Roundup: DSLR and Lens-Changing Cameras : Canon EOS 1000D
2. Canon EOS 1000D
On-screen focusing
The EOS 1000D uses the same on-screen focusing system as the 450D. It offers two ways to focus an image: you can either deactivate the Live View feature for as long as it takes to focus the camera manually, or you can look for the best contrast in pictures you take. Done this way, the focus takes a lot longer to set but then remains fixed.
While we're on the subject of the Live View feature, it's worth mentioning that, given that this model is designed to win over those more used to compacts, you'd think that accessing the autofocus would be very easy. Oddly enough, you need to activate a specific configuration to be able to use Live View (now available via the Set button), with an additional step to turn on the autofocus. It's also impossible to activate the autofocus by half-pressing the shutter release. Instead, you have to hold down a separate autofocus button. This won't bother those who are used to this kind of camera, but it does seem unusually complicated given the position of the EOS 1000D on the market.
Note: In North America, this camera is sold under the name Digital Rebel XS, however this article refers to its European name.
Back when cameras still used rolls of film, Canon divided up its range into four groups that were distinguished by the number of figures in their model numbers. As an example, the EOS 1, 3 and 5 were intended for professionals, the 30 and 50 for expert photographers, the 300 and 500 were mostly for amateurs, and the 3000 and 5000 were entry-level models.
Now Canon is reviving the "4 figure" nomenclature in an attempt to create a DSLR camera that’s suitable for beginners. The goal is to attract users--those who are already at home with compact cameras--to the EOS line by maintaining several of the features found in higher-end models while offering a lower pricetag.
Handling
Thanks to a redesigned grip, the EOS 1000D is much easier to hold than the 350D and 400D despite its very small size. The only problem with this camera is that its plastic case provides a relatively poor grip, and can easily slip out of balmy hands on a warm day. In general, the camera’s body is very light, which is only to be expected of a DSLR weighing in just over 21 ounces. Unfortunately, it doesn’t have the same robust feel as the K200D. Still, the interface shouldn’t lose those used to the EOS 450D, and while the buttons are a little larger, they are all in exactly the same place, right down to the depth-of-field detector.
This factor alone shows that the 1000D is not a stripped down, simplified machine like the 3000 and 5000 film-based models. In fact, it’s much more like a 400D whose controls have adopted the position of those on a 450D. It has the same viewfinder as the 400D, but a little narrower and less comfortable to use, while the seven-point autofocus system seems to have been taken from the 350D. As for the other features, they are mostly similar to those found on the 350D and 400D. The 1000D is a quick camera that’s pleasant to use.
The autofocus system in Live View mode provides the only real negative aspect, remaining noticeably slower than when in DSLR mode. Focusing using the LCD screen should therefore probably only be used for still-life or landscape shots, with the viewfinder reserved for shots of moving subjects. Otherwise, although the camera can be a little jerky, its internal memory can only hold 4 RAW images at a speed of no more than about 1.2 images per second. Those preferring longer bursts will have to make do with JPEGs, which the camera can capture at up to 3 images a second until its memory is full.
Image Quality
Unsurprisingly, the EOS 1000D gave excellent results when we tested the camera using the 18-55 mm lens (which is normally supplied). The sensor, taken from the 400D, has already proved itself, and the quality remains high up to 800 ISO. At 1600 ISO, a little "billowing" is evident, but seems to be fairly restrained, leading us to ask why there’s no 3200 ISO setting.
There were no surprises with colors, either. As is usual for Canon, yellows and reds are saturated, giving a relatively warm tone that is pleasing to the eye. The lens itself is excellent, and has nothing in common with the non-stabilized version that preceded it in earlier models all the way up to the 400D. Its principal weakness is an obvious distortion with wide angle shots, which is particularly noticeable on images of geometric objects.
Compared to the competitors
At this point, we have to ask who the target user is for this camera. If the 4 figures lead us to think it’s aimed at the general public, the similarities with the 450D suggest it’s much closer to a high-end model. It’s as easy (or as hard) to use as any other Canon DSLR, so this camera is hardly likely to disabuse automatics users of their prejudice that "DSLRs are complicated." In fact, we rather suspect that, by refusing to compromise on any of its functionality, the EOS 1000D fails to reach its intended audience of compact owners looking to upgrade.
With these considerations aside, the competition in this market is already fierce. The Nikon D60, the Sony Alpha 200, or the Olympus E-420 are all worthy rivals to the EOS 1000D. For its part, the D60 makes real efforts to step away from the "difficult DSLR" image. But the fact that you can’t focus using its screen can only hold it back; the same is true of the Alpha 200. The E-240 also has Live View, with an autofocus sharing the same slowness that affects the 1000D. While the E-240’s controls are much easier to operate, Olympus could certainly simplify its menus, where Canon retains the upper hand.
The Pentax K200D could also steal the spotlight, but despite its faster focus and solid construction, the fact that it is a lot less compact and a lot heavier suggest that the target audience is not exactly the same.
At the time of writing this review--and we do hope that this will change in the next few months--the EOS 1000D suffers from one major drawback: its price. It is much more expensive than its competitors--so much so, in fact, that it is mostly threatened by Canon’s own EOS 450D. The 450D is a little faster in burst mode, a lot faster in Raw mode, and is easily comparable in terms of ease-of-use. The 450D also comes packed with a bigger, more comfortable viewfinder as well as better autofocus capabilities. Its price has fallen recently, and the gap between the two models is now less than $140.
 |
| Canon EOS 1000D | |
|---|---|
| Pluses | Minuses |
|
|
| THE FINAL VERDICT The EOS 1000D is a great camera. It's quick and provides excellent quality images. It does have some very strong competition, including a few other Canon models, and still seems to be too complex to attract compact users. |  |
I've only read 2 pages but these guys don't know what they are talking about. SLRs were not "used mostly by professionals", there have been huge consumer sales of them for decades. Also, the D70 was not "the first truly affordable mass-market DSLR", it was a great camera (I wanted one when it came out), but the Canon D300 was clearly the "the first truly affordable mass-market DSLR". This review is a low point for Tom's. You guys are really getting a reputation for putting out fluff written by idiots. Get back to the old standards of quality, detailed, knowledgeable articals that made Tom's name rightly famous in the first place.
I've only read 2 pages but these guys don't know what they are talking about. SLRs were not "used mostly by professionals", there have been huge consumer sales of them for decades. Also, the D70 was not "the first truly affordable mass-market DSLR", it was a great camera (I wanted one when it came out), but the Canon D300 was clearly the "the first truly affordable mass-market DSLR". This review is a low point for Tom's. You guys are really getting a reputation for putting out fluff written by idiots. Get back to the old standards of quality, detailed, knowledgeable articals that made Tom's name rightly famous in the first place.
I'm not the writer of this piece, but I want to make sure we are "on the same page": "For a long time, SLRs were effectively the only digital cameras that used interchangeable lenses. Used mainly by professionals, they were expensive and difficult to master. Little by little, they've grown in popularity, with Canon's EOS 300D one of the first truly affordable digital SLRs released back in 2003."
Where did this article mention the D70? Apologies if I missed it but I would appreciate it if you could point it out.
Let's both of us go dig up sales and demographics data of SLRS from the past four decades, shall we? I think we'll probably both find that the majority of sales went to professional photographers. That doesn't mean that consumers didn't buy them in droves--it just means that the majority of sales went to professionals.
We appreciate your feedback and criticism, but if the two comments you made constitute a "low point" for this site, then you are perhaps the most critical reader we've ever had. Thanks.
Rachel Rosmarin
Editor, Tom's Guide
Good overview suitable to the scope of this site. (Professionals and enthusiasts already look elsewhere, and from that perspective it's fine.) Odd mix of cameras though and a bit oversimplified at times, but fine for here. Nevertheless, what supports this statement: "Nikon's D90 ... A direct descendent of the legendary D70, the first truly affordable mass-market DSLR."? I mean that title is undoubtedly reserved for the Digital Rebel (300D), while the D70 was later and more expensive.
"After the Canon E-3 with its slightly disappointing semi-pro ambitions, Olympus is now finally moving to fill the hole that separted its top end reflex camera from its E-420 and E-520 amateur range."
you might want to change Canon to Olympus. As Olympus makes the E-3.
"After the Canon E-3 with its slightly disappointing semi-pro ambitions, Olympus is now finally moving to fill the hole that separted its top end reflex camera from its E-420 and E-520 amateur range."you might want to change Canon to Olympus. As Olympus makes the E-3.
Thank you!
There is a lot more proof reading needed. (100D? ...)
Let's both of us go dig up sales and demographics data of SLRS from the past four decades, shall we? I think we'll probably both find that the majority of sales went to professional photographers. That doesn't mean that consumers didn't buy them in droves--it just means that the majority of sales went to professionals.We appreciate your feedback and criticism, but if the two comments you made constitute a "low point" for this site, then you are perhaps the most critical reader we've ever had. Thanks.Rachel Rosmarin Editor, Tom's Guide
Photography is like everything else in a consumerist society: For every professional there are a thousand people who will spend whatever it takes to act just like a professional. The SLR market has and always will owe a significant section of it's business to the purely consumer market, that is to say people who will never make a dime off the pictures they take. The difference between how people pick cameras coming from the consumer segment vs. the professional segment is something that is apparently lost on your writers. Picking a page at random (which, I felt like, committed about as much research to your article as your article did to Digital Photography,) I find a statement comparing an E-Volt to a Nikon D60 and a Canon 40D and this tells me all I need to know about the article: it's woefully uninformed.
When there are photography review sites by the dozen on the WWW, why does Tom's feel the need to push into this area? I would understand your angle if something were added to the mountains of reviews out there, like benchmarks on how well the camera/interface/software bundle work so that people concerned with PC based photo editing can read up on the pros/cons from each manufacturer.
I do share your affection for the 40D, but you neglected to review it directly-- Curious.
Photography is like everything else in a consumerist society: For every professional there are a thousand people who will spend whatever it takes to act just like a professional. The SLR market has and always will owe a significant section of it's business to the purely consumer market, that is to say people who will never make a dime off the pictures they take. The difference between how people pick cameras coming from the consumer segment vs. the professional segment is something that is apparently lost on your writers. Picking a page at random (which, I felt like, committed about as much research to your article as your article did to Digital Photography,) I find a statement comparing an E-Volt to a Nikon D60 and a Canon 40D and this tells me all I need to know about the article: it's woefully uninformed.When there are photography review sites by the dozen on the WWW, why does Tom's feel the need to push into this area? I would understand your angle if something were added to the mountains of reviews out there, like benchmarks on how well the camera/interface/software bundle work so that people concerned with PC based photo editing can read up on the pros/cons from each manufacturer.I do share your affection for the 40D, but you neglected to review it directly-- Curious.
We appreciate your input, Joebob. Do us a favor and tell us what you mean about the improper comparison of the E-Volt to the Nikon D60 and Cnon 40D--give us a sense of why this is highly inappropriate. That would be extremely useful.
As for why we bother to publish Camera roundups: Cameras are a huge consumer electronics category. We try to cover all consumer electronics categories on Tom's Guide. We don't do camera benchmarks, and in fact, I think we can all agree that this roundup here is not an incredibly thorough review. I'm the first to admit it, but the truth is that we're not aiming for hard-core camera reviews. We're aiming for basic, intro-level stuff. Do you think the basic level writeup is something that's been overdone on other sites? Personally, I don't. There's an audience for it, believe me. I hope that ultra camera-savvy readers of Tom's Guide can a) tolerate the fact that these articles are not for them, and b) not read them if they aren't of interest to them.
Thanks,
Rachel Rosmarin
Editor, Tom's Guide
I've used SLR's since I was in High School 40 years ago, so their use isn't (wasn't) restricted to professionals. I wonder why 2 Canon's, 2 Pentax, 3 Olympus were reviewed, but only 1 Nikon, and I wonder what audience this was aimed at. If this was aimed at people without SLR/DSLR experience, then they missed reviewing some of the more obvious cameras. If the article is aimed at more experienced people then it is of some interest although those people probably already know about the different cameras.
I've used SLR's since I was in High School 40 years ago, so their use isn't (wasn't) restricted to professionals. I wonder why 2 Canon's, 2 Pentax, 3 Olympus were reviewed, but only 1 Nikon, and I wonder what audience this was aimed at. If this was aimed at people without SLR/DSLR experience, then they missed reviewing some of the more obvious cameras. If the article is aimed at more experienced people then it is of some interest although those people probably already know about the different cameras.
Thanks Cadder. Nowhere in this article did we say SLRs are (or ever were) restricted to professionals. We simply made a claim that decades ago, the majority of users were professional (and many many other users were not professional!).
As for the intended audience--it is aimed at novices who are curious about the more-than-entry-level DSLRs out there. Stay tuned for a follow up article this week about the newest entry level DSLRs!
Okay, you say that this roundup is for novices about more-than-entry-level SLRs. What do you call D1000, E-420 and K-m if not entry level SLRs? They are the absolutely most affordable DSLRs on the market currently (plus Sony A200 and Nikon D60).
Like Joebob said, it's truly amazing you are comparing E-520 against D40.
Hi vvi,
So, yes, there are also also some entry-level DSlRs here. Is this a problem? Would you rather see 3 different reviews, broken into separate DSLR categories? We didn't choose to structure it that way.
Like I said to Joebob, I would love to here a concise reason why an E-520 and a D40 should never appear in a roundup together. Yes, they are cameras aimed at slightly different targets, but they are both DSLRs, and for the purpose of this review, that was the only criterion needed to be included in this roundup.
Yet another poor camera article from Toms Guide. It took you until the second paragraph to make your first mistake, sensor size has nothing to do with depth of field, that would be lens aperture.
Things go downhill from there. Super zoom lenses exist for SLR’s and compact super zoom lenses suffer considerably from distortion, chromatic aberration and poor resolving ability. Lenses do not suffer in low light. That would be the cameras focus engine and the sensors high ISO performance. Again, in this field SLR’s are significantly better than compacts.
The terminology used in a number of places in the article is also incorrect. High ISO settings suffer from increased sensor noise, dead pixels are things on monitors, hot pixels are things on camera sensors.
“Canon has yet to develop a system to account for the various chromatic distortions that various lenses are known to produce.” Except for the software that you mention in the next paragraph. The 500D sensor has micro lenses just like the 50D’s and no mention of its HD video capture? Next gripe is the same and mentioned by gyrodec, nuf said. As for the rest of the D90 review, I hope you got paid by Nikon for that advertising, it truly is a wonderful camera but you could have been a lot more objective about the language used. You say the Nikon D90 has to face up to the Canon 40D, but that the poor old 40D is a generation to old. So how does it match up to,… oh I don’t know, lets possibly try compare it to the very real and current canon 50D? The D90 is not the only camera in the review to shoot HD video.
The Olympus E-30 is not the only camera to have a moving screen, how about the Sony A350… Hang on, how about any Sony, why no love for Sony in this little round up of yours? Same for the Pentax KD20 and Canon 50D, you mention them a couple times, but no page for them either?
This is the point where I give up on the whole thing and go to bed, Toms editorial team, you are capable of so much more than this!
Geoman,
Thanks for your comments! I will attempt to get answers for your first four criticisms. I've noticed a lot of you have questions about why we included this camera but not that camera, why we didn't include every camera on the market, etc. The answer is simple: we didn't get review units of the cameras that are missing. We don't have the budget to go purchase every camera on the market to fill up the roundup. You probably want to visit another site if you are looking for the most thorough spec list and deep listing of every single DSLR on the market. You won't find it from us. We test the products that are available to us.
Thanks for reading,
Rachel Rosmarin
Editor, Tom's Guide
Tom’s writers keep insinuating that DSLR’s are for professionals only, but that things might just be changing now. This has not been the case for quite some time, not since the Canon 300D over 6 years ago. I invite Tomsguiderachel to go and do some responsible journalism, please go and research how many D50-D90’s and 300D-500D’s have been sold compared to D2&3’s or 1D’s, then consider whether DSLR’s are for professionals only. DSLR’s are not complicated, if you don’t have a clue how a camera works, turn the dial on top to the green camera icon, look through the eye piece at something you want to take a photo of, press the button that naturally falls under your right index finger, job done. If you want to take better pictures read the manual that came with the camera, you can limit it to the chapters with setting shutter speed, aperture and setting ISO, that shouldn’t take more than an hour or two, and doesn’t require a degree in the physics of light. Just because professionals use DSLR’s does not mean DSLR’s are for professionals only. Tomsguiderachel, please do your job as editor and make sure that articles that are published are accurate, unbiased and of an appropriate standard for Toms Guide.
I may be picking on the wrong person, but you seem to be the only person from Toms following up on our comments and your profile say’s you are editor of Tom’s Guide.
Hi Geoman,
Please forgive me, but I don't see where in the article it ever insinuated that DSLRs are for professionals only. Since so many readers have brought up this point and made this claim, I'm realizing that I must have simply missed that when I read this article. Please point out what page it is on, and then we can get to the sales data.
Thanks. Don't worry you're not picking on me--this is what I'm here for--to discuss these articles with you.
Rachel
Is the D90 Kodak picture black and white? Why?
I do have to say that the D60 should have been included. At the price point it is not a bad DSLR.
OK, I guess it’s time for me to stop picking holes in your guy’s work and give some constructive comments.
Add a little more quantifiable data to the review, it doesn’t have to make the review more complicated, but a bit more data would be appreciated.
Keep review’s and camera comparisons limited to a single market segment, otherwise comparisons aren’t relevant and review just have to much to cover.
I feel that your DSLR reviews are aimed to low, the kind of people who are buying DSLR’s tend to have done a bit of reading on how cameras work and want a bit more of an analytical approach to camera articles.
Personally I’d like to see more quantifiable parts to these reviews like noise or resolution, so if you do a round up article like this I can see what cameras perform best in which areas by the numbers. Sure having a page to each camera with non-quantifiable stuff like control layout and camera feels is also vital, but some hard numbers would be a welcome addition.
In the reply to another comment, something you mentioned was splitting this review into a number of different reviews, and yes I think that should have been done, this also ties in to joebob2000’s comments. You compare cameras in different segments and from different generations to each other, which isn’t a valid thing to do. If these were CPU’s that would be like comparing a 6 year old Celeron to a Core i7 and concluding that the i7 is better. Of course it’s better, but it’s a silly comparison to make in the first place. Generally the DSLR market is broken into entry level, mid entry level, mid level, prosumer and pro levels (ok, people will always argue about the what levels there really are but you get the idea) and comparing cameras between these groups will generally get you criticized. So do roundup articles like this in one market segment at a time.
If people want to step up from compacts to DSLR’s and want a bit more info before they do, maybe Toms guides needs to do some actual guides. Articles like the difference between compacts and DSLR’s and getting more out of your DSLR that could cover things like sensor noise, the advantages/disadvantages of different types of lenses like wide angles or telephoto lenses, like field of view, depth of field and perspective. Help get more information to people instead drop the level of all your articles.
The articles themselves need a bit more fact and spell checking to. I only read the first couple of pages and I’ve already given you the list of errors I found, and I’m by no means an expert in the field and I’m dyslexic, so you should be able to do better than me :-)
For the Professionals comments articles titles like “Canon EOS 5D Mark II: Amateurs Need Not Apply”, paragraphs headed “Professional Use Only?” and comments like “For a long time, SLRs were effectively the only digital cameras that used interchangeable lenses. Used mainly by professionals, they were expensive and difficult to master.” You never overtly say DSLR’s are only for professionals but it gives your readers the distinct impression that you think DSLR’s are, or were until only recently for professionals.
Finally if you’re going to leave something out, like the Sony’s in this review, tell us that at the beginning, and give us a reason. I won’t bash you for leaving something out if you have a decent reason for leaving it out.
I hope you guy’s find this a little more constructive than my previous tirades :-)
"Professional Use Only?
For a long time, SLRs were effectively the only digital cameras that used interchangeable lenses. Used mainly by professionals, they were expensive and difficult to master. Little by little, they've grown in popularity, with Canon's EOS 300D one of the first truly affordable digital SLRs released back in 2003."
This is the paragraph that is getting people reactions. I too felt it sounded miss-leading or awkward, since I got a Nikon slr N40 in college as a architect student and now a nikon D40 as a hobby as an architect. DSLRs nor SLRs would never still be in business if only professional bought them. Professional account for less then 1% of the population. This is not a major issue, readers like myself are not use to tomguide reviewing dslr like computer.
I been reading Tomguide (or tomhardwareguide) for a while. It was once focus mainly on computer hardwares, some accessories, talks of computer chips and memory like the other site xbit. Also, overclocking cpu and windows' items. Now that tomguide has become bigger it seem to branch into cameras and other electronics like cnet reviews. For hardcore camera's reviews I do check out dpreview and cnet. For computer hardware reviews tomhardwareguide is still one of the best. Laptop reviews: notebookcheck.
It takes time to get a loyal followings for new types of reviews when you branch off a little. The DSLR reviews are comprehensive, but a little different then other DLSR reviews. Also many of these cameras has been out and reviewed long time before this article. Which will lead readers to be subjective.
We appreciate your input, Joebob. Do us a favor and tell us what you mean about the improper comparison of the E-Volt to the Nikon D60 and Cnon 40D--give us a sense of why this is highly inappropriate. That would be extremely useful.
Thanks,Rachel RosmarinEditor, Tom's Guide
At the risk of sounding like a curmudgeon; if this is meant as an introductory article to DSLR photography then in my opinion the writer should spent at LEAST half the text on fundamentals and not mention any cameras by name until the second half. Without getting into too much detail, the two key factors for deciding on a camera body (ignoring the lenses and special case photography completely) is High ISO performance and overall Dynamic Range performance. Put in english, this means the best possible picture taken in the dark and the best possible compromise between dark and light in a single picture. These metrics are what set cameras like the E-volt apart from the Canon 40D (which is peerless in the sub-$1000 market) and set the 40D apart from more expensive bodies by Canon, Nikon, and the rest. Beyond that, lenses and a few minor features are all that stand between casual photographers and serious professionals. Of course, the principle of diminishing returns means that professionals are going to need to spend $10,000 or more to take pictures that are noticeably better than someone spending $1,000 on an amateur set-up.
I will venture one more observation and then let you guys get back to work. If you want to tackle the entry level DSLR market you need to tell people what they are getting for their money. Honestly there are plenty of people who ask me about cameras that receive the suggestion "please just buy a point and shoot". One needs to be ready to take advantage of the benefits of a DSLR or they are going to be burning money and not taking any better pictures. Tell your readers what the real impact is of spending $1000 on a DSLR vs $200 on a point-n-shoot, and don't even bother using the word "professional" in an article again until you are reviewing DSLR bodies priced above $1500-- that's where the pros live.
I like Tom's and the writers, I really do. If I thought you were really spewing crap I would have just deleted the bookmark and moved on with my time. I hope that you can take away something helpful from my comments, and find your direction in the brave world of photography.