rebel 350 v. 20d

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

has anyone published a review of both images and handling of the rebel
350 and canon 20d - using the same lenses, taking the same pix etc? is
there any disadvantage other than the perhaps 0.3 megpixel difference
in their chips?

tia ... steve

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<pshaw@emmet.com> wrote in message
news:vtik415j32sg5f8oh60ie5eo8rpdpja9rc@4ax.com...
> has anyone published a review of both images and handling of the rebel
> 350 and canon 20d - using the same lenses, taking the same pix etc? is
> there any disadvantage other than the perhaps 0.3 megpixel difference
> in their chips?
>
> tia ... steve

Don't forget about what happens to the balance when you put on a lens other than
the super light 18-55. I'd strongly suggest you try holding one with whatever
you plan for a walking-around lens.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<pshaw@emmet.com> wrote in message
news:vtik415j32sg5f8oh60ie5eo8rpdpja9rc@4ax.com...
> has anyone published a review of both images and handling of the rebel
> 350 and canon 20d - using the same lenses, taking the same pix etc? is
> there any disadvantage other than the perhaps 0.3 megpixel difference
> in their chips?

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/digital_rebel_xt/

I find the 350D too small. "If I was a 5ft female, maybe the size would be
perfect."

But it sounds as though the image quality is very very similar.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:d2dkbo$b2l$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> <pshaw@emmet.com> wrote in message
> news:vtik415j32sg5f8oh60ie5eo8rpdpja9rc@4ax.com...
>> has anyone published a review of both images and handling of the rebel
>> 350 and canon 20d - using the same lenses, taking the same pix etc? is
>> there any disadvantage other than the perhaps 0.3 megpixel difference
>> in their chips?
>
> http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/digital_rebel_xt/
>
> I find the 350D too small. "If I was a 5ft female, maybe the size would be
> perfect."
>
> But it sounds as though the image quality is very very similar.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
Anybody remember when Olympus came out with a complete line of professional
35mm cameras, much smaller and lighter than Canon and Nikon? The idea was
to give pros an alternative to hauling around much heavier equipment. The
quality was there, but many pros who tried it gave up as they found a
weightier camera was easier to hold and handle and brace when using slow
shutter speeds and long lenses.

All you can do is handle each and see which one suits you.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:d2dkbo$b2l$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> <pshaw@emmet.com> wrote in message
> news:vtik415j32sg5f8oh60ie5eo8rpdpja9rc@4ax.com...
>> has anyone published a review of both images and handling of the rebel
>> 350 and canon 20d - using the same lenses, taking the same pix etc? is
>> there any disadvantage other than the perhaps 0.3 megpixel difference
>> in their chips?
>
> http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/digital_rebel_xt/
>
> I find the 350D too small. "If I was a 5ft female, maybe the size would be
> perfect."

So are you a 7ft female? 6ft female?

I think that you are simply "used to" the huge size of earlier Canons etc
and have not yet opened your mind.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Don't forget about what happens to the balance when you put on a lens
> other than
> the super light 18-55. I'd strongly suggest you try holding one with
> whatever
> you plan for a walking-around lens.

Boy, is this ever important for folks who walk around with a 100-400 IS!
That lens is a bit too much even for the 20D. I can't carry a tripod as I
grab my bird shots. Even a monopod is a pain in the arse and have given up
on that too.

Second item: inertia is your friend when hand-holding.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
> > <pshaw@emmet.com> wrote:

> >> has anyone published a review of both images and handling of the rebel
> >> 350 and canon 20d - using the same lenses, taking the same pix etc? is
> >> there any disadvantage other than the perhaps 0.3 megpixel difference
> >> in their chips?
> >
> > http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/digital_rebel_xt/
> >
> > I find the 350D too small. "If I was a 5ft female, maybe the size would
be
> > perfect."
>
> So are you a 7ft female? 6ft female?

I'm someone who has actually handled the thing: it's seriously awkward _for
my hands_. The 300D and Mamiya 7 are very nice _for my hands_. Some people
much prefer the 1D series size and weight.

It's a radically different beast from the 300D, and for people who don't
have a local store that carries it, IMHO, it's important to point out that
Canon really busted their collective butts to make it smaller, and
succeeded. It's not a cheap version of the 20D, it's a miniature version of
the 20D.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:d2dpd2$c9f$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>> > <pshaw@emmet.com> wrote:
>
>> >> has anyone published a review of both images and handling of the rebel
>> >> 350 and canon 20d - using the same lenses, taking the same pix etc? is
>> >> there any disadvantage other than the perhaps 0.3 megpixel difference
>> >> in their chips?
>> >
>> > http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/digital_rebel_xt/
>> >
>> > I find the 350D too small. "If I was a 5ft female, maybe the size would
> be
>> > perfect."
>>
>> So are you a 7ft female? 6ft female?
>
> I'm someone who has actually handled the thing: it's seriously awkward
> _for
> my hands_. The 300D and Mamiya 7 are very nice _for my hands_. Some people
> much prefer the 1D series size and weight.
>
> It's a radically different beast from the 300D, and for people who don't
> have a local store that carries it, IMHO, it's important to point out that
> Canon really busted their collective butts to make it smaller, and
> succeeded. It's not a cheap version of the 20D, it's a miniature version
> of
> the 20D.
>
Sorry I did sound a bit of a wanker but have Canon got it that wrong? My
little Pentax *ist Ds is seriously small but great to use and handles really
well, I have reasonably big hands as I am 6ft.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:qhu2e.17641$C7.4415@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
> news:d2dpd2$c9f$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>>
>> "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>>> > <pshaw@emmet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >> has anyone published a review of both images and handling of the
>>> >> rebel
>>> >> 350 and canon 20d - using the same lenses, taking the same pix etc?
>>> >> is
>>> >> there any disadvantage other than the perhaps 0.3 megpixel difference
>>> >> in their chips?
>>> >
>>> > http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/digital_rebel_xt/
>>> >
>>> > I find the 350D too small. "If I was a 5ft female, maybe the size
>>> > would
>> be
>>> > perfect."
>>>
>>> So are you a 7ft female? 6ft female?
>>
>> I'm someone who has actually handled the thing: it's seriously awkward
>> _for
>> my hands_. The 300D and Mamiya 7 are very nice _for my hands_. Some
>> people
>> much prefer the 1D series size and weight.
>>
>> It's a radically different beast from the 300D, and for people who don't
>> have a local store that carries it, IMHO, it's important to point out
>> that
>> Canon really busted their collective butts to make it smaller, and
>> succeeded. It's not a cheap version of the 20D, it's a miniature version
>> of
>> the 20D.
>>
> Sorry I did sound a bit of a wanker but have Canon got it that wrong? My
> little Pentax *ist Ds is seriously small but great to use and handles
> really well, I have reasonably big hands as I am 6ft.
>
I'm with David, I found the Rebel XT a little small for my hands, in fact,
the 20D is pushing the limits. But, interestingly, my wife found the Rebel
a little small to hold comfortable, because of her fashionable length
fingernails. She's used to the 20D, also.
I also found the Pentax too small for comfort, and the Oly E-1.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
> > "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
> >> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/digital_rebel_xt/
> >> >
> >> > I find the 350D too small. "If I was a 5ft female, maybe the size
would
> >> > be perfect."

Note that the grammatically problematic quote above is from the linked
review.

> >> So are you a 7ft female? 6ft female?
> >
> > I'm someone who has actually handled the thing: it's seriously awkward
> > _for
> > my hands_. The 300D and Mamiya 7 are very nice _for my hands_. Some
people
> > much prefer the 1D series size and weight.
> >
> > It's a radically different beast from the 300D, and for people who don't
> > have a local store that carries it, IMHO, it's important to point out
that
> > Canon really busted their collective butts to make it smaller, and
> > succeeded. It's not a cheap version of the 20D, it's a miniature version
> > of the 20D.
> >
> Sorry I did sound a bit of a wanker but have Canon got it that wrong?

I don't think they got it wrong: they got what they wanted, which is a very
different camera from the 20D. Lots of people think the 20D's too big. Look
at the picture in the review: it's much closer to a P&S dcam in size than to
the 20D.

> My little Pentax *ist Ds is seriously small but great to use and
> handles really well, I have reasonably big hands as I am 6ft.

Both the Pentax and the 350D leave my little finger swinging in the breeze
and me holding the camera by the tips of my middle and ring fingers. The
300D fits my hand perfectly. (OK, truth in advertising: I'm 6'2" with tip of
thumb to tip of little finger being 25 cm. That's a large hand. (It drives
the drillers at the pro bowling shops here in Japan up a wall, because their
jigs can't handle hands that large.))

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:d2dthp$db7$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>> > "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>> >> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/digital_rebel_xt/
>> >> >
>> >> > I find the 350D too small. "If I was a 5ft female, maybe the size
> would
>> >> > be perfect."
>
> Note that the grammatically problematic quote above is from the linked
> review.
>
>> >> So are you a 7ft female? 6ft female?
>> >
>> > I'm someone who has actually handled the thing: it's seriously awkward
>> > _for
>> > my hands_. The 300D and Mamiya 7 are very nice _for my hands_. Some
> people
>> > much prefer the 1D series size and weight.
>> >
>> > It's a radically different beast from the 300D, and for people who
>> > don't
>> > have a local store that carries it, IMHO, it's important to point out
> that
>> > Canon really busted their collective butts to make it smaller, and
>> > succeeded. It's not a cheap version of the 20D, it's a miniature
>> > version
>> > of the 20D.
>> >
>> Sorry I did sound a bit of a wanker but have Canon got it that wrong?
>
> I don't think they got it wrong: they got what they wanted, which is a
> very
> different camera from the 20D. Lots of people think the 20D's too big.
> Look
> at the picture in the review: it's much closer to a P&S dcam in size than
> to
> the 20D.
>
>> My little Pentax *ist Ds is seriously small but great to use and
>> handles really well, I have reasonably big hands as I am 6ft.
>
> Both the Pentax and the 350D leave my little finger swinging in the breeze
> and me holding the camera by the tips of my middle and ring fingers. The
> 300D fits my hand perfectly. (OK, truth in advertising: I'm 6'2" with tip
> of
> thumb to tip of little finger being 25 cm. That's a large hand. (It drives
> the drillers at the pro bowling shops here in Japan up a wall, because
> their
> jigs can't handle hands that large.))
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

My hand is 22.5cm, perhaps you need a bit of a redux on the hands ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <asy2e.22983$Ax.13510@trnddc04>,
"SamSez" <samtheman@verizon.net> wrote:

> <pshaw@emmet.com> wrote in message
> news:vtik415j32sg5f8oh60ie5eo8rpdpja9rc@4ax.com...
> > has anyone published a review of both images and handling of the rebel
> > 350 and canon 20d - using the same lenses, taking the same pix etc? is
> > there any disadvantage other than the perhaps 0.3 megpixel difference
> > in their chips?
> >
> > tia ... steve
>
> Don't forget about what happens to the balance when you put on a lens other
> than
> the super light 18-55. I'd strongly suggest you try holding one with
> whatever
> you plan for a walking-around lens.

I found the 350D odd to hold in my wide hands at first but it becomes a
perfect fit if I grip it with my hand and fingers tilted up rather than
straight forwards. It's actually more comfortable.

Heavy lenses aren't a problem for shooting. You might even shake less
without so much weight to hold up. It's the very light lenses that are
a bit jittery with the 350D. Walking with a heavy lens is more
difficult because the 350D doesn't have a big grip to curl your fingers
around.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Pete D <no@email.com> wrote:

>"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
>news:d2dkbo$b2l$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>>
>> <pshaw@emmet.com> wrote in message
>> news:vtik415j32sg5f8oh60ie5eo8rpdpja9rc@4ax.com...
>>> has anyone published a review of both images and handling of the rebel
>>> 350 and canon 20d - using the same lenses, taking the same pix etc? is
>>> there any disadvantage other than the perhaps 0.3 megpixel difference
>>> in their chips?
>>
>> http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/digital_rebel_xt/
>>
>> I find the 350D too small. "If I was a 5ft female, maybe the size would be
>> perfect."

>So are you a 7ft female? 6ft female?

>I think that you are simply "used to" the huge size of earlier Canons etc
>and have not yet opened your mind.

I've not held a 350D. But in my experience a larger
(and heavier) camera is easier to hand hold steady
than a smaller, lighter one.

Of course one can quickly reach the point where the
camera is too large and/or too heavy.

But too small shakes too easily, in my opinion.

----- Paul J. Gans

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

perfect! thanks ... my wife is a small japanese with small hands so i
think she'll like the 350 ...

steve

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 16:22:15 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>
><pshaw@emmet.com> wrote in message
>news:vtik415j32sg5f8oh60ie5eo8rpdpja9rc@4ax.com...
>> has anyone published a review of both images and handling of the rebel
>> 350 and canon 20d - using the same lenses, taking the same pix etc? is
>> there any disadvantage other than the perhaps 0.3 megpixel difference
>> in their chips?
>
>http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/digital_rebel_xt/
>
>I find the 350D too small. "If I was a 5ft female, maybe the size would be
>perfect."
>
>But it sounds as though the image quality is very very similar.
>
>David J. Littleboy
>Tokyo, Japan
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:KCw2e.2401$k57.174@fed1read07...
> "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
> news:qhu2e.17641$C7.4415@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
>> news:d2dpd2$c9f$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>>>
>>> "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>>>> > <pshaw@emmet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >> has anyone published a review of both images and handling of the
>>>> >> rebel
>>>> >> 350 and canon 20d - using the same lenses, taking the same pix etc?
>>>> >> is
>>>> >> there any disadvantage other than the perhaps 0.3 megpixel
>>>> >> difference
>>>> >> in their chips?
>>>> >
>>>> > http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/digital_rebel_xt/
>>>> >
>>>> > I find the 350D too small. "If I was a 5ft female, maybe the size
>>>> > would
>>> be
>>>> > perfect."
>>>>
>>>> So are you a 7ft female? 6ft female?
>>>
>>> I'm someone who has actually handled the thing: it's seriously awkward
>>> _for
>>> my hands_. The 300D and Mamiya 7 are very nice _for my hands_. Some
>>> people
>>> much prefer the 1D series size and weight.
>>>
>>> It's a radically different beast from the 300D, and for people who don't
>>> have a local store that carries it, IMHO, it's important to point out
>>> that
>>> Canon really busted their collective butts to make it smaller, and
>>> succeeded. It's not a cheap version of the 20D, it's a miniature version
>>> of
>>> the 20D.
>>>
>> Sorry I did sound a bit of a wanker but have Canon got it that wrong? My
>> little Pentax *ist Ds is seriously small but great to use and handles
>> really well, I have reasonably big hands as I am 6ft.
>>
> I'm with David, I found the Rebel XT a little small for my hands, in fact,
> the 20D is pushing the limits. But, interestingly, my wife found the
> Rebel a little small to hold comfortable, because of her fashionable
> length fingernails. She's used to the 20D, also.
> I also found the Pentax too small for comfort, and the Oly E-1.
>

In that case I really wonder how you guys ever used a film camera.

 

[Leonard]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Charles Schuler wrote:
>>Don't forget about what happens to the balance when you put on a lens
>>other than
>>the super light 18-55. I'd strongly suggest you try holding one with
>>whatever
>>you plan for a walking-around lens.
>
>
> Boy, is this ever important for folks who walk around with a 100-400 IS!

Surely when you've got that much lens you're carrying all the weight
with the left hand under the lens anyway?

> Second item: inertia is your friend when hand-holding.

True, but the XT is still nearer in weight to an Elan than a film Rebel.
And possibly there's less slap with the smaller mirror?

- Len

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>> Boy, is this ever important for folks who walk around with a 100-400 IS!
>
> Surely when you've got that much lens you're carrying all the weight
> with the left hand under the lens anyway?

Mostly, but from time to time I have to give my arms a rest and let the
camera hang from my neck for a bit. My neck hurts these days (I wonder why
;>).

>> Second item: inertia is your friend when hand-holding.
>
> True, but the XT is still nearer in weight to an Elan than a film Rebel.
> And possibly there's less slap with the smaller mirror?

Could be.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:d2dkbo$b2l$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> <pshaw@emmet.com> wrote in message
> news:vtik415j32sg5f8oh60ie5eo8rpdpja9rc@4ax.com...
>> has anyone published a review of both images and handling of the rebel
>> 350 and canon 20d - using the same lenses, taking the same pix etc? is
>> there any disadvantage other than the perhaps 0.3 megpixel difference
>> in their chips?
>
> http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/digital_rebel_xt/
>
> I find the 350D too small. "If I was a 5ft female, maybe the size would be
> perfect."
>
> But it sounds as though the image quality is very very similar.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
>

Well I am a 6ft male with smallish hands. I do find the 20D a bit chunky
compared to my old film SLRs but that is more from the point of stuffing it
into bags.

I haven't seen the 350D yet but I did try the 300D and was unimpressed with
the build quality I nearly went for Nikon. (I just felt a bit flimsy). The
20D seems solid enough (but I haven't dropped it yet!).

Is the 350D build quality any better than the 300D?

Lester

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <424e3aee$0$5474$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>,
"Lester Wareham" <nospam@please.co.uk> wrote:

> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
> news:d2dkbo$b2l$1@nnrp.gol.com...
> >
> > <pshaw@emmet.com> wrote in message
> > news:vtik415j32sg5f8oh60ie5eo8rpdpja9rc@4ax.com...
> >> has anyone published a review of both images and handling of the rebel
> >> 350 and canon 20d - using the same lenses, taking the same pix etc? is
> >> there any disadvantage other than the perhaps 0.3 megpixel difference
> >> in their chips?
> >
> > http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/digital_rebel_xt/
> >
> > I find the 350D too small. "If I was a 5ft female, maybe the size would be
> > perfect."
> >
> > But it sounds as though the image quality is very very similar.
> >
> > David J. Littleboy
> > Tokyo, Japan
> >
> >
> >
>
> Well I am a 6ft male with smallish hands. I do find the 20D a bit chunky
> compared to my old film SLRs but that is more from the point of stuffing it
> into bags.
>
> I haven't seen the 350D yet but I did try the 300D and was unimpressed with
> the build quality I nearly went for Nikon. (I just felt a bit flimsy). The
> 20D seems solid enough (but I haven't dropped it yet!).
>
> Is the 350D build quality any better than the 300D?
>
> Lester

My 300D has survived hikes, bike rides, parties, and travel without a
scratch. There's nothing on it that I can bend or cause to sag even
with a heavy lens. The access doors don't ever pop open. I don't know
what feels flimsy to you.

The 350D looks like the 300D after diet and exercise. The 300D seems
bloated now in comparison. The 350D has smaller grip surface but it's
textured rather than polished. The mode dial is larger so it can be
operated while wearing gloves. It's otherwise physically very similar.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 07:25:52 +0100, "Lester Wareham"
<nospam@please.co.uk> wrote:

>Is the 350D build quality any better than the 300D?

Is the 300D falling apart?

"Build quality" means different things to different people.
To me, it means, will it stand up to what I put it through? So far, my
DR (300D) is holding up well.
To others, it means, how good does it feel? Fore such people, density
is more important that actual longevity (for such people, maybe Canon
should build a DSLR inside a 12-pound bowling ball?).
Plastic deos not mean poor build quality, and hasn't for at least two
decades (note, this doesn't mean plastic construction is inherently
worse than metal construction, nor the reverse). Often, plastic will
even last longer than metal, especially in hard use (yes, I'm also
speaking of polymers).

What I'm saying is, I think most cameras on the market today will
stand up to even harder than "normal" iuse.
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Lester Wareham" <nospam@please.co.uk> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
> >
> > http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/digital_rebel_xt/
> >
>
> Well I am a 6ft male with smallish hands. I do find the 20D a bit chunky
> compared to my old film SLRs but that is more from the point of stuffing
it
> into bags.

Look at the photo in the above review: the 350D is a radically different
camera.

> I haven't seen the 350D yet but I did try the 300D and was unimpressed
with
> the build quality I nearly went for Nikon. (I just felt a bit flimsy). The
> 20D seems solid enough (but I haven't dropped it yet!).
>
> Is the 350D build quality any better than the 300D?

Don't ask me: I like the 300D. It doesn't feel "flimsy" at all. It's clearly
mechanically stronger by a long shot than my over 20-year old Fuji GS645S
and will be replaced a lot sooner than the GS645S. The silver shell on the
original 300D is certainly seriously ugly, but the "flimsy" bit seems quite
off.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
news:RaadnRiV7PJeYtffRVn-hg@comcast.com...
>
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
> news:d2dkbo$b2l$1@nnrp.gol.com...
> >
> > <pshaw@emmet.com> wrote in message
> > news:vtik415j32sg5f8oh60ie5eo8rpdpja9rc@4ax.com...
> >> has anyone published a review of both images and handling of the rebel
> >> 350 and canon 20d - using the same lenses, taking the same pix etc? is
> >> there any disadvantage other than the perhaps 0.3 megpixel difference
> >> in their chips?
> >

So is there much difference in the quality of the pictures. I also cannot
decide between the two.
Thank you.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <JLWdnbqD6Lj8vtLfRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
"Marge" <mbasher1@comcast.net> wrote:

> "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
> news:RaadnRiV7PJeYtffRVn-hg@comcast.com...
> >
> > "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
> > news:d2dkbo$b2l$1@nnrp.gol.com...
> > >
> > > <pshaw@emmet.com> wrote in message
> > > news:vtik415j32sg5f8oh60ie5eo8rpdpja9rc@4ax.com...
> > >> has anyone published a review of both images and handling of the rebel
> > >> 350 and canon 20d - using the same lenses, taking the same pix etc? is
> > >> there any disadvantage other than the perhaps 0.3 megpixel difference
> > >> in their chips?
> > >
>
> So is there much difference in the quality of the pictures. I also cannot
> decide between the two.
> Thank you.

Based on reviews, the images look the same. The big difference is in
features and the body's shape. The 350D is better for traveling while
the 20D would probably be preferred for a studio.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Kevin McMurtrie" <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:mcmurtri-913DAA.15451802042005@corp-radius.supernews.com...
> In article <JLWdnbqD6Lj8vtLfRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
> "Marge" <mbasher1@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
> > news:RaadnRiV7PJeYtffRVn-hg@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:d2dkbo$b2l$1@nnrp.gol.com...
> > > >
> > > > <pshaw@emmet.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:vtik415j32sg5f8oh60ie5eo8rpdpja9rc@4ax.com...
> > > >> has anyone published a review of both images and handling of the
rebel
> > > >> 350 and canon 20d - using the same lenses, taking the same pix etc?
is
> > > >> there any disadvantage other than the perhaps 0.3 megpixel
difference
> > > >> in their chips?
> > > >
> >
> > So is there much difference in the quality of the pictures. I also
cannot
> > decide between the two.
> > Thank you.
>
> Based on reviews, the images look the same. The big difference is in
> features and the body's shape. The 350D is better for traveling while
> the 20D would probably be preferred for a studio.

Thank you Kevin

 

[Don]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Kevin

Have difficulty in understanding or perhaps accepting your comment about the
20D being better for studio than travel when compared with the 350D. I have
travelled extensively with my 20D but more importantly if you look at
photojournalists that make a living travelling you will find they go for
cameras (regardless of brand) that have one thing in common. This is the
ability to take the knocks. Size in 35mm SLRs doesn't seem to be to much of
an issue for those that travel. Just a quick look in a National Geographic
and you will see cameras that range from "smallish" Lieca's to "relatively
large" Nikons and Canons etc etc. For example, have a look at how many pros
and talented amateurs who use the Canon 1D, 1Ds etc when travelling. Look
at the magnesium, titanium bodies, the dust sealing etc etc. It goes on and
on. My point being that the 20D makes a fine studio camera but it hits its
straps when it gets down and dirty in the field. I know that if I was
heading of into the wilds for some real adventurous shooting and it was a
toss up between the 20D and either the 300D or 350D, its no competition if
all you are considering is robustness and field handling. The 20D beats the
others cold. This is not to say that the 300 and 350 would be acceptable as
they would. However when it comes to wear and tear, you would have to be a
lot more careful.

regards

Don from Down Under, flameproof undies on -- bring it on!


"Marge" <mbasher1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:s76dnaGEsKhmxNLfRVn-3A@comcast.com...
>
> "Kevin McMurtrie" <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
> news:mcmurtri-913DAA.15451802042005@corp-radius.supernews.com...
>> In article <JLWdnbqD6Lj8vtLfRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
>> "Marge" <mbasher1@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
>> > news:RaadnRiV7PJeYtffRVn-hg@comcast.com...
>> > >
>> > > "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
>> > > news:d2dkbo$b2l$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>> > > >
>> > > > <pshaw@emmet.com> wrote in message
>> > > > news:vtik415j32sg5f8oh60ie5eo8rpdpja9rc@4ax.com...
>> > > >> has anyone published a review of both images and handling of the
> rebel
>> > > >> 350 and canon 20d - using the same lenses, taking the same pix
>> > > >> etc?
> is
>> > > >> there any disadvantage other than the perhaps 0.3 megpixel
> difference
>> > > >> in their chips?
>> > > >
>> >
>> > So is there much difference in the quality of the pictures. I also
> cannot
>> > decide between the two.
>> > Thank you.
>>
>> Based on reviews, the images look the same. The big difference is in
>> features and the body's shape. The 350D is better for traveling while
>> the 20D would probably be preferred for a studio.
>
> Thank you Kevin
>
>