That's why it would have a proximity sensor to lock the surface when your eye (or nose:-) gets close
Yes, the XTi already has the proximity sensor that turns off the screen when your face is too close to the camera screen to read it.
I would not want a full-width touchscreen, though. One of the reasons the next step up from my XT is a 40D or better is because of the improved controls on the back, like the second wheel and the joystick. These tactile controls allow faster and more precise adjustments while looking through the viewfinder. A full-width touchscreen affords no tactile feedback, and will have the same disadvantage as the iPod touch: Because there is no hardware volume wheel like on the iPhone, if you want to change the volume on an iPod touch, you must remove it from your pocket and refer to the screen so you can figure out where the control is in the first place.
Yes, the XTi already has the proximity sensor that turns off the screen when your face is too close to the camera screen to read it.
I would not want a full-width touchscreen, though. One of the reasons the next step up from my XT is a 40D or better is because of the improved controls on the back, like the second wheel and the joystick. These tactile controls allow faster and more precise adjustments while looking through the viewfinder. A full-width touchscreen affords no tactile feedback, and will have the same disadvantage as the iPod touch: Because there is no hardware volume wheel like on the iPhone, if you want to change the volume on an iPod touch, you must remove it from your pocket and refer to the screen so you can figure out where the control is in the first place.
I'm sure they will provide tactile feedback on that:-)
Wow all this debate about an entry level DSLR.
Forget the memory, "upgrading" from a 400 to a 450 if you didn't buy your 400D yesterday is not a smart move. Maybe if you need an extra body for some reason...
Why would someone consider going from an entry Level DSLR to an entry level DSLR an "upgrade". Go to the next level, a 40D.
It's an entry level DSLR to get your feet wet!
This will be a tweak from the 400D and 350D, and a real upgrade from the 300 or P&S.
[edited for brevity]
We'll see soon enough...
Well, that's not necessarily entirely true, and it might be the case only from the very narrow perspective of a one-camera shooter with the 350/400/450 being their body of choice.
Along with the general feature set of each new camera can be specific feature(s) that can make a new model useful in ways that other current-generation bodies, even of a more advanced series cannot be. For example, the addition of liveview to the 40D and the wireless functionality the WFT-E3A affords makes it useful or better for certain purposes that the 5D. And the addition of contrast-based Live View AF, stands to make the XSi a better choice than the 40D or even a Mark III 1-Series body for some purposes.
Something as seemingly "frilly" as an articulated LCD can make the kind of quantum usability difference that could make a particular model exponentially better-suited for macro or low-level shooting than other models, regardless of any differences in sensor type or inherent potential output quality. Taken out of a vacuum and placed in the context of everyday use, even these "half-step" incremental feature revisions can make the difference between a given camera either being the best-suited alternative for a particular use or not even worth consideration.
One thing's certain though... we certainly WILL see soon.
I'm pretty confident right now, that I will be doing the upgrade from the 400D to the 450D... Here's my reasoning (as an avid non-pro photographer):
Larger viewfinder, larger LCD, live-view (articulated / wireless LCD would be even more preferable - one day maybe), re-worked ergonomic layout, same small form factor (the 40D is too big for me)... And the final reason - resale value of the 400D is only going to get worse as time progresses, digital bodies are the disposable part of the system, keep the glass, upgrade the body as and when necessary...
I'm certainly not upgrading because of the megapixel race, however I think most of the detractors here are suffering from the same "knee-jerk reaction" that they claim manufacturers are sucumbing to... Until we've seen evidence of regression in quality, why the fuss?
Comments
Thanks,
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Thanks, fixed.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Yes, the XTi already has the proximity sensor that turns off the screen when your face is too close to the camera screen to read it.
I would not want a full-width touchscreen, though. One of the reasons the next step up from my XT is a 40D or better is because of the improved controls on the back, like the second wheel and the joystick. These tactile controls allow faster and more precise adjustments while looking through the viewfinder. A full-width touchscreen affords no tactile feedback, and will have the same disadvantage as the iPod touch: Because there is no hardware volume wheel like on the iPhone, if you want to change the volume on an iPod touch, you must remove it from your pocket and refer to the screen so you can figure out where the control is in the first place.
I'm sure they will provide tactile feedback on that:-)
Well, that's not necessarily entirely true, and it might be the case only from the very narrow perspective of a one-camera shooter with the 350/400/450 being their body of choice.
Along with the general feature set of each new camera can be specific feature(s) that can make a new model useful in ways that other current-generation bodies, even of a more advanced series cannot be. For example, the addition of liveview to the 40D and the wireless functionality the WFT-E3A affords makes it useful or better for certain purposes that the 5D. And the addition of contrast-based Live View AF, stands to make the XSi a better choice than the 40D or even a Mark III 1-Series body for some purposes.
Something as seemingly "frilly" as an articulated LCD can make the kind of quantum usability difference that could make a particular model exponentially better-suited for macro or low-level shooting than other models, regardless of any differences in sensor type or inherent potential output quality. Taken out of a vacuum and placed in the context of everyday use, even these "half-step" incremental feature revisions can make the difference between a given camera either being the best-suited alternative for a particular use or not even worth consideration.
One thing's certain though... we certainly WILL see soon.
My Gear (& more) • Go Infared! • Do some good today for tomorrow. • Eamus Catuli• If you haven't driven one of these lately, you should!
Larger viewfinder, larger LCD, live-view (articulated / wireless LCD would be even more preferable - one day maybe), re-worked ergonomic layout, same small form factor (the 40D is too big for me)... And the final reason - resale value of the 400D is only going to get worse as time progresses, digital bodies are the disposable part of the system, keep the glass, upgrade the body as and when necessary...
I'm certainly not upgrading because of the megapixel race, however I think most of the detractors here are suffering from the same "knee-jerk reaction" that they claim manufacturers are sucumbing to... Until we've seen evidence of regression in quality, why the fuss?
85mm f/1.8, 17-50 + 28-75m f/2.8 lenses
iMac 24" 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Extreme, 4Gb RAM, OSX 10.5.7
http://encosion.com/ | http://encosion.smugmug.com/