Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Opinions On The Canon 650D (T4i)  
User currently offlinetheA380 From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 9 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8779 times:

Hey A.net! I'm pretty new to aviation photography but I've been spotting for years. Anyways, I'm on a budget and the Canon EOS T4i (650D) seems to fit perfectly! I was wondering what your opinions were on the camera and how it performs in low light. Also, as I am on a budget, I cant be buying $2000 L-lenses and was wondering what you guys also think of the kit lens, I know it sucks, and a 70-300mm f.4-5.6 IS USM lens as it's pretty cheap. Also, if anyone has some photos, please share them!

Thanks and happy spotting from Toronto!  


Maciek from YYZ :)
31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10335 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8777 times:

Quoting theA380 (Thread starter):
Also, as I am on a budget, I cant be buying $2000 L-lenses and was wondering what you guys also think of the kit lens, I know it sucks, and a 70-300mm f.4-5.6 IS USM lens as it's pretty cheap. Also, if anyone has some photos, please share them!

T4i will be fine. I used a Rebel XS for a year or two prior to upgrading, which at that time was Canon's lowest-end DSLR. Getting some good lenses for it really made the difference.

The 18-55 kit lens is fine (assuming that's what you're talking about). Reasonably sharp. Some chromatic aberration, but nothing terrible.

The 70-300 IS USM is a decent zoom lens. I used it as my main zoom for a bit over a year. It's good from 70 to 200, gets a bit soft but still usable from 200-260, and I never used it from 260-300 as it was too soft (but copies may vary).

I usually put the camera and lens in my photo remarks, so if you search for "70-300 IS USM" you'll find all mine, buried somewhere within about 5000 other ones. I tried doing an advanced search, but that just kept pulling all my photos....



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlinegasman From New Zealand, joined Mar 2004, 882 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 8760 times:

I agree. T4i is an awesome camera in anyone's book and should hold you in good stead for 5 years of heavy use at least.

The 70-300 4-5.6 lens has been through several iterations. The latest version is a respectable optic but I would argue it's the first of the line to actually be so. I owned one of the very early versions and it was literally next to useless. Soft, and unbelievably slow to autofocus.

I personally think the 18-55 lens is awful. Cheaply built, and the image quality is almost always unacceptable unless in the middle of the zoom range and stopped down past f8. Instead I would purchase a 40mm STM "pancake" lens to use as your default lens, and when money allows get a EF-S 10-22mm 3.5-4.5 - a somewhat overpriced but incredibly versatile optic.


User currently onlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10335 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 8753 times:

Quoting gasman (Reply 2):
I personally think the 18-55 lens is awful.

Interesting! Always fun to hear differing opinions/experiences with lenses. What were the issues you had with it?

Of course, with the cheaper lenses, I'm guessing the quality varies more from copy to copy. To the OP: try before you buy!



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlinegasman From New Zealand, joined Mar 2004, 882 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8738 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 3):
To the OP: try before you buy!

I agree - in an ideal world - but really, can you? You buy a lens in a sealed box; can you truly go away and critically analyze it and decide if it's up to par before you're committed to the purchase?? I don't think so..... the two doozy lenses I've owned in my lifetime did declare themselves as such fairly quickly; but not so quickly I could've walked away from the sale.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 3):
I personally think the 18-55 lens is awful.

Interesting! Always fun to hear differing opinions/experiences with lenses. What were the issues you had with it?

Firstly 18-55mm (29-88mm equivalent) is a fairly limited zoom range. Compared with a good quality, inexpensive prime (eg. the 35mm f2) you are losing magnitudes of image quality for the sake of having a "zoom". Secondly, the price differential between the body only and the kit (with this lens included) was trivial - Canon were basically giving them away. The image quality, for the price of the lens, wasn't dreadful; but in the overall photographic scheme of things, produced results that were pretty ordinary. Appropriate value for money - but that doesn't mean you should have it.


User currently offlinetheA380 From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 9 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 8718 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 1):
if you search for "70-300 IS USM" you'll find all mine

Thanks for the advice and you have some great photos! The lens seems to be pretty good
.



Maciek from YYZ :)
User currently offlinetheA380 From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 9 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 8715 times:

Quoting gasman (Reply 2):

Thanks for the advice. I can understand that the kit lens must be pretty bad if Canon is giving them out with the camera but I think the 70-300mm 4-5.6 is actually pretty decent for its price. I'm pretty sure it sells for under CAD 200. I know that going with an L-lens would provide much better photos but the price is really high, especially for a fairly new person to photography. Thanks for sharing!



Maciek from YYZ :)
User currently offlineJOshu From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 159 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 8713 times:

The T4i doesn't really have many advantages over the T3i other than the ability to auto focus during video. There are some other minor differences. Save the coin and buy a lens with the T3i.

User currently offlinetheA380 From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 9 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 8705 times:

Quoting JOshu (Reply 7):

I was actually thinking that too. But the T4i does have a slightly better processor, sensor (I think), higher ISO range, and faster continuous shooting which may come in handy for aviation. Thanks for the advice!



Maciek from YYZ :)
User currently offlinetheA380 From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 9 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 8704 times:

Please also share your opinion on cameras in the price range of the T3i (600D) to the T4i (650D) that may be even better than those for photography and what camera you use? Im just trying to make the best decision that I can!

Thanks!



Maciek from YYZ :)
User currently offlinegasman From New Zealand, joined Mar 2004, 882 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 8687 times:

For someone who professes to be a photographic rookie, you sure possess a good deal of insight already! A few points in no particular order..

- You would be very happy with the T4i
- In terms of the telephoto lens, do you mean the 75-300 or 70-300 IS? The latter is definitely not available for 200CAD! - but is the one I'd recommend buying. If money is too much of an issue, get the T3i instead of the T4i and spend the extra on the better lens.
- I'd still advocate getting the 40mm Pancake lens as your standard lens also.
- Don't fall into the trap of thinking expensive gear equates to better photos
- Don't let people try and tell you that having decent gear is irrelevant either - especially when it comes to lenses.
- Unless you wanted to go mirrorless (in my opinion not appropriate for aviation photography) the only other camera you might consider looking at is the Nikon D3200. Personally, I wouldn't bother.


User currently offlinetheA380 From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 9 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 8682 times:

Quoting gasman (Reply 10):

Thanks, I've been doing a bit of research my self.   My mistake, I meant the EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM (im guessing the one you're talking about is much better) and that one sells for under 300 CAD. I also know that this lens is probably kind of ''junk'' but I think that it may do the job for now until I get better at photography all together. Looking at the 40mm, it looks pretty decent at a low price. One thing that I don't understand is why people use prime lenses, I know they offer better quality but no zoom? Don't quote me, I'm new hehe. Also, for aviation photography what do you think is the "ideal" focal length? Gotta love this site where you can get trustworthy info from so many nice people!

Thanks for the advice!!!



Maciek from YYZ :)
User currently offlinegasman From New Zealand, joined Mar 2004, 882 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 8680 times:

Quoting theA380 (Reply 11):
One thing that I don't understand is why people use prime lenses,

- lighter
- smaller
- usually, significantly better optical quality
- "faster"- ie larger maximum aperture - so better for portraiture, and also in low light.
- sometimes the "versatility" of a zoom with limited range (eg. the 18-55) means nothing more than not having to change your position by a couple of metres forward or back.

Quoting theA380 (Reply 11):
Also, for aviation photography what do you think is the "ideal" focal length?

There isn't one. That said, if I was only shooting aircraft in the sky, and was forced to pick just one focal length, it'd be 200mm (on a full frame sensor).


User currently offlinetheA380 From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 9 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 8677 times:

Quoting gasman (Reply 12):

Thanks, definitely will use your advice!



Maciek from YYZ :)
User currently offlinescopedude From Indonesia, joined Oct 2010, 53 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 8618 times:

Actually, I just replaced my 60D with the new 650D. Compared to 60D here's the pros and cons of 650D:

Pros
- Better AF (both are 9 cross, but 650D is more accurate)
- Can AF at f/8 (70-300L + Kenko DGX 1.4x), 60D won't
- Better DR, esp in highlight - easier to recover when converting raw
- With LR 4.1, I find the 650D files are easier to process, esp when reducing noise
- Fast (due to DIGIC V maybe)
- Touch screen is really nice - I ignored it at first, but it's actually very responsive.
- I feel the 650D is sharper may be due to weaker AA filter despite Canon said it's using the same sensor...

I had two 60Ds - and shot both around 15,000-20,000 clicks each for 2 years so I quickly noticed the differences in IQ esp. when using the same lenses. I sold both 60Ds, and bought 5D2 and 650D.

Some shots from 650D:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Singa...d=dee0ec995308596a7d38794bf9be8bac

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Singa...d=dee0ec995308596a7d38794bf9be8bac

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Qanta...d=dee0ec995308596a7d38794bf9be8bac

Cons
- Small buffer for continuous shooting esp in RAW+jpg
- smaller VF
- 60D is more comfortable in my hand, 650D is a bit small
- JPG OOC is better with 60D, although RAW is the opposite
- still pricey at the moment

So, it might be an entry level camera but it has excellent IQ. I just got a Tamron 17-50/2.8 non VC and the combo rocks!

Hope it helps



5D2, 650D, 70-200/4 IS, 70-300 L, 135 L
User currently offlinegasman From New Zealand, joined Mar 2004, 882 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 8593 times:

Quoting scopedude (Reply 14):
So, it might be an entry level camera but it has excellent IQ

All very interesting. Yes, the T4i/650D certainly gives the 60D a run for its money! What a great camera.

What actually impressed me most about your pictures was the amount of shadow detail you're getting.


User currently offlinetheA380 From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 9 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8576 times:

Quoting scopedude (Reply 14):

The 60D does have that little screen that comes in handy for quick displays on the top right of the camera, wish the T4i/650D had that too. Awesome photos by the way!

[Edited 2012-10-07 16:53:13]


Maciek from YYZ :)
User currently onlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10335 posts, RR: 26
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 8567 times:

Quoting gasman (Reply 4):
I agree - in an ideal world - but really, can you? You buy a lens in a sealed box; can you truly go away and critically analyze it and decide if it's up to par before you're committed to the purchase?? I don't think so..... the two doozy lenses I've owned in my lifetime did declare themselves as such fairly quickly; but not so quickly I could've walked away from the sale.

Well, I generally buy used, so often, I can test when buying.

Quoting theA380 (Reply 6):
Thanks for the advice. I can understand that the kit lens must be pretty bad if Canon is giving them out with the camera but I think the 70-300mm 4-5.6 is actually pretty decent for its price. I'm pretty sure it sells for under CAD 200. I know that going with an L-lens would provide much better photos but the price is really high, especially for a fairly new person to photography. Thanks for sharing!

As I already stated, I'll disagree with Gasman on the 18-55 kit lens. Though I have the MkII version, and I guess there's a MkIII version. Don't know the difference, really.

Quoting theA380 (Reply 9):
Please also share your opinion on cameras in the price range of the T3i (600D) to the T4i (650D) that may be even better than those for photography and what camera you use? Im just trying to make the best decision that I can!

Look at buying used. Much better value for your money, assuming you get a camera that's been reasonably well taken care of.

Quoting theA380 (Reply 11):
My mistake, I meant the EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM

Well then, erase everything I said. No idea about that lens.

Quoting gasman (Reply 12):
- sometimes the "versatility" of a zoom with limited range (eg. the 18-55) means nothing more than not having to change your position by a couple of metres forward or back.

I'll have to disagree with you there as well.   18-55 is just over a 3x zoom. It's the difference between this (18mm):



And this (only 41mm, so 55mm would make an even larger difference):



(cropped sizes on those are within 15 pixels of each other).

Quoting scopedude (Reply 14):
- Can AF at f/8 (70-300L + Kenko DGX 1.4x), 60D won't

Wow, interesting. After a little searching, it appears that it does indeed AF with select 3rd-party teleconverters, but it won't with Canon's extenders.



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6456 posts, RR: 38
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks ago) and read 8564 times:

Quoting gasman (Reply 2):
I personally think the 18-55 lens is awful.

Didn't stop me from getting a top of 24 hrs shot!


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Nicholas Young



And another of my favourites:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Nicholas Young




Ok, it's not perfect by any means but realistically, it's a lens that can take photos. You gotta start somewhere and that somewhere isn't always with L lenses; especially if you get to a point where you don't think photography is for you.. Then you've spent a heck of a lot of money for basically nothing.. Though the suggestion of the 40mm STM isn't a bad one.



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlinegasman From New Zealand, joined Mar 2004, 882 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks ago) and read 8557 times:

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 18):
Ok, it's not perfect by any means but realistically, it's a lens that can take photos.

And of course I never suggested otherwise. I'm not sure if either of the examples you provided would look better had they been taken on better lenses - I suspect not, as they're both shot through aircraft windows. I would say they look WAY inferior - picture quality wise - to your best stuff.

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 18):
You gotta start somewhere and that somewhere isn't always with L lenses

Obviously - but there are a lot of lenses between (quality wise) the 18-55, and the L series.

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 18):
especially if you get to a point where you don't think photography is for you.. Then you've spent a heck of a lot of money for basically nothing.

True - but if you've not decided "photography is for you" then maybe you shouldn't be buying a 650D.

In the end it doesn't matter - no-one's family is going to starve because you did or didn't buy an 18-55 - but I would still advocate that too much time spent with lens in the absence of better ones will lead to more photographic disappointments than your average 650D buyer deserves.


User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6456 posts, RR: 38
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 8551 times:

Quoting gasman (Reply 19):
And of course I never suggested otherwise. I'm not sure if either of the examples you provided would look better had they been taken on better lenses - I suspect not, as they're both shot through aircraft windows. I would say they look WAY inferior - picture quality wise - to your best stuff.

Don't get me wrong but my editing workflow has improved so much over 5 years that the editing skills itself could probably improve the image quite a bit. But I think I've lost the originals anyway..

Quoting gasman (Reply 19):
Obviously - but there are a lot of lenses between (quality wise) the 18-55, and the L series.

I'd be more interested in improving my skills than trying to think about 'the best quality' (or even something like the 15-85) straight away. With eyes new to photography, it takes a while to be able to decipher between what you regard as good and what others describe as good quality as the leap from a P&S is so large, most people would be happy with whatever comes out of a DSLR when they first see the images they produce from it.

Quoting gasman (Reply 19):

True - but if you've not decided "photography is for you" then maybe you shouldn't be buying a 650D.

The 650D is far more capable than the 1100D and I'd probably suggest it over the 1100D for terms of general use including that of the video; of course getting a second hand 500D+ would still be decent enough. I still don't have a camera which can take videos.. Starting off with a 400D, I thought it was better to go with a used 40D as my next body for relatively cheap. Now I'm ready for a bigger leap to say the 5DIII but I'll need to collect a bit of money for that jump.

Quoting gasman (Reply 19):
but I would still advocate that too much time spent with lens in the absence of better ones will lead to more photographic disappointments than your average 650D buyer deserves.

I go back to my point of the difference between a point and shoot and a DSLR - I'm sure most people go from having a point and shoot to a DSLR. Then once they get better at taking photos and editing, the time might be right to move onto a better lens.



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlinegasman From New Zealand, joined Mar 2004, 882 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 8538 times:

There are two basic schools of thought when it comes to equipment - and not just in the realm of photography. One is "buy low quality at first, then as your skills improve, so too can your equipment" and the other is "buy the best you can afford - regardless of skill level". I am in the latter group.

I hasten to add that in the case of photography, the very definition of "best" will change as your skills evolve. Give a novice photographer an EOS 1Dx and a bagful of L lenses; and you can be sure of a frustratingly achieved bunch of very mediocre photos. Indeed the "ideal" mix for our OP could well be a T4i combined with an EF-S 15-85mm lens as well as the 70-300 IS.

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 20):
Now I'm ready for a bigger leap to say the 5DIII

I was all set to part with the cash when the 6D was announced. I still think I'll end up with a 5DIII, but I should probably wait and see some reviews/samples of the 6D first.....


User currently onlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10335 posts, RR: 26
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 8523 times:

Quoting gasman (Reply 21):
There are two basic schools of thought when it comes to equipment - and not just in the realm of photography. One is "buy low quality at first, then as your skills improve, so too can your equipment" and the other is "buy the best you can afford - regardless of skill level". I am in the latter group.

I'll add a 3rd school: use whatever works for you, no matter the price (see below).

Quoting gasman (Reply 19):
but I would still advocate that too much time spent with lens in the absence of better ones will lead to more photographic disappointments than your average 650D buyer deserves.

Obviously lens copies vary, and opinions will too, but I had very few photographic disappointments with the 18-55. In fact, I still have it, and use it for close-up shots, as it has a pretty good max magnification for a non-macro lens. Shots like this:



I upgraded to the 17-40 L in January or so, and the benefits have less to do with image quality and more to do with features - namely, F4 all through the zoom range, faster focusing, and much better build quality. The 17-40 is a bit sharper, but the 18-55 was no slouch in that regard, so not a big jump there.

I saw a MUCH larger difference in image quality when I upgraded telephotos from the 70-300 IS USM to the 70-200 F4L.



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6456 posts, RR: 38
Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 8519 times:

Quoting gasman (Reply 21):
the other is "buy the best you can afford - regardless of skill level". I am in the latter group.

Boy do I wish I had deep pockets!



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlinescopedude From Indonesia, joined Oct 2010, 53 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 8506 times:

Quoting gasman (Reply 15):
What actually impressed me most about your pictures was the amount of shadow detail you're getting.

Yes, the shadow part is a noticeable improvement over 60D as well. It's as noisy - but it's easier to tame during PP.

Quoting theA380 (Reply 16):
The 60D does have that little screen that comes in handy for quick displays on the top right of the camera, wish the T4i/650D had that too. Awesome photos by the way!

Thanks. The top screen is indeed useful, but we just can't have them all, can't we
 

Regarding 17-40 vs 18-55; I settled with neither. If IQ is what you're after, try Tamron 17-50/2.8 (non VC). For the price, you're getting performance similar to Canon's own 17-55. It's just a bit more than $300 and I don't mind the noisy AF as long as it's accurate. I had 17-40 for a year and sold it.

Tele-wise, I could not decide which one is better between 70-200/4 IS and 70-300 L so I decided to keep both. When I need to travel light, 55-250IS can't be beat for size and sharpness. I consider it a 55-150mm with some extra length  

But if one just needs to upload the pictures here, at 1200-1300px, any lenses will do just fine. It's more skill than optics IMHO. Learning to do PP right is also very important, as is having the monitor properly calibrated.



5D2, 650D, 70-200/4 IS, 70-300 L, 135 L
User currently offlinegasman From New Zealand, joined Mar 2004, 882 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 8468 times:

Quoting scopedude (Reply 24):
If IQ is what you're after, try Tamron 17-50/2.8 (non VC)

This is a very good point. It is possible to do extremely well with "off-brand" lenses. It is also possible to do extremely badly - as I found out the hard way with a 2005 Sigma 28-70 f2.8. Good optical quality (if a bit "warm") but autofocussed worse than a pig. If going "off-piste" with lenses, you do need to do your research with more scrutiny than you might with the camera makers' own.


User currently offlineGuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2059 posts, RR: 8
Reply 26, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 8405 times:

Quoting scopedude (Reply 14):
- 60D is more comfortable in my hand, 650D is a bit small

I bought a Meike battery grip that holds two batteries and has other features like an extra shutter release button that you can use when shooting vertically, and self timer-auto continous shooting functions that add flexibility and adds to the ease of holding my T3i (or T4i). Win-Win. You can find them on ebay for around $50 (mine also came with 4 generic rechargeable batteries, which, full disclosure, one died after about 8 months of use). Just make sure if you don't want to spend the money for a Canon branded item that it IS a Meike product. I highly recommend one.

[Edited 2012-10-09 15:15:18]


As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
User currently offlinescopedude From Indonesia, joined Oct 2010, 53 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 8399 times:

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 26):
Just make sure if you don't want to spend the money for a Canon branded item that it IS a Meike product. I highly recommend one.

I already got the Canon one - it's bulky and I could not use my daily Crumpler and Domke compact bags anymore. I only use it when spotting.



5D2, 650D, 70-200/4 IS, 70-300 L, 135 L
User currently offlineJOshu From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 159 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8341 times:

Just saw this:
http://autofocuspa.com/entry.php?149-Canon-s-4Ti-a-bust

Take the info as you will.


User currently offlineTheA380 From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 9 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8326 times:

Quoting JOshu (Reply 28):

I don't believe the T4i is a "fail". It seems great and the only thing it says there is to go with the D3200 because of more mega pixels, big deal, who really even needs 24??



Maciek from YYZ :)
User currently offlinegasman From New Zealand, joined Mar 2004, 882 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8325 times:

Quoting JOshu (Reply 28):
Just saw this:
http://autofocuspa.com/entry.php?149-Canon-s-4Ti-a-bust

Hmmm. It's neither a comparative review, nor even a clearly articulated subjective opinion. No tests, no clear reputable quotes. In other words, not even worth a passing glance.

Popular Photography magazine - a publication with a degree of impartiality and integrity - did indeed rate the Rebel T4i very highly. They didn't directly compare it with the Nikon D3200, but their review of the T4i was much more glowing than their review of the D3200.

Having briefly handled both cameras, it was immediately apparent to me that the T4i easily outclassed the D3200 in terms of

- build quality, solid feel
- movie capability
- menu structure
- articulated screen.


User currently offlineHNLPointShoot From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 322 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 7737 times:

Quoting gasman (Reply 2):
I personally think the 18-55 lens is awful.

I'd have to disagree with that; it's been a perfectly fine lens in my experience, especially since it and the XSi body were what I started doing photgraphy with.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Trevor Nagamine


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Trevor Nagamine


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Trevor Nagamine



All three of the above pictures were shot with a Canon XSi body and an EF-S 18-55mm IS lens.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Thoughts On The Canon EF-S 17-85mm Lens posted Wed Sep 29 2010 12:16:02 by pilotalltheway
Opinions On The Nikon D60? posted Sun Nov 16 2008 08:44:27 by OSU_av8or
Beginner On The Canon Rebel..HELP! posted Sun Oct 7 2007 16:55:21 by A380fo
Info Help And Opinions On The 5 Engine! posted Fri Apr 28 2006 06:32:44 by NIKV69
Changing The Color Profile On The Canon EOS 300D posted Mon Jul 4 2005 01:29:44 by FlyingZacko
Opinions On The Following Photos? posted Sat Mar 26 2005 09:11:47 by CallMeCapt
Your Thoughts On The Canon 35/350 F/3.5-5.6L USM? posted Sun Sep 12 2004 18:17:12 by UTA_flyingHIGH
Opinions On The Sigma 1.4x TC posted Mon May 17 2004 18:17:04 by Sleekjet
Opinions On The Upload Limit? posted Fri Apr 23 2004 06:06:13 by JeffM
Shutter Lag And Opinions On The Olympus 740? posted Thu Dec 4 2003 00:37:33 by Jasonwinn