Rebel XT/350 still dominating the reviews

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

Saw another magazine review of it and the D70
and the Rebel is still winning the image game
at least. Most reviews note that the Nikon
is more ergonomically "friendly" but image quality
seems to win out when it comes time to tally up
the scores. I've held the Rebel a few times and shot
with it, but I just can't stand the plastic. However,
outfitted the same way, it costs $800 less in Canada
than the 20D so the choice between "plastic or metal"
is a tough one, especially when a Rebel outfitted with
a better Canon lens will slaughter the 20D in terms of
image quality.
-Rich
23 answers Last reply
More about rebel dominating reviews
  1. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
    news:99pgd1ho9um79kpvrs4bhha4ancac29b2r@4ax.com...
    > Saw another magazine review of it and the D70
    > and the Rebel is still winning the image game
    > at least. Most reviews note that the Nikon
    > is more ergonomically "friendly" but image quality
    > seems to win out when it comes time to tally up
    > the scores. I've held the Rebel a few times and shot
    > with it, but I just can't stand the plastic. However,
    > outfitted the same way, it costs $800 less in Canada
    > than the 20D so the choice between "plastic or metal"
    > is a tough one, especially when a Rebel outfitted with
    > a better Canon lens will slaughter the 20D in terms of
    > image quality.
    > -Rich

    Given the same lens, just how is it that the 350D will "slaughter" the 20D?

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
  2. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    That is a tough one. The 20D is superior IMO. In the states in not THAT much
    more and I think it's worth every dime

    On 7/15/05 9:41 PM, in article 99pgd1ho9um79kpvrs4bhha4ancac29b2r@4ax.com,
    "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote:

    > Saw another magazine review of it and the D70
    > and the Rebel is still winning the image game
    > at least. Most reviews note that the Nikon
    > is more ergonomically "friendly" but image quality
    > seems to win out when it comes time to tally up
    > the scores. I've held the Rebel a few times and shot
    > with it, but I just can't stand the plastic. However,
    > outfitted the same way, it costs $800 less in Canada
    > than the 20D so the choice between "plastic or metal"
    > is a tough one, especially when a Rebel outfitted with
    > a better Canon lens will slaughter the 20D in terms of
    > image quality.
    > -Rich
  3. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 22:01:17 -0700, "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net>
    wrote:

    >"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
    >news:99pgd1ho9um79kpvrs4bhha4ancac29b2r@4ax.com...
    >> Saw another magazine review of it and the D70
    >> and the Rebel is still winning the image game
    >> at least. Most reviews note that the Nikon
    >> is more ergonomically "friendly" but image quality
    >> seems to win out when it comes time to tally up
    >> the scores. I've held the Rebel a few times and shot
    >> with it, but I just can't stand the plastic. However,
    >> outfitted the same way, it costs $800 less in Canada
    >> than the 20D so the choice between "plastic or metal"
    >> is a tough one, especially when a Rebel outfitted with
    >> a better Canon lens will slaughter the 20D in terms of
    >> image quality.
    >> -Rich
    >
    >Given the same lens, just how is it that the 350D will "slaughter" the 20D?

    It won't. Like I said, "outfitted with a better Canon lens" (than the
    odious kit zoom) and the XT will beat the 20D. The XT and 20D are
    both being offered with the cheap kit lens in many stores as a way
    to keep prices in line. Another way to look at it is, the sensor,
    image processors in the two cameras differ slightly, whereas with the
    lenses the differences can be huge. So, if you contemplate spending
    $1500, you'd be better off getting the Rebel XT and a good lens than
    the 20D and a mediocre one for the same price. Unless you want to get
    the 20D and suffer until you can buy a decent lens for it.
    -Rich
  4. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Well considering the 350 is almost a year and a half newer than the D70,
    one would hope it would be better
    or Canon would have been wasting their time

    "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
    news:99pgd1ho9um79kpvrs4bhha4ancac29b2r@4ax.com...
    > Saw another magazine review of it and the D70
    > and the Rebel is still winning the image game
    > at least. Most reviews note that the Nikon
    > is more ergonomically "friendly" but image quality
    > seems to win out when it comes time to tally up
    > the scores. I've held the Rebel a few times and shot
    > with it, but I just can't stand the plastic. However,
    > outfitted the same way, it costs $800 less in Canada
    > than the 20D so the choice between "plastic or metal"
    > is a tough one, especially when a Rebel outfitted with
    > a better Canon lens will slaughter the 20D in terms of
    > image quality.
    > -Rich
  5. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
    news:olbhd1dgcoof87gfmv7vd4r1vnc8likqk8@4ax.com...
    > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 22:01:17 -0700, "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
    >>news:99pgd1ho9um79kpvrs4bhha4ancac29b2r@4ax.com...
    >>> Saw another magazine review of it and the D70
    >>> and the Rebel is still winning the image game
    >>> at least. Most reviews note that the Nikon
    >>> is more ergonomically "friendly" but image quality
    >>> seems to win out when it comes time to tally up
    >>> the scores. I've held the Rebel a few times and shot
    >>> with it, but I just can't stand the plastic. However,
    >>> outfitted the same way, it costs $800 less in Canada
    >>> than the 20D so the choice between "plastic or metal"
    >>> is a tough one, especially when a Rebel outfitted with
    >>> a better Canon lens will slaughter the 20D in terms of
    >>> image quality.
    >>> -Rich
    >>
    >>Given the same lens, just how is it that the 350D will "slaughter" the
    >>20D?
    >
    > It won't. Like I said, "outfitted with a better Canon lens" (than the
    > odious kit zoom) and the XT will beat the 20D. The XT and 20D are
    > both being offered with the cheap kit lens in many stores as a way
    > to keep prices in line. Another way to look at it is, the sensor,
    > image processors in the two cameras differ slightly, whereas with the
    > lenses the differences can be huge. So, if you contemplate spending
    > $1500, you'd be better off getting the Rebel XT and a good lens than
    > the 20D and a mediocre one for the same price. Unless you want to get
    > the 20D and suffer until you can buy a decent lens for it.
    > -Rich

    You mean that if you outfit the XT with, say, a 17-85 EF-S IS and the 20D
    with a 18-55 EF-S, the XT will produce better images than the 20D? That's a
    rare statement of the obvious. Now, if you leave that 17-85 on the XT and
    put a 24-70 L on the 20D, what do you think the result will be? Or put the
    same lens on both cameras, and I'm betting the images will be pretty
    indistinguishable. Given the same photographer behind the viewfinder, that
    is...

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
  6. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    I'm the proud owner of a Rebel XT, but having looked closer at comparisons
    with the 20D, I'm wondering if I've made a mistake?

    Buried amongst the specs I've noted that the shutter mechanism on the rebel
    is only rated at 50,000 shots, compared to 100,000 for the 20D.

    With the ability to shoot bursts of shots (several per second) I'm starting
    to think that 50,000 (or even 100,000) shots suddenly doesn't sound like all
    that many!

    Anybody else care to comment? Does anyone know if it's economic to have a
    shutter mechanism replaced in either camera?

    Additionally, I was looking at splashing out on a mother of a lens like the
    70-200 F2.4L - but I've been advised that this lens is simply too heavy for
    the plastic lens mount of the 350D (even to the point where it's just
    hanging from the camera when it's around my neck) - again, word has it that
    the 20D is the minimum in this regard (and even then it's apparantly more
    balanced with the battery grip).

    Any comments appreciated.

    Cheers,

    CC

    "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
    news:99pgd1ho9um79kpvrs4bhha4ancac29b2r@4ax.com...
    > Saw another magazine review of it and the D70
    > and the Rebel is still winning the image game
    > at least. Most reviews note that the Nikon
    > is more ergonomically "friendly" but image quality
    > seems to win out when it comes time to tally up
    > the scores. I've held the Rebel a few times and shot
    > with it, but I just can't stand the plastic. However,
    > outfitted the same way, it costs $800 less in Canada
    > than the 20D so the choice between "plastic or metal"
    > is a tough one, especially when a Rebel outfitted with
    > a better Canon lens will slaughter the 20D in terms of
    > image quality.
    > -Rich
  7. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    "Cockpit Colin" <spam@nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:lI%Be.821$PL5.131207@news.xtra.co.nz...
    > I'm the proud owner of a Rebel XT, but having looked closer at comparisons
    > with the 20D, I'm wondering if I've made a mistake?
    >
    > Buried amongst the specs I've noted that the shutter mechanism on the
    rebel
    > is only rated at 50,000 shots, compared to 100,000 for the 20D.
    >
    > With the ability to shoot bursts of shots (several per second) I'm
    starting
    > to think that 50,000 (or even 100,000) shots suddenly doesn't sound like
    all
    > that many!
    >
    > Anybody else care to comment? Does anyone know if it's economic to have a
    > shutter mechanism replaced in either camera?
    >
    > Additionally, I was looking at splashing out on a mother of a lens like
    the
    > 70-200 F2.4L - but I've been advised that this lens is simply too heavy
    for
    > the plastic lens mount of the 350D

    It's not a plastic lens mount. The body may be plastic but that has nothing
    to do with the mount. Do you really have a Rebel XT? Your writing is
    eerily similar to the_wise_elder.

    Greg
  8. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Cockpit Colin wrote:
    > I'm the proud owner of a Rebel XT, but having looked closer at
    > comparisons with the 20D, I'm wondering if I've made a mistake?
    >
    > Buried amongst the specs I've noted that the shutter mechanism on
    > the
    > rebel is only rated at 50,000 shots, compared to 100,000 for the
    > 20D.
    >
    > With the ability to shoot bursts of shots (several per second) I'm
    > starting to think that 50,000 (or even 100,000) shots suddenly
    > doesn't sound like all that many!
    >
    > Anybody else care to comment? Does anyone know if it's economic to
    > have a shutter mechanism replaced in either camera?
    >
    > Additionally, I was looking at splashing out on a mother of a lens
    > like the 70-200 F2.4L - but I've been advised that this lens is
    > simply too heavy for the plastic lens mount of the 350D (even to the
    > point where it's just hanging from the camera when it's around my
    > neck) - again, word has it that the 20D is the minimum in this
    > regard
    > (and even then it's apparantly more balanced with the battery grip).
    >

    If it's the 70-200 2.8L you're thinking of, I wouldn't worry about the
    350D/XT mount collapsing. The lens is so heavy and expensive you'll
    probably do as I do: maintain a strong grip on the lens itself, just
    to keep it in control, and safe. Whatever happens to be hung on the
    end of it is pretty much along for the ride.

    As to making a mistake: could be. I have one of each, and if I had it
    to do again, I'd save up for another couple months and get the 20D. Of
    course I didn't know that until I'd lived with the RebXT for a while.
    It's good and will do almost all of what 'most anyone would need, but
    the 20D makdes it all much easier.

    --
    Frank ess
  9. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    "Cockpit Colin" <spam@nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:lI%Be.821$PL5.131207@news.xtra.co.nz...
    > I'm the proud owner of a Rebel XT, but having looked closer at comparisons
    > with the 20D, I'm wondering if I've made a mistake?
    >
    > Buried amongst the specs I've noted that the shutter mechanism on the
    > rebel is only rated at 50,000 shots, compared to 100,000 for the 20D.
    >
    > With the ability to shoot bursts of shots (several per second) I'm
    > starting to think that 50,000 (or even 100,000) shots suddenly doesn't
    > sound like all that many!
    >
    > Anybody else care to comment? Does anyone know if it's economic to have a
    > shutter mechanism replaced in either camera?
    >
    > Additionally, I was looking at splashing out on a mother of a lens like
    > the 70-200 F2.4L - but I've been advised that this lens is simply too
    > heavy for the plastic lens mount of the 350D (even to the point where it's
    > just hanging from the camera when it's around my neck) - again, word has
    > it that the 20D is the minimum in this regard (and even then it's
    > apparantly more balanced with the battery grip).
    >
    > Any comments appreciated.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > CC

    1st, it's a 70-200 f2.8L not 2.4.
    2nd, the camera has a metal lens mount, not plastic.
    3rd, the lens should be supported by your right hand, not left to hang on
    the front of the camera unsupported. Or, better yet, mounted on a tripod
    using the supplied mounting ring.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
  10. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    > It's not a plastic lens mount. The body may be plastic but that has
    > nothing
    > to do with the mount. Do you really have a Rebel XT? Your writing is
    > eerily similar to the_wise_elder.

    Eeeech - heaven forbid! I'm new to the group - and since I subscribed I've
    only black-listed one "zero" - you guessed it, our "friend" the_wise_elder!

    So you're saying that you're not aware of any limitations on lens weight for
    a Rebel XT body?

    Cheers,

    CC
  11. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    > If it's the 70-200 2.8L you're thinking of, I wouldn't worry about the
    > 350D/XT mount collapsing. The lens is so heavy and expensive you'll
    > probably do as I do: maintain a strong grip on the lens itself, just to
    > keep it in control, and safe. Whatever happens to be hung on the end of it
    > is pretty much along for the ride.

    This was pretty much my argument as well - however it was suggested to me
    that even the 3 pounds of that lens could be enough to damage the camera
    mount if the camera is around my neck (on the strap) and the lens is
    unsupported.

    At the end of the day though I did have 2nd thoughts about that lens - all
    the reviews say it's a fantastic lens, but I'm wondering how often I'd
    actually use it at F2.8 (ie very little DOF) - I'm also taking a look at the
    F4 version, and even the 28-300 IS DO lens.

    Sigh, so many choices :(
  12. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    "Cockpit Colin" <spam@nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:So4Ce.864$PL5.134871@news.xtra.co.nz...
    >> If it's the 70-200 2.8L you're thinking of, I wouldn't worry about the
    >> 350D/XT mount collapsing. The lens is so heavy and expensive you'll
    >> probably do as I do: maintain a strong grip on the lens itself, just to
    >> keep it in control, and safe. Whatever happens to be hung on the end of
    >> it is pretty much along for the ride.
    >
    > This was pretty much my argument as well - however it was suggested to me
    > that even the 3 pounds of that lens could be enough to damage the camera
    > mount if the camera is around my neck (on the strap) and the lens is
    > unsupported.
    >
    > At the end of the day though I did have 2nd thoughts about that lens - all
    > the reviews say it's a fantastic lens, but I'm wondering how often I'd
    > actually use it at F2.8 (ie very little DOF) - I'm also taking a look at
    > the F4 version, and even the 28-300 IS DO lens.
    >
    > Sigh, so many choices :(
    >

    If you can afford it, get it. You don't have to shoot at f2.8, but the f4
    version will never go to f2.8. I felt the same way as you for a long time,
    until I got a 24-70 f2.8 to augment my 28-135 IS. Now it's indispensable.
    There are times that you need the speed to offset movement, and if it ain't
    there, it ain't there...

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
  13. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    > 1st, it's a 70-200 f2.8L not 2.4.

    I stand corrected.

    > 2nd, the camera has a metal lens mount, not plastic.

    I didn't appreciate that until now, however I'm still wondering if a plastic
    body would still handle the torsion of a heavy lens without eventually
    damaging something.

    > 3rd, the lens should be supported by your right hand, not left to hang on
    > the front of the camera unsupported. Or, better yet, mounted on a tripod
    > using the supplied mounting ring.

    Left hand. It would be my suggestion to support it whilst "poised for a
    shot", but would still be times it would be left hanging.

    Consensus of opinion seems to be that it wouldn't be too much of an issue
    for the 350D.
  14. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    In article <uu4Ce.866$PL5.134964@news.xtra.co.nz>, spam@nospam.com
    says...
    > > 1st, it's a 70-200 f2.8L not 2.4.
    >
    > I stand corrected.
    >
    > > 2nd, the camera has a metal lens mount, not plastic.
    >
    > I didn't appreciate that until now, however I'm still wondering if a plastic
    > body would still handle the torsion of a heavy lens without eventually
    > damaging something.
    >

    The plastic shell is hanging off of an internal metal frame, and plays
    no part in supporting the lens weight. If there was an issue with
    certain lenses, Canon would be putting something in the user manual to
    tell you not to use them - they don't want claims from angry users for
    damaged cameras/lenses!

    If you're worried about the plastic body - don't be :) When Canon were
    designing the camera, they found that the plastic shell gave better
    protection than a metal one if the camera was dropped - it's better at
    absorbing shock. Of course, it won't be as effective against some other
    kinds of damage but a plastic body is not all bad.

    > > 3rd, the lens should be supported by your right hand, not left to hang on
    > > the front of the camera unsupported. Or, better yet, mounted on a tripod
    > > using the supplied mounting ring.
    >
    > Left hand. It would be my suggestion to support it whilst "poised for a
    > shot", but would still be times it would be left hanging.
    >
    > Consensus of opinion seems to be that it wouldn't be too much of an issue
    > for the 350D.
    >
    >

    Any current Canon camera with an EOS mount is rated to use any current
    EOS lens. I'm sure the same is true for Nikon, Pentax etc.
  15. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    "Cockpit Colin" <spam@nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:uu4Ce.866$PL5.134964@news.xtra.co.nz...
    >> 1st, it's a 70-200 f2.8L not 2.4.
    >
    > I stand corrected.
    >
    >> 2nd, the camera has a metal lens mount, not plastic.
    >
    > I didn't appreciate that until now, however I'm still wondering if a
    > plastic body would still handle the torsion of a heavy lens without
    > eventually damaging something.
    >
    >> 3rd, the lens should be supported by your right hand, not left to hang on
    >> the front of the camera unsupported. Or, better yet, mounted on a tripod
    >> using the supplied mounting ring.
    >
    > Left hand. It would be my suggestion to support it whilst "poised for a
    > shot", but would still be times it would be left hanging.

    Sorry, at that hour of the night, after doing too much day job work on the
    computer, my brain goes mirror image. Or reverts to the days when I shot
    with Exactas, which had the shutter release on the left side... ;-)
    One can, of course, loop the shoulder strap around the lens, if this is a
    concern. But the weight hanging fairly straight down won't have the effect
    that it would pulling at a right angle to the mount.
    >
    > Consensus of opinion seems to be that it wouldn't be too much of an issue
    > for the 350D.

    It shouldn't be, after all, there are a few less affluent pros who might be
    tempted to get one of these for a back up to the 20D that they bought
    because they can't afford a 1D mkII...
    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
  16. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    You mean that if you outfit the XT with, say, a 17-85 EF-S IS and the 20D
    with a 18-55 EF-S, the XT will produce better images than the 20D? That's a
    rare statement of the obvious. Now, if you leave that 17-85 on the XT and
    put a 24-70 L on the 20D, what do you think the result will be? Or put the
    same lens on both cameras, and I'm betting the images will be pretty
    indistinguishable. Given the same photographer behind the viewfinder, that
    is...
    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com


    well guys i see very little difference between the two cameras you just pay
    more money for a metal body and 2 or 3 extra featuresother wise they are the
    same don camera ok. see below:

    D20 DIFFERNCE TO THE XT:

    1. SENSOR SIZE .2 x .2 MORE
    2. ISO UP TO 3200
    3. AUTO FOCUS 2 POINTS MORE
    4. WHITE BLANCE KELVIN
    5. MAX SHUTTER 1/2000 SEC MORE
    6. CON DRIVE 2.2FPS, 9 JEPG IMAGES MORE
    and i guess thats it. like i said all you pay for is the metal body. if both
    cameras has the same lens, the same settings, the same photographer and shot
    the same secne the photos will be the same ok.

    Vinnie.....
  17. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    You mean that if you outfit the XT with, say, a 17-85 EF-S IS and the 20D
    with a 18-55 EF-S, the XT will produce better images than the 20D? That's a
    rare statement of the obvious. Now, if you leave that 17-85 on the XT and
    put a 24-70 L on the 20D, what do you think the result will be? Or put the
    same lens on both cameras, and I'm betting the images will be pretty
    indistinguishable. Given the same photographer behind the viewfinder, that
    is...

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


    I snipped this from dpreview.com

    It's interesting that not only does the EOS 350D not use the same sensor as
    is used in the EOS 20D but that Canon deliberately designed the pixel count
    of the 350D to be less than its bigger brother. Despite this there's really
    no visible difference between the performance of the two in this test. You
    could easily perform a blind test and not know which crop is from which
    camera. Remember that both also use DIGIC II hence identical tonal and color
    response
  18. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 01:31:36 -0400, "Vinnie" <Vinnie@nospam.net>
    wrote:

    >You mean that if you outfit the XT with, say, a 17-85 EF-S IS and the 20D
    >with a 18-55 EF-S, the XT will produce better images than the 20D? That's a
    >rare statement of the obvious. Now, if you leave that 17-85 on the XT and
    >put a 24-70 L on the 20D, what do you think the result will be? Or put the
    >same lens on both cameras, and I'm betting the images will be pretty
    >indistinguishable. Given the same photographer behind the viewfinder, that
    >is...
  19. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 01:31:36 -0400, "Vinnie" <Vinnie@nospam.net>
    wrote:

    >You mean that if you outfit the XT with, say, a 17-85 EF-S IS and the 20D
    >with a 18-55 EF-S, the XT will produce better images than the 20D? That's a
    >rare statement of the obvious. Now, if you leave that 17-85 on the XT and
    >put a 24-70 L on the 20D, what do you think the result will be? Or put the
    >same lens on both cameras, and I'm betting the images will be pretty
    >indistinguishable. Given the same photographer behind the viewfinder, that
    >is...
    >--
    >Skip Middleton
    >http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    >
    >
    >well guys i see very little difference between the two cameras you just pay
    >more money for a metal body and 2 or 3 extra featuresother wise they are the
    >same don camera ok. see below:
    >
    >D20 DIFFERNCE TO THE XT:
    >
    >1. SENSOR SIZE .2 x .2 MORE
    >2. ISO UP TO 3200
    >3. AUTO FOCUS 2 POINTS MORE
    >4. WHITE BLANCE KELVIN
    >5. MAX SHUTTER 1/2000 SEC MORE
    >6. CON DRIVE 2.2FPS, 9 JEPG IMAGES MORE
    >and i guess thats it. like i said all you pay for is the metal body. if both
    >cameras has the same lens, the same settings, the same photographer and shot
    >the same secne the photos will be the same ok.
    >
    >Vinnie.....
    >

    What about things you can't see, such as switch quality, etc?
    -Rich
  20. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    In article <lI%Be.821$PL5.131207@news.xtra.co.nz>,
    "Cockpit Colin" <spam@nospam.com> wrote:

    > I'm the proud owner of a Rebel XT, but having looked closer at comparisons
    > with the 20D, I'm wondering if I've made a mistake?
    >
    > Buried amongst the specs I've noted that the shutter mechanism on the rebel
    > is only rated at 50,000 shots, compared to 100,000 for the 20D.
    >
    > With the ability to shoot bursts of shots (several per second) I'm starting
    > to think that 50,000 (or even 100,000) shots suddenly doesn't sound like all
    > that many!

    50,000 shutter clicks equals 6 years of shooting 24 images a day or 4
    years of 36 images per day.

    50K doesn't deem like a lot till you do the math. (If I am right.)

    I wish I had that much free time. :^)

    But then again, I use a Nikon FE that is still in perfect shape.

    --

    http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/

    >
    > Anybody else care to comment? Does anyone know if it's economic to have a
    > shutter mechanism replaced in either camera?
    >
    > Additionally, I was looking at splashing out on a mother of a lens like the
    > 70-200 F2.4L - but I've been advised that this lens is simply too heavy for
    > the plastic lens mount of the 350D (even to the point where it's just
    > hanging from the camera when it's around my neck) - again, word has it that
    > the 20D is the minimum in this regard (and even then it's apparantly more
    > balanced with the battery grip).
    >
    > Any comments appreciated.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > CC
    >
    > "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
    > news:99pgd1ho9um79kpvrs4bhha4ancac29b2r@4ax.com...
    > > Saw another magazine review of it and the D70
    > > and the Rebel is still winning the image game
    > > at least. Most reviews note that the Nikon
    > > is more ergonomically "friendly" but image quality
    > > seems to win out when it comes time to tally up
    > > the scores. I've held the Rebel a few times and shot
    > > with it, but I just can't stand the plastic. However,
    > > outfitted the same way, it costs $800 less in Canada
    > > than the 20D so the choice between "plastic or metal"
    > > is a tough one, especially when a Rebel outfitted with
    > > a better Canon lens will slaughter the 20D in terms of
    > > image quality.
    > > -Rich
  21. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    In article <awareness-25879C.18072317072005@news1-ge0.southeast.rr.com>,
    What love is not... <awareness@yourself.org> wrote:
    >In article <lI%Be.821$PL5.131207@news.xtra.co.nz>,
    > "Cockpit Colin" <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
    >
    >> I'm the proud owner of a Rebel XT, but having looked closer at comparisons
    >> with the 20D, I'm wondering if I've made a mistake?
    >>
    >> Buried amongst the specs I've noted that the shutter mechanism on the rebel
    >> is only rated at 50,000 shots, compared to 100,000 for the 20D.
    >>
    >> With the ability to shoot bursts of shots (several per second) I'm starting
    >> to think that 50,000 (or even 100,000) shots suddenly doesn't sound like all
    >> that many!
    >
    >50,000 shutter clicks equals 6 years of shooting 24 images a day or 4
    >years of 36 images per day.

    Back in the film days, I would shoot only a few during the week,
    but go through three to four 36 exposure rolls on a weekend. (I did my
    own processing, so the costs weren't quite the killer that they could
    have been. :-)

    >50K doesn't deem like a lot till you do the math. (If I am right.)

    Well ... I've had my D70 about a year by now, and according to
    the exif data in the last photo of the last batch from it (there has
    been one shot since then, but not yet transferred to the computer):

    Shutter Count : 5385

    Now, I don't know what shutter actuations promise is made for
    the D70, but assuming that it matches the Rebel XT, that calculates out
    to 9.29 years assuming a constant exposure rate -- and I *know* that
    I've taken more in the first half year (getting to know the camera, and
    just playing with it) than I have in the second half year, so I can
    figure on somewhere well over ten years of lifetime before the shutter
    *might* need replacing. By that time, I will probably have moved up to
    something else. Given luck, perhaps the D2x or its successor.

    >I wish I had that much free time. :^)
    >
    >But then again, I use a Nikon FE that is still in perfect shape.

    And I've still got "Nikon F"s which are in perfect shape. Not
    all of the Photomic T metering finders are, and the right batteries are
    now pretty much made of unobtainium, but the camera body and lenses are
    still excellent.

    Enjoy,
    DoN.
    --
    Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
    (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
    --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
  22. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Cockpit Colin wrote:
    > > 1st, it's a 70-200 f2.8L not 2.4.
    >
    > I stand corrected.
    >
    > > 2nd, the camera has a metal lens mount, not plastic.
    >
    > I didn't appreciate that until now, however I'm still wondering if a plastic
    > body would still handle the torsion of a heavy lens without eventually
    > damaging something.
    >

    This might interest you. Thats a 300D. It has the same construction as
    the 350D that is plastic shell with metal skeleton.
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=11909763

    The question isn't whether the 300D/350D is strong enough to hold a
    heavy lens, the question is are you brawny enough ;-)

    I was avoiding getting into the metal vs plastic debate but couldn't
    resist anymore. I had a first hand experience yesterday when in a fit
    of rage I flung two all plastic phones against the wall. Ofcourse, the
    battery compartment door fell off and the battery came out. But ZERO
    damage to the phones on the outside and the internal circuitry. One is
    a base phone and the other is a cell phone. And they were banged pretty
    hard against the wall.

    I am not saying that my 300D is made of the same material. Infact, I
    don't even know exactly what kind of polycarbonate plastic my phones
    are made of but I certainly wouldn't mind if my camera body is as
    strong. And plastics are replacing metals across industries where
    strength of the material used is a critical aspect.

    The other issue is that do you really expect your camera to survive a
    bang on the floor? Maybe your metal body will survive but what about
    the electronic circuity and finely aligned optical elements inside the
    camera. How does a metal body make sure that the innards are kept safe
    from the impact shock?

    I don't have any issues if you want metal body because you prefer a
    heavier camera or just for the feel of it but I find no merit in the
    arguement that a metal body is inherently more safer than a plastic
    body. And that goes to all you out there who are
    oh-the-xx-camera-is-superior-bcoz-it-has-a-metal-body-and-yy-is-cheap-flimsy-plastic.


    - Siddhartha
  23. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Siddhartha Jain <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote:

    > The other issue is that do you really expect your camera to survive a
    > bang on the floor?

    Well, I not only expect it, I require it.

    One unpleasant morning on my recent trip, in Colorado, somewhere above
    12,000 feet elevation, a wind gust of (at a guess) more than 45mph blew
    me right off my feet. My camera hit the ground lens first. The lens
    (a 50mm) was smashed to pieces; the camera, of course, was completely
    unharmed and in perfect working order. Of course, it's a Nikon, which
    might make a difference in terms of expectations.

    One time I dropped my old film Nikon at least 15 feet onto concrete.
    I picked it up and continued shooting. Even the lens survived that
    one.

    --
    Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Ask a new question

Read More

SLR Reviews Photo Cameras