10-13-2014 01:28 PM - edited 10-13-2014 01:29 PM
Greetings. I love my XTi. Am curious to know what improvements in photo quality does the current generation of Rebel's provide. I can read about the difference in features. How does this translate in practice to results. I suspect that I would get more detail (18 meg vs 10 meg), and perhaps higher ISO's are more usable. Maybe a LOT more usable.
What has been your experience? Did you upgrade from XTI or that vintage roughly to current or recent Rebel models?
10-13-2014 02:11 PM
It depends on a lot of variables - which kind of lenses you''re using, how good is your light, what style of photography you do, etc.
But in general you will see a sizeable increase in resolution. Which may or may not make a difference in your work. If you print large, or crop a lot, it will make a noticeable difference. If you usually just post photos to Facebook or Flickr it won't really be that noticeable.
High ISO performance should be noticably different. I can't speak to it specifically, because I went from an XTi to a 6D and the difference knocked my socks off. But there should still be a noticable difference between XTi and SL1. Now... high ISO performance means a lot to me, but not to everyone. Well, I should say, it doesn't impact everyone's photography as much as they think. If you do studio work, or work with a tripod, or mostly shoot during the day, then it won't have a huge impact. Really, if you don't use high ISO it won't impact you. That said, I'd never take my XTi above 800, and I didn't really even care for 400. It took me awhile to get used to having a new variable (ISO) to play with; I'll use my 6D up to 1600 without batting an eye, and up to 6400 in the right conditions.
10-13-2014 02:26 PM
If you take a photo in a situation where you have a tremendous amount of available light (e.g. mid-day sun) you wont see much difference. Every camera performs well when there's a tremendous amount of available light.
The differences show up when the shooting circumstances become a bit more challenging.
The XTi maxes out at ISO 1600... but even at ISO 1600 there's considerable "image noise" in the photos. You proably are much happier when you keep the camera below ISO 800... or 400 would be even better. This limts the use of the XTi in low light situations.
The SL1, on the other hand, has an ISO range up to ISO 12,800. That's 3 stops improvement (each "stop" doubles it's sensitivty to light... making the SL1 about 8 times more sensitive.) This means you could use the SL1 at ISO 3200 with great performance... and ISO 6400 with acceptable performance. At any camera's max ISO (in this case 12,800) you're really pushing it and probably would not be happy with the noise level.
10-13-2014 03:24 PM
The SL1, on the other hand, has an ISO range up to ISO 12,800. That's 3 stops improvement (each "stop" doubles it's sensitivty to light... making the SL1 about 8 times more sensitive.) This means you could use the SL1 at ISO 3200 with great performance... and ISO 6400 with acceptable performance.
Max ISO doesn't correlate to high ISO performance; especially on older models before camera manufacturers realized that by including higher values they can advertise higher values, regardless of the performance. I've never used an SL1, but there's no way it has 3 stops better ISO performance than the XTi. It's arguable whether or not modern full frame sensors have a full 3 stops advantage.
10-14-2014 10:22 AM
Now for the correct answer, you will notice very little difference between these two Rebel versions. A little help with low light levels perhaps.
You are talking stills, not video?
10-14-2014 12:48 PM