the sensor as well if needed...

I don't have anything against the R1 but I know when prices are close the best camera is the body with the most flexibility and that to me would be the 350D easily over the R1.

Oh and I still maintain the R1 lens isn't as good as either the Nikon or Canon Pro-Line which often have high speed focusing motors and some type of Stabilizer built in (IS, VR)...

Another option is the 7D which is now a Sony Product... That body is awesome and with Sony behind it we'll be seeing a whole lot more products available in the future...

--

'The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me.' -- Abraham Lincoln

mmiikkee said:

In fact a canon 350D with a low cost prime 50mm f/1.8 lense can
give better results than a sony R1.

Click to expand...

This is the key sentence here, not to mention the flexibility for the future, when you get more money...


by T2k!

hi

I had the 350 for some time and now replaced it to R1.

I think you should consider only one thing – do you need lcd preview very much? If yes take the R1 if no take the 350D.

In your case when you say only one lens I have some problem. I had many lenses with the 350D including L's. but after all the LCD brought me to sony for my needs . If there was one in canon I would stay with the 350D for years. It's faster and everything works great.

That’s it. To have LCD preview or not – this is the question.

Picture quality – same. Ignore trolls fighting who has better picture quality.

Robert

--
Sony R1
Was part of canon people (300D + 350D) and was happy there
have als0 Sony T7 , Minolta s404
past: canon powershot pro 90, sony F707, canon 300D, Canon 350D with L glasses

your are right LCD preview may be another good point for the sony.
I forget to mention it because i don't like LCD preview...

Even with my previous compact digital camera I was using the poor viewfinder instead of lcd... I personnaly don't see much interest in having a lcd preview but i can understand that some people want it.

And for image quality, I guess it should be quite similar to 350D with a good lense (probably better than 350d + kit lense).

The main difference between 350D and R1 is that R1 has a fixed lense while XT has interchangeable lenses so the real question is not only LCD preview but also wishing or not to invest in other more specific lenses (good primes with large aperture, or 300mm+ zooms or good macro, or zoom with image stabilizer..).

So if you don't plan to buy some specific lense but want only a standard zoom then the sony R1 may be a better value for the money!

If you plan to buy specific lenses later (not a standard zoom covered by the R1 zoom range) then buy the XT.

mmiikkee

Maybe it's just me but I have switched from my Kodak digital P&S to my current XT just a week ago but I'm doing absolutely fine with viewfinder, despite I always used the live LCD on my old Kodak as far as I remember.

by T2k!

Depends on what you want to shoot.

First of all

Sensor dust has been much of a problem for me, after about 20,000 captures, with many lens changes, I have only had to clean my sensor with swabs once, and that was at the beginning, as it was dirty straight from the factory! I have used a bulb blower 2 or three times to get the big specks off. So I wouldn't worry about sensor dust too much, especially if you only have one lens.

I have also used the Sony on a limited basis. Most of my work is low light, moving targets (elementary school kids). The Sony couldn't do it. It's auto focus is not responsive enough to capture moving targets, or even almost non moving targets(i.e. posing adults) in low light effectively. In bright light, stationary subject, the Sony was wonderful.

I would think more about what you are going to be shooting. If you require fast auto focus, are shooting in low light, and your subjects are moving, I would go with the Canon, with the kit, and possibly the 50mm 1.8 as a portrait/learning lens. If you are shooting in bright light, stationary subjects, the Sony does a great job, and can always be a good back up for that future DSLR.

Which ever way you decide, once you have the camera, just enjoy it!

--
These comments are to be used for entertainment purposes only.

I agree with t2k, I also switched from a Kodak p&S with live preview (which I used all the time) and the viewfinder on the xt is fine. In all fairness I have also used a 35mm SLR for years. I just think too many people rely on the LCD preview, it really isn't that much of a benefit, unless you have some disability that prevents you from raising your arms above your shoulders that is.
--
Peter -
Canon Digital Rebel XT
Canon 28-90 f/4-5.6
Canon 50mm f/1.8
Sigma 28-70 f/2.8-4
Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 DG Macro
Canon Speedlite 580 EX

Pete Perry said:

Try to find some place that sells the D50 and 18-200 VR... This
should be close to the price of the Sony and XT but will solve the
problems of dust because you won't have to change lenses that often
while still giving you a longer range than the R1 can deliver...

Abraham Lincoln

Click to expand...

I still don't see the appeal of the 18-200VR. The images I've seem on pbase have been less then stellar. I think that if someone want's a 10xzoom they might b better off with a good P&S. Not trying to start a flame war here but other then IS (which I've never really needed with my 70-200f4) there is nothing about that lens that has impressed me. That's just my 2 cents worth. The optics of the Sony (though shorter) seem to be (from what I've read) far better then the Nikor 18-200VR.

You live in what many people consider an exotic land...many many shooting opportunities that you don't want to miss. The XT is quick - you will never be waiting for the memory buffer to clear or to get a snappy focus on a moving object. Even moving from a 300D to a 350D is a liberating experience. I cannot imagine moving backwards to something that is worse than the 300D. Of course the R1 has a great lens, nice sensor and some neat specs...these will be invisible in real life pictures.

There needs to be some clarity on the issue of sensor dust. It's easy to clean! You remove the lens, pop up the mirror and blow or brush it clean. I do this maybe twice a year even with occasional lens changes. If you start with the kit lens and a USD$100 50/1.8 prime, you'll be able to satisfy both your general purpose and portrait needs for the time being. Most importantly, once you experience the joy of a true SLR, you won't have to second guess yourself should you want to buy other lenses.

Bob Sakamano wrote:
Most of my work is

Bob Sakamano said:

low light, moving targets (elementary school kids). The Sony
couldn't do it. It's auto focus is not responsive enough to
capture moving targets, or even almost non moving targets(i.e.
posing adults) in low light effectively. In bright light,
stationary subject, the Sony was wonderful.

Click to expand...

I currently have the 350D (with kit and 50 1.8) and R1, and I'm trying to decide which to keep. I think the deal breaker with the R1 is going to be low light. It's a LOT noiser at 1600 (though very good at 800), but it's all but impossible to get it to focus on a moving object in even a well-lit room at night (which still counts as 'low-light' photography). I just spent 2 hours with my 2 year old playing at the train table. He'd go around it two or three times and the Sony would be hunting for focus the whole time. Switch to the 350D with the 50mm 1.8, and not only did it focus and track him accurately, but thanks to the burst mode I was able to get 20+ decent shots in the time that I was able to get maybe one or two with the Sony.

Now if you're outdoors, I think the Sony is the CLEAR winner. The lens is fabulous--sharp, almost distortion-free, just lovely for architecture and landscapes. And the focus system works fine in LOTS of light.

For portraits, though, I'd definitely choose the Canon with the 50mm 1.8. It's so cheap that you should be able to squeeze it into your budget--you'll be very glad you did.

If I manage to get the R1 to work for me indoors, I may still keep it. But unless the folks at the Sony forum have any wonderful tricks for low light, it will go back, with a heavy heart for all the lovely architecture and landscape shots that will be much worse with the kit lens on the 350D. My kid is more important.

I would never judge the lens from pbase because there are far too many people who take snapshots there...

What I do know is that Nikon had the best 28 - 200 Lens on the market where people couldn't believe the degree of sharpness they were getting from this little $200+ lens... I figure the 18 - 200 with VR can't be that bad all things considered but it is a DX lens so it might have issues.

Paul Kurtz said:

Pete Perry said:

Try to find some place that sells the D50 and 18-200 VR... This
should be close to the price of the Sony and XT but will solve the
problems of dust because you won't have to change lenses that often
while still giving you a longer range than the R1 can deliver...

Abraham Lincoln

Click to expand...

I still don't see the appeal of the 18-200VR. The images I've seem
on pbase have been less then stellar. I think that if someone
want's a 10xzoom they might b better off with a good P&S. Not
trying to start a flame war here but other then IS (which I've
never really needed with my 70-200f4) there is nothing about that
lens that has impressed me. That's just my 2 cents worth. The
optics of the Sony (though shorter) seem to be (from what I've
read) far better then the Nikor 18-200VR.

Click to expand...

--

'The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me.' -- Abraham Lincoln

I got a lot of valuable inputs. And the 50mm 100$ prime (1.8) for the XT makes a lot of sense, and will take away the potrait weakness thing.
Some questions though:

1.For potraits its best to focus on the eye and also meter of the eye. Since Canon does not have spot metering, is it much of a problem?

2.I also checked for 75-300 tamron lenses, which are available for around 150-190$. Will it be a good idea to have such a lens accompany the prime and kit. This would fall within my 1 year near budget.

3.Searching the forums, I came across many posts saying front or back focus problem. Is it only in few cams or many. I understand if 10 out of 10000 cams have this problem, 9990 people will keep quiet and 10 remaining will holler like anything. So is it a case with a few cams or fairly common. While purchasing I can definately test the cam. Any page to print and take along to test for this?

--
Tanveer

tsk1979 said:

I got a lot of valuable inputs. And the 50mm 100$ prime (1.8) for
the XT makes a lot of sense, and will take away the potrait
weakness thing.

Click to expand...

Not exactly, the bokeh on the 50 f/1.8 isn't the best when it comes to any sort of specular highlight so it can cause problems with portraits as well but it will be sharp that's for sure...

tsk1979 said:

Some questions though:
1.For potraits its best to focus on the eye and also meter of the
eye. Since Canon does not have spot metering, is it much of a
problem?

Click to expand...

It takes a little more effort but isn't usually a large problem.

tsk1979 said:

2.I also checked for 75-300 tamron lenses, which are available for
around 150-190$. Will it be a good idea to have such a lens
accompany the prime and kit. This would fall within my 1 year near
budget.

Click to expand...

If you're looking for reasonable get the Sigma 70 - 300 APO II as I believe it is in the same price range but is a better lens.

tsk1979 said:

3.Searching the forums, I came across many posts saying front or
back focus problem. Is it only in few cams or many. I understand if
10 out of 10000 cams have this problem, 9990 people will keep quiet
and 10 remaining will holler like anything. So is it a case with a
few cams or fairly common. While purchasing I can definately test
the cam. Any page to print and take along to test for this?

Click to expand...

This focusing engine has now been tweaked by Canon for over 4 years so it isn't like they haven't worked on it... With that said, some feel this particular brand of focusing is somewhat flawed and will eventually need adjusting on every body that has it... This might be true as there certainly were a lot of 10D's (much more than the fraction of a percent in your example and some speculated closer to 20%) that had to be recalibrated and several of them more than once.

--

'The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me.' -- Abraham Lincoln

sensor dust is no joke. I was in Iran recently and was surprised at the number of dust issues I had. Although I have the XT now and I am very happy with it, but if I were in your position, I would get the R1. It's a pity Oly E500 is not available where you are.

tsk1979 said:

2.I also checked for 75-300 tamron lenses, which are available for
around 150-190$. Will it be a good idea to have such a lens
accompany the prime and kit. This would fall within my 1 year near
budget.

Click to expand...

the Canon 55-200 f/4.5-5.6 USM II lens. It's a VERY GOOD lens for its price.

For true spot, one would better meter off the skin. The XT's partial 9% metering handlings this fairly well. With digital and histogram previews and ability to shoot RAW and adjust balance, this won't be such an issue to a non-pro.

tsk1979 said:

1.For potraits its best to focus on the eye and also meter of the
eye. Since Canon does not have spot metering, is it much of a
problem?

Click to expand...

I echo what the other users have said - Sigma 70-300 APO Macro II (but I returned one for poor performance) or Canon's 55-200.

tsk1979 said:

2.I also checked for 75-300 tamron lenses, which are available for
around 150-190$. Will it be a good idea to have such a lens
accompany the prime and kit. This would fall within my 1 year near
budget.

Click to expand...

Most of these issues seem to be with 3rd party lenses. My Canon's don't have this issue, period, and often good technique will be shown to eleminate these "problems". Not to say these problems aren't real, I just bet they are very infrequent with Canon-only parts. But sending off for calibration is not the worst thing in the world if you indeed do end up with a problem.

tsk1979 said:

3.Searching the forums, I came across many posts saying front or
back focus problem. Is it only in few cams or many. I understand if
10 out of 10000 cams have this problem, 9990 people will keep quiet
and 10 remaining will holler like anything. So is it a case with a
few cams or fairly common. While purchasing I can definately test
the cam. Any page to print and take along to test for this?

Click to expand...

Oh, forgot, here's a good front/back focus chart...

http://www.focustestchart.com/chart.html