Two Live View Modes

When Canon first announced the XSi at the PMA show in late January, they created quite a stir with the announcement that Live View would be available in two modes on the XSi. The first mode was what everyone has been including, namely that the mirror is flipped up and you can see the sensor image on the LCD and manually focus. In this mode Auto Focus requires that the mirror be flipped back down, for AF measurement, which is slow and also momentarily blacks out the Live View.



Mode 2 for Canon Live View uses contrast detection for focusing. The image does not blank on the LCD and focus can happen while you are viewing the LCD. These appear to be the same two Live View modes that are implemented on the $1800 Nikon D300. Unfortunately the contrast detection Live View is still painfully slow on the XSi, meaning that neither mode is very useful for sports or fast moving subjects.



Live View is this year's check box feature and the XSi has one of the best Live View implementations using the main sensor. The only current production camera that uses a different Live View approach is the Sony A350 we recently reviewed. Sony uses a second sensor to provide real-time Live View on the A350 and A300 that is just as fast as using the viewfinder for shooting. The A350 is 14.2MP while the A300 is 10MP, but both feature a flip-down/flip-up LCD for convenient Live View use.

In terms of focusing speed the Sony A350 is clearly a faster and more convenient implementation of Live View. However, the second sensor in the Sony brings its own set of compromises. The Canon XSi provides basically a 100% view of the image on the LCD, where the Sony second sensor only shows about 90%. Sony also offers no image zoom feature for easier focusing, where the Canon XSi allows selection of an area and Live View zooming for more precise focusing.

The contrast in Live View approaches is pretty dramatic between the Sony A350 and the XSi. If you want to use Live View instead of the viewfinder and shoot using the LCD, Sony Live View is better. If you prefer using Live View for studio-type static or macro shooting, the Canon XSi Live View offers more precise framing and more precise control of the final image.

In addition, the much larger and brighter Canon XSi optical viewfinder makes using the viewfinder easier on the XSi compared to the mediocre tunnel-vision finder in the Sony A350. If you plan to shoot mainly using the traditional viewfinder then the Canon XSi is the better choice, with slow but decent Live View shooting options.

XSi Features (cont'd) Resolution and Sensitivity Tests
Comments Locked

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).

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now