 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2005Rebel XT/350 still dominating the reviews
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 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, > Saw another magazine review of it and the D70 > and the Rebel is still winning the image game [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > image quality. > -Rich 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 > Saw another magazine review of it and the D70 > and the Rebel is still winning the image game [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > image quality. > -Rich > 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? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 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 > 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 > 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? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > 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.  SignatureFrank ess > 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 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 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > 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... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > 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? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > 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. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > 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. > > 1st, it's a 70-200 f2.8L not 2.4. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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. >> 1st, it's a 70-200 f2.8L not 2.4. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 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... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > > 1st, it's a 70-200 f2.8L not 2.4. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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 > 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. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > 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? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > image quality. > > -Rich >> 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? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >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. SignatureEmail: <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 --- > Saw another magazine review of it and the D70 > and the Rebel is still winning the image game [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > image quality. > -Rich Given the same lens, just how is it that the 350D will "slaughter" the 20D? SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >> Saw another magazine review of it and the D70 >> and the Rebel is still winning the image game [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >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 >>> Saw another magazine review of it and the D70 >>> and the Rebel is still winning the image game [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > 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... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com 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... SignatureSkip 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..... >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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >indistinguishable. Given the same photographer behind the viewfinder, that >is... >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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >indistinguishable. Given the same photographer behind the viewfinder, that >is... What about things you can't see, such as switch quality, etc? -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... SignatureSkip 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 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 > Saw another magazine review of it and the D70 > and the Rebel is still winning the image game [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > image quality. > -Rich |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.