Canon XSi: 12.2 Megapixels, Image Stabilized Lens, and Double Live View
by Wesley Fink on May 5, 2008 3:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Digital Camera
XSi Specifications
Here's a complete rundown of the features and specifications of the XSi. We'll cover the highlights on the next few pages.
Canon Rebel XSi (450D) | ||||||||||||
Type | Digital, single-lens reflex, AF/AE camera with built-in flash | |||||||||||
Recording Medium | SD memory card, SDHC memory card | |||||||||||
Image Format | 22.2mm x 14.8mm | |||||||||||
Compatible Lenses | Canon EF lenses (including EF-S lenses) (35mm-equivalent focal length is approx.1.6x the lens focal length) |
|||||||||||
Lens Mount | Canon EF mount | |||||||||||
Image Sensor | ||||||||||||
Type | High-sensitivity, high-resolution, large single-plate CMOS sensor | |||||||||||
Pixels | Effective pixels: Approx. 12.20 megapixels | |||||||||||
Total Pixels | Total pixels: Approx. 12.40 megapixels | |||||||||||
Aspect Ratio | 3:2 (Horizontal: Vertical) | |||||||||||
Color Filter System | RGB primary color filter | |||||||||||
Low-pass Filter | Located in front of the image sensor, non-removable | |||||||||||
Recording System | ||||||||||||
Recording Format | Design rule for Camera File System 2.0 | |||||||||||
Image Format | JPEG, RAW (14-bit Canon original) RAW+JPEG | |||||||||||
File Size | (1) Large/Fine: Approx. 4.3MB (4272 x 2848 pixels) (2) Large/Normal: Approx. 2.2MB (4272 x 2848 pixels) (3) Medium/Fine: Approx. 2.5MB (3088 x 2056 pixels) (4) Medium/Normal: Approx. 1.3MB (3088 x 2056 pixels) (5) Small/Fine: Approx. 1.6MB (2256 x 1504 pixels) (6) Small/Normal: Approx. 0.8MB (2256 x 1504 pixels) (7) RAW: Approx. 15.3 MB (4272 x 2848 pixels) Exact file sizes depend on the subject, ISO speed, Picture Style, etc. |
|||||||||||
White Balance | ||||||||||||
Settings | Auto, Daylight, Shade, Cloudy, Tungsten, White Fluorescent Light, Flash, Custom | |||||||||||
Color Temperature Compensation | White balance correction: +/-9 stops in full-stop increments White balance bracketing: +/-3 stops in full-stop increments Blue/amber direction or magenta/green direction possible |
|||||||||||
Viewfinder | ||||||||||||
Type | Eye-level pentamirror | |||||||||||
Coverage | Vertical/Horizontal approx. 95% | |||||||||||
Magnification | Approx. 0.87x (-1m with 50mm lens at infinity) | |||||||||||
Eyepoint | Approx. 19mm (from eyepiece lens center) | |||||||||||
Dioptric Adjustment Correction | -3.0 to +1.0 diopter | |||||||||||
Mirror | Quick-return half mirror (Transmission: reflection ratio of 40:60, no mirror cut-off with EF600mm f/4L IS USM or shorter lenses) | |||||||||||
Viewfinder Information | AF information (AF points, focus confirmation light), exposure information (shutter speed, aperture, AE lock, exposure level, ISO speed, exposure warning), flash information (flash ready, high-speed sync, FE lock, flash exposure compensation), monochrome shooting, white balance correction, maximum burst, SD memory card information | |||||||||||
Depth-of-Field Preview | Enabled with depth-of-field preview button | |||||||||||
Autofocus | ||||||||||||
Type | TTL secondary image-registration, phase detection | |||||||||||
AF Points | 9 AF points | |||||||||||
AF Working Range | EV -0.5-18 (at 73F/23C, ISO 100) | |||||||||||
Focusing Modes | One-Shot AF, AI Servo AF, AI Focus AF, Manual focusing (MF) | |||||||||||
AF Point Selection | Automatic selection, manual selection | |||||||||||
Selected AF Point Display | Superimposed in viewfinder and indicated on LCD monitor | |||||||||||
AF-assist Beam | Small series of flashes fired by built-in flash Effective range: Approx. 4.0m/13.1 ft. at center, approx. 3.5m/11.5 ft. at periphery |
|||||||||||
Exposure Control | ||||||||||||
Metering Modes | 35-zone TTL full-aperture metering:
|
|||||||||||
Metering Range | EV 1-20 (at 73F/23C with EF50mm f/1.4 USM lens, ISO 100) | |||||||||||
Exposure Control Systems | Program AE (Full Auto, Portrait, Landscape, Close-up, Sports, Night Portrait, Flash Off, Program), shutter-priority AE, aperture-priority AE, depth-of-field AE, manual exposure, E-TTL II autoflash | |||||||||||
ISO Speed Range | Basic Zone modes: ISO 100-800 set automatically Creative Zone modes: ISO 100-1600 (in 1-stop increments), Auto |
|||||||||||
Exposure Compensation | Manual: +/-2 stops in 1/3- or 1/2-stop increments (can be combined with AEB) AEB: +/-2 stops in 1/3- or 1/2-stop increments |
|||||||||||
AE Lock | Automatic: When focus achieved with evaluative metering and One-Shot AF Manual: By AE lock button |
|||||||||||
Shutter | ||||||||||||
Type | Electronically-controlled, focal-plane shutter | |||||||||||
Shutter Speeds | 1/4000 sec. to 1/60 sec., X-sync at 1/200 sec. 1/4000 sec. to 30 sec., bulb (Total shutter speed range. Available range varies by shooting mode.) |
|||||||||||
Shutter Release | Soft-touch electromagnetic release | |||||||||||
Self-timer | 10-sec. or 2-sec. delay or 10-sec. delay plus continuous shooting | |||||||||||
Remote Control | Remote Switch RS-60E3 Remote Controller RC-1/RC-5 |
|||||||||||
Built-in Flash | ||||||||||||
Type | Retractable, auto pop-up flash | |||||||||||
Guide Number | 13/43 (ISO 100, in meters/feet) | |||||||||||
Recycling Time | Approx. 3 sec. | |||||||||||
Flash-ready Indicator | Flash-ready icon lights in viewfinder | |||||||||||
Flash Coverage | 17mm lens angle of view | |||||||||||
Flash Exposure Compensation | +/-2 stops in 1/3- or 1/2-stop increments | |||||||||||
External Flash | E-TTL II autoflash with EX Series Speedlites | |||||||||||
PC Terminal | N/A | |||||||||||
Drive System | ||||||||||||
Continuous Shooting Speed | Max. approx. 3.5 shots/sec. (single shots possible) | |||||||||||
Max. Burst During Continuous Shooting | JPEG (Large/Fine): Approx. 53, RAW: Approx. 6 RAW+JPEG (Large/Fine): Approx. 4 Based on Canon's testing standards with a 2GB SD memory card, ISO 100, and Standard Picture Style Varies depending on the subject, SD memory card brand, image-recording quality, etc. |
|||||||||||
LCD Monitor | ||||||||||||
Type | TFT color liquid-crystal monitor | |||||||||||
Screen Monitor size | 3.0 in. | |||||||||||
Pixels | Approx. 230,000 pixels | |||||||||||
Coverage | Approx. 100% | |||||||||||
Brightness Control | 7 levels provided | |||||||||||
Playback | ||||||||||||
Image Display Format | Single image, Single image + Image-recording quality, shooting information, histogram, 4- or 9-image index, magnified view (approx. 1.5x-10x), rotated image, image jump (by 1/10/100 images, or shooting date) | |||||||||||
Highlight Alert | Provided (Overexposed highlights blink) | |||||||||||
Image Protection and Erase | ||||||||||||
Protection | Single images can be erase-protected or not | |||||||||||
Erase | Single image, check-marked images, or all images in the card can be erased (except protected images) at one time | |||||||||||
Direct Printing from the Camera | Enabled with the Print/Share button | |||||||||||
Compatible Printers | PictBridge-compatible printers | |||||||||||
Power Source | ||||||||||||
Battery | Battery Pack LP-E5 (Quantity 1) AC power can be supplied via AC Adapter Kit ACK-E5 With Battery Grip BG-E5, size-AA batteries can be used |
|||||||||||
Number of Shots |
|
|||||||||||
Battery Life | The above figures apply with a fully-charged Battery Pack LP-E5 The figures above are based on CIPA (Camera & Imaging Products Association) testing standards |
|||||||||||
Battery Check | Automatic | |||||||||||
Power Saving | Provided. Power turns off after 30 sec., 1, 2, 4, 8, or 15 min. | |||||||||||
Back-up Battery | Built-in secondary battery | |||||||||||
Dimensions and Weight | ||||||||||||
Dimensions (W x H x D) | Approx. 5.1 x 3.8 x 2.4 in./128.8 x 97.5 x 61.9mm | |||||||||||
Weight | Approx. 16.8 oz./ 475g (body only) | |||||||||||
Working Conditions | ||||||||||||
Working Temperature Range | 32-104F/0-40C | |||||||||||
Working Humidity Range | 85% or less |
Log in
Don't have an account? Sign up now
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
56 Comments
View All Comments
Devo2007 - Monday, May 5, 2008 - link
I've been quite happy with Anandtech's camera reviews so far, along with the articles on digital photography (terms, sensor info, etc.)I'm still torn between the Rebel XSi and the Sony A350. Live View isn't extremely important to me (even on my current camera, I don't use the LCD that much), but I also want something that's going to be relatively easy to use. I've never used an SLR before (film or digital), though I have worked with the manual controls on my existing camera a bit.
haplo602 - Monday, May 5, 2008 - link
I personaly would go with Canon in this case. You will find a huge supply of cheap used lenses and other accessories on ebay :-)Go check ...
As fo ease of use, the only option is to visit a larger camera store and try out. There is no substitute for experience.
casteve - Monday, May 5, 2008 - link
I wonder if Sony provides free rootkit malware with their cameras, too!n4bby - Monday, May 5, 2008 - link
but i never quite understood why anandtech started reviewing photo gear... i appreciate the considerable effort that went into this review, but quite frankly i think cameras are better reviewed by professional photographers and/or specialists in the field. again, not meaning to rag on you but the sample photographs are really quite sub-par from both a technical and aesthetic standpoint and in no way show what this or really any camera/lens is capable of. i think without an adequate photographic background, it is hard and perhaps somewhat misguided to critically evaluate the merits of the gear beyond the merely technical, which i understand is what the majority of people come to this site for. but photography being an art goes much beyond the technical and i think the subjective element of it is often very relevant to the judgment of equipment.Sunrise089 - Monday, May 5, 2008 - link
Super-elitist arguments are funny in posts that refuse to capitalize words.I have seen professional camera review sites and magazines, although I am by no means an expert in the subject. Besides reaching a different audience, Anandtech seems to bring two things to the table with these reviews: 1) Objective and numbers-based analysis, and 2) Clear conclusions. Many reviews of high-end products, be they cars, home theater gear, or cameras, seem to lack clear "this product is better than this product for this type of user" conclusions (probably their tiny audiences cannot sustain their publication costs without free sample gear, and so they avoid hard conclusions because they don't want to piss off any company and stop of flow of free gear. Anandtech provides a refreshing and readable change of pace, that for this user at least the reviews are exactly what I desire.
Justin Case - Monday, May 5, 2008 - link
[quote]Anandtech seems to bring two things to the table with these reviews: 1) Objective and numbers-based analysis, and 2) Clear conclusions.[/quote]And that is precisely the problem, because most of the times the numbers are wrong (or inconsistent, because the reviewer didn't understand what he was actually measuring), which means the "authoritative sounding" conclusions are also wrong, and misleading.
There's nothing worse than an ignorant who's sure of himself. No, wait, there is. An ignorant who's sure of himself and gives authoritative advice to thousands of other people.
Photography, like so many other fields where art meets technology, is not about clear conclusions. Some of the greatest photographs in the word were taken with cameras that would rank at the bottom in any "number based analysis" (just look at anything by Cartier-Bresson, for example).
Describing a camera's performance in (objective) numbers and writing requires a lot of experience, and so does understanding it. For "average users" the way to go is look at a lot of samples (with different lighting conditions, different subjects, etc.) and read people's pondered (subjective) opinion about their experience with the camera, and how it compared to other cameras.
"Number-based clear conclusions" are like trying to define Van Gogh, John Lennon or Jesus Christ by their IQ score and shoe size. Those are certainly useful pieces of information, but if you draw a "clear conclusion" from them, you are missing the point.
Wesley Fink - Monday, May 5, 2008 - link
The Canon XSi is an entry DSLR. 99% of its buyers will be consumers like readers at AnandTech. I would venture a guess than the great majority of those potential buyers really don't care how the entry priced XSi performs with a $2000 Canon L lens in a studio setting.Using your logic none of us would ever build a computer since it is a task best left to Pros like Dell and HP, and reviewing home PCs should be left to IT professionals.
Not.
Justin Case - Monday, May 5, 2008 - link
We are talking about reviewing a product, not building it, so your criticism of the poster's "logic" makes no sense. Certainly people shouldn't build PCs professionally without knowing how a PC is built. You don't write just for yourself, you write for Anandtech as a professional journalist. To use your analogy, you _are_ (supposedly) the "Dell and HP" of product reviews.Cameras should be reviewed by people with experience (preferably photographers) for the same reason that cars should be reviewed by experienced drivers, guitars should be reviewed by experienced musicians, and so on. Because people with more experience (with different situations and different products) are more likely to have relevant insights about how the product they are reviewing compares to the rest.
If I'm clueless about, say, air compressors, the last thing I need is advice from an equally clueless person, just because he's an "average user". The expression "expert advice" carries weight for a reason. I don't think this is so hard to understand.
The section for the "average guy review" is the "comments" section at the bottom. Anadtech's readers expect the actual _articles_ to be written by experts, and to follow a professional, relevant methodology. And (some of) the IT articles actually do (Anand's and Johan's, mostly).
Taking pictures of a bunch of boxes on top of a desk (often with nonsensical camera and lens settings, different settings for different cameras, etc.) is something that might meet the standards of a private blog, but not really the standards of a site like Anandtech.
If you can't do something at least _half_ as good as the main photography websites and if you're reviewing a product that has already been reviewed ad nauseum by all those sites... why bother? I guess it increases the number of ad impressions, and maybe you get paid by nVidia, Corsair and Intel to use their logos as your "test images", but is that really worth the impact on Anandtech's reputation?
If you don't have the knowledge, time or resources to make a proper _technical_ evaluation of the camera and lens, just write an _opinion_ piece. Photography magazines are full of them, and they're quite useful.
Take a few photos (of different things: people, buildings, sunsets, flowers, cars, night scenes, indoors shots, etc.), post your results and write about your experience using the camera for a week or two. Less press-release, less spec sheet, less "hacked together" photographic tests, more real-world samples and more subjective opinion about real-world photos, clearly identified as such. That might actually have some relevance, and would complement the more technical articles found in photography websites.
JarredWalton - Monday, May 5, 2008 - link
I can attest to the fact that Wes knows *FAR* more about cameras than the rest of us at AnandTech. Some of you may not feel that way from reading some of his articles, but I wonder how much you're actually reading and how much you're assuming. He's done photography work professionally in the past, and we all tend to discuss things with him when we need camera advice. To pretend that he lacks knowledge of a subject just because you disagree with some aspect of an article is typical of anonymous internet users.Why does he use a setup where he's photographing a bunch of computer hardware boxes? For one, I'm sure the fact that it's inside in a controlled environment and has a bunch of stuff that doesn't change constantly helps. Taking a picture of some outside scene is fine, but it doesn't allow apples-to-apples comparisons. It really would be great for Wes to include some other sample images, I agree. You know, sort of like he does on page 12.
I'm sure he can add more photos there showing other shooting environments, but it's pretty easy to take a few shots under specific conditions and come up with a conclusion that "this camera is AWESOME!" That's what a lot of people tend to do. A great photographer taking pictures can make even lousy cameras look good, which is why we need a controlled environment.
For me, being able to easily take a quality picture under tungsten lighting is in fact one of the best ways to separate average cameras from great cameras... it would be quite entertaining to see some point-and-shoots try out his test. I say that because I upgraded from a point-and-shoot to a DSLR purely for the fact that after trying three PAS cameras I still couldn't manage to capture good quality photos of products.
Justin Case - Tuesday, May 6, 2008 - link
It has nothing to do with his opinions. It has to do with inconsistent (and plain wrong) methodology, lack of varied samples (all the "sample photos" seem to have been taken in 20 minutes, at the same place), and poor quality of the photos in general (all but two have bad framing, bad exposure and bad use of DOF - they're fine as holiday snaps, but not really the work of an "experienced photographer").In fact, about the _only_ thing about his articles worth reading is his opinion (which, sadly, he insists on basing on fundamentally flawed "technical" tests, instead of basing it on real-world experience with the cameras - you know, the kind that really matters for people who are going to use it instead of sit at home "measurebating").
Outdoors photos don't allow for an "apples to apples" comparison? So you'd rather compare just the apple seeds, because the rest of the apple might be different? You think 50 photos of an nVidia box give you more information about how two cameras perform in the real world than, say, 20 photos taken in different conditions? Or is this review aimed at that very specific market niche of people who photograph nVidia logos on boxes that happen to be on their desk?
If he knows *FAR* more about cameras than anyone else at Anandtech (and I'm starting to think that might be true, which is scary), that makes it pretty clear that Anandtech shouldn't be doing camera reviews. For one thing, how will the rest of the people at Anadtech know that he's not publishing nonsense (answer: clearly, they don't)?
Seriously: _You_ (Jarred), spend two weeks taking pictures (indoors, outdoors, day, night, portraits, babies, flowers, cars, sports, dogs, landscapes, clouds, flash, no flash). Pick the 20 or 30 photos you consider more relevant (because they came out right or because they came out wrong or just because they came out different from what you expected). Write an article about your experiences with the came and comment on each photo. Skip the technical "camera" stuff; it's been done properly by people who know how to do it at specialized websites, and "average users" don't understand it anyway, even if they think they do. Give us your opinion and different samples taken in different conditions. If you can take similar photos with multiple cameras, even better. If not, nevermind, just try to photograph many different situations. I'm sure the end result will be a million times better (and more relevant) than Mr. Fink's "let's test sensor sharpness by setting lenses to f/1.2" pseudo-technical articles.
PS - FYI, P&S cameras will generally perform *better* than dSLRs under tungsten lighting, if you have both set to full auto (certainly better than Canon dSLRs, which have very crappy auto WB under tungsten). As long as you do in-camera white balance (or shoot raw) and expose correctly, both P&S and dSLRs should perform fine (as far as white point is concerned; P&S cameras are still noisier, have worse lenses, less control over DOF, etc).