Entry vs "semi pro" DSLR?

Question

I've asked a few questions earlier about the XSi vs 40D.

Now I'm wondering this, what exactly is the diff between entry and bridge cameras IF the IQ is same?

A bridge like the 40D works better in lower light situations, but a camera like the XSi will do fine in that dept with a proper lens.

The camera's build really doesn't matter so long the photographer babies their equip (I'd be in that category).

The ergonomics of a digital camera also don't to matter to me that much, I've worked with film up until now (rangefinder and SLR) and like a challenge. Both the XSi and 40D are super easy to use.

Features on a digi are fairly important, but alot of entry are in step with the bridge cameras.

In the case of the two Canons I'm looking at the sensor is the same.

So exactly why are "semi-pros" always recommended above the entry?

With film cameras you want a good body, but the lens is what makes the diff.

From everything I've read about DSLRs people are really into the body before the lens.

TIA

(and yes, it's probably a stupid question)

Answer 1

I think you've answered your own question pretty well. Your reasoning is absolutely correct for your vintage point. There is no huge advantage of 40D vs. Xsi. For a non-professional it will make no difference which camera you are going to get. For a professional the little things like 6 frames per second vs. 3 frames per second for sports/action photographer may make the difference, or slightly better ISO for indoor event photographer (yes, you can make that up with a lens, but put that same lens on 40D, and you're still a stop better), having a few extra buttons here and there that will save the trip to menu in situation when you need to switch some settings if you're photographing an event and need to adjust to changing conditions quickly (e.g. wedding proceeded from outside and into a darker hall), and all other little things like that. Finally maybe a slightly more rugged build is important to a journalist who takes it to the action.

Just like you rightfully noticed, none of that is really a factor for an amateur photographer. So, you are not correct about people recommending 40D over XSi. Only those who don't really understand what makes one camera a high end amateur and another low end pro will recommend that, because their logic is "if it's pro level, it must be better". Just like people who come out and say "more megapixels means sharper images".

There are things in those different categories that can attract some people to higher end cameras. Take me, I bought Nikon D80 over D40 (was shopping before D60 came out) because over many years I was so used to having that little LCD screen on top of the camera, that after holding the D40 and messing with it a bit, vs. D80, I just couldn't justify not having that. After doing my online research I was leaning towards D40, but actual handling of these cameras changed that. Plus as a secondary reason - the s***w drive for older lenses. To this day I don't have any lenses that need it, but I do plan to get 50mm prime one day, and I really wanted to be able to use its AF ability... That's how I made up my mind a bit over a year ago...

So you really have to play with the cameras in question and make up your own mind mind. Don't rely on anyone's recommendations. You know well, judging from your question, that as far as taking regular photographs in regular conditions, you'll probably see no difference in the two cameras. So you really have to just decide what to get your yourself, not what someone else says is better or worse... You are going to be using this camera body for some years to come, so it is up to you to get the one that feels better in your hands.

LEM.

Answer 2

On the surface you are correct, there isn't a HUGE difference in pic quality between say Canon's new entry level cam the XS (AUG 2008) and say, a much more expensive 40d. In good light at ISO 200, resolution aside, with the same glass, you'd have a hard time telling the difference, it's so many little things that make a semi-pro or pro body worth the money.

The little differences also vary by make like Canon, Nikon, Sony etc. but here are some things to think about when comparing entry level or pro-sumer dslrs and the upper models. Some shooters might not need the extras that come with spending more cash, but here are some things to think about.

1. high ISO shots are usually cleaner and more detailed up the chain.

2. LCD screens generally get bigger and better.

3. not useful to all people, not only is the body going to be aluminum, with a magnesium alloy shell, but you get actual weather sealing for the k***s, buttons and doors. it can be basic on the semi pro bodies and extensive on pro bodies.

4. Higher frames per second.

5. deeper buffer or the ability to shoot at maximum fps for a longer period of time

6. UDMA, an acronym describing a standard for writing to CF cards much faster than non UDMA cams. Sony's A700 and Nikon's D300 can take full advantage of 300x speed cards the Canon 40d cannot. I don't know of any entry level dslrs that are UDMA.

7. I've got an HDMI output on my alpha A700 to view pics jpeg or RAW on any flat panel TV and I've got a remote that came with the camera to view on HDTV or to act as a wirelss trigger. It's not offered on the lower models. Sort of a gimmick, there you have it.

Another thing to think about is 'upgrade-itis' an illness that makes you want to move up just a short while after purchasing an entry level camera. If you want a Canon, the 40d is a sweet spot, it's got solid reviews across the board and you are less likely to want to ditch it after three months for something else. I can't say the same about the XSI or XS.

Answer 3

Here are a few articles for you to read. Nothing groundbreaking, but nevertheless fairly interesting reading for those considering either the Xsi, or the 40D:

http://www.dpnotes.com/comparisons/canon...

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/dig...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readfl...