CANON EOS XTi INITIAL CONCLUSIONS

I received one of the first XTi units here in the states on September 8, 2006. Since then, I have had ample time to evaluate the camera. Since I am a believer in the fact that a camera can "grow" on you, I feel that one month's time is not fair to make a final assessment, so here are my initial conclusions. This is from my experience with the XTi based on one unit. I am also basing my conclusions upon comparison with the previous 8 megapixel XT, of which I have had many months experience with.

BUILD: Some folks have said the XTi feels "better" or slightly more solid than the XT it replaced. To me, they both feel exactly the same. Ok, maybe the grippable areas are a little better, but if I picked up both cameras without looking, they feel the same to me.

AUTOFOCUS: The XTi inherited the AF from the 30D so it's technically better than its predecessor. That said, I must've used a very good copy of the XT because I did not find its AF all that bad. The XTi did very well in normal, and bright lighting, but sometimes hunted in dim lighting, such as a dim ballroom. I used this camera for a wedding under these conditions, and at times the camera literally seemed to "give up." Nerdy testing at home proved the AF to be accurate however. My old 20D used to hunt in similar conditions, but the XTi did so more than I was expecting, especially since it's supposed to have the 30D's AF, and the 30D's AF was supposedly tweaked from the 20D. In my experience, I have found the EOS 5D to have the best low-light AF performance. Slower, but more accurate with less hunting than any of the bodies mentioned above. The XTi autofocuses well enough that it will do fine for the vast majority out there.

DYNAMIC RANGE: When the XTi first came out, many folks complained of underexposure with the camera. I did feel my copy was underexposing, not badly, but I could see right away that the camera was doing its best to preserve the highlights. In this respect, the XTi does better than the XT which could blow highlights quite easily.

COLOR: The XTi produced very accurate colors at the default "Standard" setting. In comparison with the XT, the colors appear less punchy, and even a little bit bland.
All this can be remedied using a different setting such as "Landscape" or in post-production work, which is my preference. It did very well on skin tones, especially Caucasian or African-american, but can bleed the reds on Asian skin, especially the Southeast-Asian variety.

RESOLUTION: I was a bit disappointed with the resolution power of the XTi. I have no doubt it can deliver the advertised 10.1 megapixels, but I did not see much of an improvement over the XT. Yes, I know a 10 megapixel camera is not a big leap over an 8 megapixel camera, but I have been able to see the mp difference in each successive model from Canon. I do not feel that I see it here. For example, the 11mp Canon EOS 1Ds Classic showed tremendous detail. Although I did not like the noise on that camera, I did admire the resolution it pulled in. In fact, I feel the 1Ds files were closer to the 5D in resolution than the XTi. The 1Ds was known to have a weaker anti-aliasing filter, I do not know about the XTi. And I did use some top quality lenses with the XTi; the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, the 85mm f/1.2L, and the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR lens. Please understand, my experience in observational planetary astronomy has been a big factor in "seeing" because we are always looking for that little extra, sometimes subtle detail. If you are one of those who never saw a difference between a 6mp or 8mp or 10mp camera, more power to you! Don't get me wrong, the XTi produced some excellent images with great detail, but I saw very little if any resolution difference over the 8mp XT on the same subjects. I'm willing to accept that it may be my particular camera or my technique, although I have been able to successfully pull the most out of any camera I have used over the years, resolution-wise, from 1 megapixel to 14. This may also be a case of "you get what you pay for."

LOW-LIGHT, HIGH ISO PERFORMANCE: Here, the XTi did not disappoint. It did very well, as expected from Canon. You can use iso 800, and 1600 with confidence in low-light conditions. The fact that it's this easy to write is a testament to Canon's high iso strength. 'Nuff said...

IMAGE QUALITY: The XTi is capable of stunning images, but seems to require more work than previous Canon bodies. Initially, I was not over the moon with its image quality. Over the years, I have heard of people complain of the "plasticky" look from Canon's cmos sensors. I personally have never seen that. The XTi is the closest I've come to that, and was a source for my initial disappointment. Properly post-processed, the images are excellent, even stunning with the right lenses. Images straight out of the camera are a bit bland, and I know this is to be expected, but it also seems to lack "bite." I truly wonder if it's the new sensor or perhaps a stronger AA filter. The XTi's image quality reminded me a little of the D200, but as we all know, the D200 is capable of stunning images, and so is the XTi. The example below was taken with the 85mm f/1.2L lens, and converted to black and white in post-processing.



CONCLUSION: The XTi offers a lot of camera for the money. It is the least expensive of the new crop of 10 megapixel cameras. The camera offers the improved auto-focusing of the 30D, and even a new, anti-dust feature. I did not notice any dust problem with my unit, although many report that the feature does not work all that well. The camera offers such value for money, that I would recommend it wholeheartedly to anyone looking for a first digital slr or as a backup to another EOS body. That said, I went against the grain, and I returned my unit. Why? All the reasons I mentioned above, and it mostly relates to image quality, resolution, and AF. I decided to stick with the older XT because I like the "bite" I get with the XT images, and that older sensor. I am not saying the XT images are better, but I expected the XTi's images to be a bit better. Folks with 20D's and 30D's, get the XTi as a backup, not a replacement. I have no interest in Canon bashing or bashing any other brand. Like Aaron Neville, I try my best to "tell it like it is." I have used all the Canon digital slrs with the exception of the 1DsMKII, and enjoyed them all. I would be willing to try another XTi in the future, I mean they are really cheap for what they offer. But for now, I will stick with the XT. And remember, this is just one man's opinion, and who am I anyway right? As I said before, read as many opinions as you can, and then average it out, and you'll find the truth in there. I wanted so much to like the XTi more than I did, but this time my Canon guy lost the bet. That's it for now.

Best,
Sam

Photo Info: "XTi and XT" taken with the Nikon D2H, and 50mm f/1.8 AF Nikkor
Photo Info: "Mother Of Queens" taken with the Canon EOS XTi, and 85mm f/1.2L

All text, and photographs are the the copyrighted work of Sam Charupakorn 2006