Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Canon T1i officially released: 15.1MP, 1080p video, $900.

mattcube64

mattcube64

macrumors 65816
Original poster
May 21, 2006
1,297
115
Missouri
http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/25/canon-eos-digital-rebel-t1i-now-official/#comments

Saw this while browsing before bed. Thought you guys might be interested to see it. Sorry if this has been posted; I didn't see anything on the first page.

Anyway, I've toyed with the idea of getting a DSLR for a loooong time. And while I lean towards the Alpha series if I buy in the $500 range, I've considered the D90 my "dream camera" for a while now. But the $1300 asking price is a bit high for me. Maybe this will force Nikon to cut the price a bit?
 
Looks like a great camera, will definitely stack up well and provide some good competition for the D90.

Your price comparison isn't accurate, though...$1200 or so for the D90 kit includes a much more expensive 18-105mm lens versus the 18-55mm included in the T1i kit. Comparing body only, you're looking at $800 for the T1i and a little under $900 for the D90 (usually...I got mine for $850). Pretty close overall in specs and price...should put some downward pressure on the D90 price eventually.
 
gkarris said:
Are we still trying to use SLR's as Videocameras??? :eek:

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes. This is a feature that is not going away anytime soon.

While everyone has their preferences, I agree that it's not for everyone.

Personally, I love the idea of a good dSLR with an adequate movie mode. I have weighed the options of having a both a dSLR and an HD-camcorder vs. having one device that does both. For me, photos are the priority, so I would choose a dSLR with a movie mode (as opposed to a camcorder with still-photo capabilities).

If you've ever tried to take photos and video simultaneously with two devices, it's just not possible, unless you have two right hands. Having one device that does both is ideal.

Personally, I don't think Canon's implementation is the greatest for the T1i, so I'll probably sit this round out and wait for the next Rebel update (or the 60d/7d).

ft
 
grr i only the dataghost got his 40d video hack working. i will probably keep this 40d forever
 
LittleCanonKid said:
At least Canon gives the option for 1080p while at the same time offering the same 720p, 30fps option that the D90 has. It's got the same video resolution/frame rate as the D90, and then some! ;)
Click to expand...

I thought the D90 had 24fps, which is actually better, right? Unless, and I'm not really aware of that, you can reduce the 30 to 24..
 
LittleCanonKid said:
At least Canon gives the option for 1080p while at the same time offering the same 720p, 30fps option that the D90 has. It's got the same video resolution/frame rate as the D90, and then some! ;)
Click to expand...

Ah I didn't see they offer 720p at 30fps. Much better. The 1080 at 20fps is still worthless. 20fps is poor no matter how detailed it is.

For the record though I much prefer the look of 24fps to 30. The D90 shoots 24fps.

My point though was that people rag the D90 video and only 1 person thinks 20fps is less than stellar on the Canon. Nice.

I don't care if Canon or Nikon came out with 20fps. I'd rag on it equally the same. It just doesn't make sense.

gkarris said:
Yes, like the lovely "video wobbling"... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Ah, yes. The "wobbling" inherent in a CMOS sensor...like the one Canon uses in the 500D as well. I would roll eyes here but I'm not sure the double standard would be as obvious that way.

It isn't about Canon vs Nikon. It's about 20fps which, again, makes no sense...and again I'd say the same if it was Nikon throwing a 20fps higher video mode in one of their cameras. Maybe that's why the D90 tops at 720. Who knows. 20fps is silly though. Apparently it's there for bragging rights to shoot at 1080.

Whatever. Like the D90, it isn't the point of the camera anyway. I was just surprised such a thing would be done at all.


All the best
Jesse Widener
Art and Structure
 
ArtandStructure said:
Ah, yes. The "wobbling" inherent in a CMOS sensor...like the one Canon uses in the 500D as well. I would roll eyes here but I'm not sure the double standard would be as obvious that way.
Click to expand...

What does the wobbling have to do with semiconductor tech? It's all about the electronic shutter implemented.
 
Ah I didn't see they offer 720p at 30fps. Much better. The 1080 at 20fps is still worthless. 20fps is poor no matter how detailed it is.

For the record though I much prefer the look of 24fps to 30. The D90 shoots 24fps.

My point though was that people rag the D90 video and only 1 person thinks 20fps is less than stellar on the Canon. Nice.

I don't care if Canon or Nikon came out with 20fps. I'd rag on it equally the same. It just doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...
Aaah, well actually the T1i does both 720p @ 30fps and 1080p @20fps, D90 only do 720p @ 24fps. Then there is another issue bout the 24fps, I know video tech ppl will say it better but frankly speaking, to the eye of a customer, does it matter? Will they be able to see the difference? Cause remember a dSLR is meant to take photos! not to be a pro vid camera. Heck, even the manufacturers do not want to make dSLR video capabilities too pro cause it might end up eating video cam market.

Ah, yes. The "wobbling" inherent in a CMOS sensor...like the one Canon uses in the 500D as well. I would roll eyes here but I'm not sure the double standard would be as obvious that way.
Click to expand...
Well not to go against your point, but it seems D90 "wobbling"/rolling shutter effect is more present compared to the Canon version, so far I've seen lots of video taken by 5D MKII and the "wobbling" effect is more common in the D90 vids, so far I only see 1 video taken by the T1i so cannot finalize my conclusion...yet.
 
ArtandStructure said:
Ah, yes. The "wobbling" inherent in a CMOS sensor...like the one Canon uses in the 500D as well. I would roll eyes here but I'm not sure the double standard would be as obvious that way.

It isn't about Canon vs Nikon. It's about 20fps which, again, makes no sense...and again I'd say the same if it was Nikon throwing a 20fps higher video mode in one of their cameras. Maybe that's why the D90 tops at 720. Who knows. 20fps is silly though. Apparently it's there for bragging rights to shoot at 1080.
Click to expand...

Well, Nikon's got a long way to go with their CMOS sensor implementation for video. The rolling shutter issue is MUCH worse on the D90. Any slight movement yields the wobble effect. Canon's isn't anywhere as bad, just because they make video cameras, so they have experience in that field. IMO, CMOS is okay for still video shots, but nothing more. Fast panning has that nasty skewing, and if you do any kind of car shots, etc, you run into a very nasty wobble effect. Sure, image quality looks fantastic, but very video-like. CCDs look better for video, as it has a more film-like aesthetic to it.

Anyway, yes the 1080p is just to say "we have the first consumer 1080p SLR camera". Even though it has 20fps, there are creative ways to use it. I think for most people, 720p will be good enough.
 
wheelhot said:
Aaah, well actually the T1i does both 720p @ 30fps and 1080p @20fps, D90 only do 720p @ 24fps.
Click to expand...

Reread my second post. I completely understand the Canon offers both rates. My point was the 1080p at 20fps is senseless. You can deal with the "wobble" on either camera by working creatively but there is nothing you can do to make up for the fact that the video is shot at 20fps in 1080. It will be noticeable no matter what you do to it. Well, I suppose you could try to interpolate frames in post process but that would be a tremendous task.

wheelhot said:
Then there is another issue bout the 24fps, I know video tech ppl will say it better but frankly speaking, to the eye of a customer, does it matter? Will they be able to see the difference?
Click to expand...

I can definitely see the difference, and whether or not most people can see the difference it is one of the factors which makes "film" footage look like film footage. Movies are shot 24fps. Television is shot ~30fps. It is a subconscious aesthetic at the very least which lends to the "film experience". There are companies who shoot on video (~30fps) because it is cheaper than shooting film, and then pay tens of thousands of dollars to have it transferred by 5:4 pulldown to a 24fps "look" because that look is that important.

If you have the opportunity to see one of the 120hz or higher refresh flat screen TVs out there, watch a hi def film on one. It is still 24fps but the refresh makes it look bizarrely smooth and clear in a television soap opera way, losing the"film" aesthetic. I saw Dark Knight on one of these and it was disturbingly weird. It was a Hollywood production with Hollywood production values that somehow looked like a cheap daily soap at the same time.

I can definitely tell the difference and frankly so could the consumers also watching that set, and I prefer 24fps without a doubt, but to each their own.

As a side note, I will be taking a D90 to Glacier National Park with me in June for photos. I will try to take some footage as well and post when I get the time.

All the best
Jesse Widener
Art and Structure
 
ArtandStructure said:
If you have the opportunity to see one of the 120hz or higher refresh flat screen TVs out there, watch a hi def film on one. It is still 24fps but the refresh makes it look bizarrely smooth and clear in a television soap opera way, losing the"film" aesthetic. I saw Dark Knight on one of these and it was disturbingly weird. It was a Hollywood production with Hollywood production values that somehow looked like a cheap daily soap at the same time.
Click to expand...

Interesting stuff, I had always wondered why HD TVs make movies look rubbish... Same if you're watching something like friends, which I assume is shot at 24fps because it has that same look to it?
 
hector said:
Interesting stuff, I had always wondered why HD TVs make movies look rubbish... Same if you're watching something like friends, which I assume is shot at 24fps because it has that same look to it?
Click to expand...

I should have been clearer. Movies are shot at 24fps. Blu-ray players and some of the HD TVs can be set to 24fps, and the television I was looking at (Samsung series 6) was playing The Dark Knight at 24fps BUT the 120hz refresh rate (which is twice the rate of most HDTVs) made the 24fps "look" like 30fps...or higher...and thus made it "look" like broadcast television (and Friends, which is shot ~30fps), which is more cheaply made and shot on tape in part because it is cheaper to shoot tape than film.

In all fairness, the clarity of the TVs is quite impressive. I don't mean to imply the clarity or detail of the TV looked cheap or TVish. It is the frame rate which looked cheap and TVish. Further, the Samsungs have a Low-Medium-High setting on the 120hz refresh rate and the Low setting is an acceptable balance for maintaining visual quality without overdoing the processing.

I am actually curious to see No Country for Old Men on Blu-ray, on a quality 1080p set at 24fps to see how it looks. It is one film I especially remember thinking I really liked the film "look" of in the theater and it would be my datum for how close this whole Blu-ray/1080p/120hz whatever setup is getting to the real thing.

24fps has a subtle "edginess" to it 30fps doesn't have. Some say 30fps is more "realistic" but the 24fps adds to the "fantasy" aspect of film's "suspension of disbelief"/"another world" aesthetic. It is part of what sets films off to us as something "different" than TV.


All the best
Jesse Widener
Art and Structure
 
ftaok said:
If you've ever tried to take photos and video simultaneously with two devices, it's just not possible, unless you have two right hands. Having one device that does both is ideal.
Click to expand...

Very true.
I recently went to an NHRA drag race here in Arizona and I wanted to shoot pictures and video. I had to rely on my grandpa for video while I shot the pictures. It would be nice to just be able to 'flip a switch' and record video on my DSLR.

This new rebel seems pretty appealing... To me anyways. (but to bad I just bought the XS a few months ago)
 
I'm working as a promoter for Canon, and I do hope so much they will give me one of those!:):)

Personally I'm more of a Nikon guy, but don't tell anybody!:D
 
shady825 said:
Very true.
I recently went to an NHRA drag race here in Arizona and I wanted to shoot pictures and video. I had to rely on my grandpa for video while I shot the pictures. It would be nice to just be able to 'flip a switch' and record video on my DSLR.
Click to expand...
Yeah, doing it yourself is an excercise in futility. I suppose that if I had an R-strap or something, I could have done better ... but I digress.

The result of trying to do photos and video at the same time is that you end up with mediocre photos and shaky video. I have proof of this ... my daughter's 2nd b-day party has a ton of mediorce photos and awful video. Sensibly, I decided to put the camcorder away and just shoot photos.

This new rebel seems pretty appealing... To me anyways. (but to bad I just bought the XS a few months ago)
Click to expand...
Personally, I'm sitting this upgrade round out. I can hold out another year for a better video device, so I'm hoping the next Rebel or the successor to the 50D has better video specs. I'm looking for at least 1080/24p,30p in AVCHD and stereo mic (with a mic port).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back