 |
 | 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 / January 2008Canon finally dumps HORRIBLE Rebel body!
As ugly and revolting as the GM X-Car of the 1980s, Canon has finally dispensed with the old Rebel body, giving it's entry-level camera what looks like a decent body. It looks like a smaller D30-40. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08012415canoneos450dchanges.asp > As ugly and revolting as the GM X-Car of the 1980s, Canon has finally > dispensed with the old Rebel body, giving it's entry-level camera what > looks like a decent body. It looks like a smaller D30-40. > > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08012415canoneos450dchanges.asp Other than you appeared to be insulted because they used weak plastic (You know the stuff they make football helmets out of.) for some parts of the body, which, it appears have never been the cause of any problems, why was it horrible? I bet they read your insightful messages and decided to change it... Yea..  SignatureJoseph Meehan Dia 's Muire duit > > As ugly and revolting as the GM X-Car of the 1980s, Canon has finally > > dispensed with the old Rebel body, giving it's entry-level camera what [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the body, which, it appears have never been the cause of any problems, why > was it horrible? There's nothing wrong with well-constructed plastic bodies. There is something wrong with poorly constructed plastic bodies (eg. The Rebel). Canon's 10D, 20D, 30D, and 40D have all been well constructed with quality parts. The Rebel has been constructed like a creaky, throw-away toy. Hopefully Canon beefed up the construction on the new body. The funniest thing about this announcement is that commentary is suggesting that Canon moved to SD cards because that was the reason the Nikon D40/D40x was doing so well. SD card likely had little to do with it. The ergonomics and construction of the Rebel can't compare to the Nikon bodies. Anyone comparing the two in the store can see that. The Canon may have the D40 beat on features and internal performance, but the fact that it had such poor exterior construction was not something consumers could overlook. > In article <47990c6d$0$17367$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > the fact that it had such poor exterior construction was not something > consumers could overlook. The Rebel had a good run, it lasted way longer than it should have, solely on the strength of its sensors. Now hopefully the body will be a good match. > The Rebel had a good run, it lasted way longer than it should have, > solely on the strength of its sensors. > Now hopefully the body will be a good match. Mine continues to have a good run. I can't believe you buy a camera based on its cuteness. dwight >> The Rebel had a good run, it lasted way longer than it should have, >> solely on the strength of its sensors. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > dwight I agree. What an incredibly stupid thread. > >> The Rebel had a good run, it lasted way longer than it should have, > >> solely on the strength of its sensors. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > What an incredibly stupid thread. Welcome to the HORRIBLE world of RichA. Always stupid thread maker 2006/7. Doc > > I can't believe you buy a camera based on its cuteness. > > > dwight > > I agree. Would you also say, "I can't believe you like a picture based on its cuteness"? Cuteness has a lot to do with it. What would life be like without cuteness? > > > I can't believe you buy a camera based on its cuteness. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Cuteness has a lot to do with it. > What would life be like without cuteness? Absolutely. In cameras, girls, cars, computers and in fact just about anything smaller than an airliner, cuteness is important. I bought my very first Nikon because it was cute, and I've been buying Nikons ever since. (More recent ones have been gorgeous rather than cute, but if not for the cuteness of that first one I might never have become a Nikonian.) Neil >> > > I can't believe you buy a camera based on its cuteness. >> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Absolutely. In cameras, girls, cars, computers and in fact just about >anything smaller than an airliner, cuteness is important. Actually you've almost got it right. But, I had the opportunity to hear learn this bit of philosophy from a *real* expert. As they say, only from the mouths of children... (do we get this sort of pure clarity in though!). Last August, a month before his 6th birthday, I was giving my neighbor, young Benjamin Kim, a haircut. He was very insistant on sitting in front a mirror where he could see _exactly_ what was happening, and when he noticed that I didn't fully comprehend the significance, he graced me with his wisdom: "Hair doesn't count; *ugly* counts!" He's not wrong. Now, rethink the above discussion in terms of "ugly" rather than "cuteness"! It *is* valid. >I bought my very first Nikon because it was cute, and I've been buying >Nikons ever since. (More recent ones have been gorgeous rather than cute, >but if not for the cuteness of that first one I might never have become a >Nikonian.) Actually Nikon goes to a bit of an extreme to make sure that nobody would call their cameras "ugly". The bodies, since about 1980, are in fact designed by Giorgetto Guigiaro, from Italy, who also has designed Niccki sewing machines, Seiko watches, and more cars than anyone. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com : >> > > I can't believe you buy a camera based on its cuteness. : >> > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] : designed by Giorgetto Guigiaro, from Italy, who also has designed Niccki : sewing machines, Seiko watches, and more cars than anyone. I actually *look* at my Seiko watch. (And yes, it's attractive, easy to read, and extremely accurate.) But I stand *behind* my XTi and peer through the viewfinder. So I guess I don't really know (or care) how it looks to the subject. That said, it was 1954, and I was the proud owner of an Argus C-3 (a 16th birthday present) when a photographer from the Tokyo bureau of Time/Life stopped by our town in Mississippi to try to scare up a story. Two incredibly beautiful cameras hung around his neck; the brand name engraved thereon was "Nikon". I'd never heard of a Nikon, but I decided within 15 minutes that I *had* to have one. I wasn't able to afford my first Nikon (an S-2) until I was a junior in college, but I eventually owned an SP and an F-2 (each with an appropriate complement of lenses). After I got married, I bought my wife a Nikkormat. And it was her memory of how much she liked that camera that finally got me to abandon P&S digitals and get us each an XTi. Bob (ex-Nikonian) > : >> > > I can't believe you buy a camera based on its cuteness. > : >> > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > Bob (ex-Nikonian) Which brings up an intriguing question: When did people become too lazy to handle cameras with REAL bodies? I don't remember people whining about toting a (for e.g.) hefty Pentax Spotmatic or Nikkormat if that is what they needed to get a shot. In article <dbd14f82-c380-4851-aa4b-4e8e6be3fa44@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > Which brings up an intriguing question: When did people become too > lazy to handle cameras with REAL bodies? I don't remember people > whining about toting a (for e.g.) hefty Pentax Spotmatic or Nikkormat > if that is what they needed to get a shot. I still like the old Nikon F the huge prism...lenses that you have to put on at F/5.6, etc. I never owned one, but used a few through the years. Now, that was a camera. You could always tell the guys that used an F because their right index finger was crooked from the weird location of the shutter button. > > > > I can't believe you buy a camera based on its cuteness. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Neil Yes, a couple people I know refused to buy the Sony A700 because they thought it was ugly. Personally, it's secondary to me, but then you DO have to look at a camera each time you use it. In article <e69dd4bc-a486-4819-8bc9-8751941e993e@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, > Yes, a couple people I know refused to buy the Sony A700 because they > thought it was ugly. Personally, it's secondary to me, but then you > DO have to look at a camera each time you use it. I wouldn't buy it because it was a Sony. > In article > <e69dd4bc-a486-4819-8bc9-8751941e9...@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I wouldn't buy it because it was a Sony. Sounds like you might have been burned by a Sony product in the past? In article <d9ed767b-9c8d-4ffd-86c5-7fce5a4ffa9d@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > Sounds like you might have been burned by a Sony product in the past? No. Like Sigma, I avoid products made by companies that are known to suck. With respect to digital photography, I've yet to see where Sony has a clue. > In article > <d9ed767b-9c8d-4ffd-86c5-7fce5a4ff...@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > With respect to digital photography, I've yet to see where Sony has a > clue. I don't know much about the Sony offerings, I thought the A100 body was cheap-looking, except that the A100 had the highest resolution (and highest noise) of the 10 meg cameras. What is wrong with the A700? : In article : <e69dd4bc-a486-4819-8bc9-8751941e993e@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : : I wouldn't buy it because it was a Sony. Good for you!! Sony's underhanded installation of spyware in their customers' computers makes them unworthy of the patronage of civilized people. Bob > Good for you!! Sony's underhanded installation of spyware in their customers' > computers makes them unworthy of the patronage of civilized people. Well, they make crappy products too. >> Good for you!! Sony's underhanded installation of spyware in their >> customers' >> computers makes them unworthy of the patronage of civilized people. > > Well, they make crappy products too. Overpriced, over-rated crappy products too ;o) > : In article > : <e69dd4bc-a486-4819-8bc9-8751941e993e@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > : > : I wouldn't buy it because it was a Sony. > Good for you!! Sony's underhanded installation of spyware in their customers' > computers makes them unworthy of the patronage of civilized people. Do civilised people patronise Micros**t? :-) SignatureChris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] : > : In article : > : <e69dd4bc-a486-4819-8bc9-8751941e993e@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] : : Do civilised people patronise Micros**t? :-) Yes, but they don't use "Microsoft Update" (which, the last time I looked, appeared to have a much weaker privacy guarantee than its predecessor, "Windows Update"). >> > > I can't believe you buy a camera based on its cuteness. >> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Neil Those Casio Exilims are cute as hell. What about the so-ugly-it's-cute theory, as evidenced by troll dolls (speaking of trolls), VW Things, or, dare I say, the current PT Cruiser, or Danny DeVito? dwight > I can't believe you buy a camera based on its cuteness. We're all still waiting for him to buy a camera...period. > In article <EaednSJ3Vq5oqgTanZ2dnUVZ_uOmn...@comcast.com>, dwight > > <tfro...@gEEmail.com> wrote: > > I can't believe you buy a camera based on its cuteness. > > We're all still waiting for him to buy a camera...period. Yes, sure. Whatever you say. > In article <47990c6d$0$17367$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, .. > There's nothing wrong with well-constructed plastic bodies. There is > something wrong with poorly constructed plastic bodies (eg. The Rebel). > Canon's 10D, 20D, 30D, and 40D have all been well constructed with > quality parts. The Rebel has been constructed like a creaky, throw-away > toy. Hopefully Canon beefed up the construction on the new body. .. Are you saying that the Rebel's ability to produce images was reduced due to a "poorly constructed plastic bodies" ? SignatureJoseph Meehan Dia 's Muire duit > > In article <47990c6d$0$17367$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, > .. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Are you saying that the Rebel's ability to produce images was reduced > due to a "poorly constructed plastic bodies" ? Of course not and I don't think anyone with average or better reading comprehension would infer that. >> > In article <47990c6d$0$17367$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, >> .. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Of course not and I don't think anyone with average or better reading > comprehension would infer that. Well it sounds like it to me. Why would one really worry about the construction if it did not affect the operation of the camera? Are cameras a fashion statement now? SignatureJoseph Meehan Dia 's Muire duit > Are cameras a fashion statement now? Fashion? Preposterous! It's only by the purest of coincidences that I keep my Leicas in neat, alternate rows to the Guccis and Faberge Eggs... mike > >> > In article <47990c6d$0$17367$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, > >> .. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > construction if it did not affect the operation of the camera? Are cameras > a fashion statement now? I think you should stick to pinhole cameras then in you think construction doesn't matter. So what is the problem you perceive with a "poorly constructed camera" that produces good results? >> >> > In article <47990c6d$0$17367$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, >> >> .. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > I think you should stick to pinhole cameras then in you think > construction doesn't matter. SignatureJoseph Meehan Dia 's Muire duit On Jan 24, 5:08 pm, "Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAM...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > As ugly and revolting as the GM X-Car of the 1980s, Canon has finally > > dispensed with the old Rebel body, giving it's entry-level camera what [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Dia 's Muire duit Cheap, flimsy, ergonomic nightmare made for people with the hands of midgets. Apart from that, it was fine. > On Jan 24, 5:08 pm, "Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAM...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > Cheap, flimsy, ergonomic nightmare made for people with the hands of > midgets. Apart from that, it was fine. Cheap, how is that bad? Flimsy, in exactly what way and how did it affect results? Ergonomic nightmare, I know several people who have them including one with rather small hands, and they all seem happy with it. What camera fits all? You will notice that I always recommend anyone considering a camera to get it into their hands before they buy. I have seen many people unhappy with cameras because of fit, but I have not seen many cameras that are by nature a problem. It is a matter of fit. SignatureJoseph Meehan Dia 's Muire duit On Jan 25, 4:24 pm, "Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAM...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jan 24, 5:08 pm, "Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAM...@hotmail.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > with cameras because of fit, but I have not seen many cameras that are by > nature a problem. It is a matter of fit. True, I've actually heard 3 people remark how "too small" the Rebel grip was for them, before moving on to a D80 or 20 or 30D. No camera fits all, but the Rebel grip, most notably because of the distance between the inner part of the grip and the lens mount was just too small for many grown men's hands. > On Jan 25, 4:24 pm, "Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAM...@hotmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > distance between the inner part of the grip and the lens mount was > just too small for many grown men's hands. Yet plenty of grown men use compact P&S cameras all the time. Do us a favour Rich and credit others here with just a modicum of common sense. Doc > > On Jan 25, 4:24 pm, "Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAM...@hotmail.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Doc You can use any camera you want, it doesn't make it very usable, one way or another, you simply put up with it because it is what it is. You opt for something pocketable because of that feature, not how well it functions when you actually have to use it to take pictures. But, when you decide to choose a DSLR because you want its versatility and quality, you might as well choose one that has a body that allows you to work well with it. Canon did the right thing with the 20D,30D and now the 40D. They keep a reasonable body size so the cameras could be used properly, so the body didn't become a consideration over the thing's ability to take pictures. > > > On Jan 25, 4:24 pm, "Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAM...@hotmail.com> > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > used properly, so the body didn't become a consideration over the > thing's ability to take pictures. Whats all this YOU business. I have a P&S which is VERY usable. being a 'reasonable size' isn't the be all and end all of usability. Do you infer from that 'grown men' find an iPod unusable? Despite what your girlfriend may told you Rich size isn't everything. and as far as the Rebel being HORRIBLE I suspect that's as much to do with your aversion to plastic than anything else. Doc In article <fb827738-4314-4d06-b5c9-eb9775884061@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > > > On Jan 25, 4:24 pm, "Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAM...@hotmail.com> > > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > to plastic than anything else. > Doc iPods and point and shoots do not weight 2-4 pounds like SLRs with lenses and do not have awkward weight distribution like SLRs with lenses. It's not a problem to contort your hand to hold a light camera when taking a photo or to hold it cupped in your palm. Holding an SLR rigidly is a different thing. Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe what is awkward to YOU may not be to others. Each person is unique. Some more than others. No one camera is going to work well for everyone. You have yet to provide and apparent rational for suggesting that the Rebel is somehow universally awkward. I am sure some people find it that way, and some find Nikons that way. I find 8X10's generally awkward. The real question is why do you have so many problems with Canon when so many other people are buying them and enjoying them. Could it be they really are happy with them. Could it be that some people are not happy with other makes? > In article > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > when taking a photo or to hold it cupped in your palm. Holding an SLR > rigidly is a different thing. SignatureJoseph Meehan Dia 's Muire duit > Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe what is awkward to YOU > may not be to others. Each person is unique. Some more than others. No [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > enjoying them. Could it be they really are happy with them. Could it be > that some people are not happy with other makes? The Rebel is made for *small* hands. So if you are 5'6" or under, it must be great. But for anyone who is the size of a normal sized male adult, the body is too small. > > In article > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > when taking a photo or to hold it cupped in your palm. Holding an SLR > > rigidly is a different thing. >> Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe what is awkward to >> YOU [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > must be great. But for anyone who is the size of a normal sized male > adult, the body is too small. No, sorry, disagree. I've heard this mantra repeated endlessly, and still disagree, because I actually USE the camera on a daily basis. I'm over 6' and have large hands, and the Rebel is just fine. And, as with everything else of this nature, handling becomes much easier with repeated use. I may have fumbled with buttons on the first day, but, y'know what - I got used to the camera's layout. It's fine. It's not custom form-fitted to my own hands, but the greatest capacity in human beings may be their ability to adapt. Here, I think "doesn't fit" is a matter of the mind, not the physical situation, because when I pick up my Rebel XT today, it fits. dwight > > In article <479b904e$0$24076$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > dwight So perhaps they should still bind Japanese women's feet to keep them size 4 all their life? Sounds painful, much like using a Rebel. >> > In article <479b904e$0$24076$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, >> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > size 4 all their life? > Sounds painful, much like using a Rebel. Get closer to one other than just looking at a picture of it on the web. Get some real world experience with one, and then we'll talk about it. dwight > >> Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe what is awkward to > >> YOU [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > dwight Glad it fits you. Unfortunately, how many other people have complained that it actually *hurts* to hold the Rebel for extended period of times because of the small grip and poor location of the shutter release which requires average hands to have to contort their index finger to an uncomfortable position. Do you think all these people made up how uncomfortable the Rebel was? >> >> Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe what is awkward >> >> to [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > uncomfortable position. Do you think all these people made up how > uncomfortable the Rebel was? Those are the same people who complain about carpal tunnel damage when using a computer keyboard. The fact that their hand position is completely wrong has nothing to do with it, I'm sure. It must be the keyboard. As to how many have complained, I have no idea. Never saw any statistics. And "all these people" with contorted index fingers? I guess I'll have to go to a photography show and look around to see if I can spot any. I suppose I could have used words like "many" or an undefined number like "thousands" to add weight to my own anecdotal testimony. dwight So your definition of Horrible is any camera that does not fit your hands. How about a camera that fits you, but may be too big to fit my hands (Actually my hands are on the large size) but you should get the point. No camera is going to fit everyone well. So by your definition every camera is horrible, which makes the term horrible meaningless in this context. BTW why is it that only Canon cameras have all the faults? Or is it that you only want to list faults (or your idea of faults) for Canon cameras. Do you have any idea of your lack of credibility? >> Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe what is awkward to >> YOU [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > must be great. But for anyone who is the size of a normal sized male > adult, the body is too small. SignatureJoseph Meehan Dia 's Muire duit > So your definition of Horrible is any camera that does not fit your > hands. How about a camera that fits you, but may be too big to fit my [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that you only want to list faults (or your idea of faults) for Canon > cameras. Do you have any idea of your lack of credibility? Once again, bad reading comprehension ... Small SLRs are not horrible. Small SLRs with *horrendous* ergonomics are (i.e. the Rebel). Heck, Pentax made a tiny 110 SLR that had better ergonomics than the Rebel. Plastic cameras are not horrible. Plastic SLRS with cheap plastic shells that creak when squeezed and low quality buttons and dials are horrible. And "yes", the Canon Rebel is the only slr I'm slamming at this moment. Othen than Sony's entry level model, no other manufacturer makes an SLR so cheaply constructed. Olympus, Nikon, and Pentax all built their entry level SLRs with quality construction and good ergonomics. > >> Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe what is awkward to > >> YOU [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > must be great. But for anyone who is the size of a normal sized male > > adult, the body is too small. >> So your definition of Horrible is any camera that does not fit your >> hands. How about a camera that fits you, but may be too big to fit my [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > SLRS with cheap plastic shells that creak when squeezed and low quality > buttons and dials are horrible. Thou doth protest too much. Who are all these people making these complaints? As someone with largish hands, I've never experienced any of these problems, and have never encountered another Rebel user who has expressed any of these concerns. >Othen than Sony's entry level model, no other manufacturer makes an SLR >so cheaply constructed Clearly you have never handled a Sigma SD14. > Clearly you have never handled a Sigma SD14. Who would want to? > In article <820pp3p9ejl6ta381mqco40omostb26...@4ax.com>, Tony Polson > > <t...@nospam.net> wrote: > > Clearly you have never handled a Sigma SD14. > > Who would want to? For the surreal fun of it? http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/89747617 >The Rebel is made for *small* hands. So if you are 5'6" or under, it >must be great. But for anyone who is the size of a normal sized male >adult, the body is too small. Exactly the same criticisms were made of Olympus back in 1973 when they introduced the M-1, hastily renamed the OM-1. It was too small for a real man's hands, a girl's camera. Well, those little OM-1s lived on, followed by OM-2, 3 & 4 from the same stable and imitated by every other because the "criticism" was just as much twaddle in the 1970s as it is today. SignatureKennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) > In article <tho-A6A799.15012926012...@news.giganews.com>, TH O > <t...@tho.23.invalid> writes [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > because the "criticism" was just as much twaddle in the 1970s as it is > today. You have to differentiate between a bad small design (Rebel) and a good small design, OM-1. No finger-pinching grips on the OM-1. >> In article <tho-A6A799.15012926012...@news.giganews.com>, TH O >> <t...@tho.23.invalid> writes [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > You have to differentiate between a bad small design (Rebel) and a > good small design, OM-1. No finger-pinching grips on the OM-1. It just occurred to me why you respout the knock on "finger-pinching grips." Trim your nails. dwight ... >> You have to differentiate between a bad small design (Rebel) and a >> good small design, OM-1. No finger-pinching grips on the OM-1. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > dwight I think you are wrong there. I believe his nails are worn down from dragging them on the ground. :-) SignatureJoseph Meehan Dia 's Muire duit > > > > On Jan 25, 4:24 pm, "Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAM...@hotmail.com> > > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > to plastic than anything else. > Doc Not at all. But I have to admit, a PROPERLY designed small metal camera would be a better offering from Canon than another malformation like the Rebel. You know what the laughable thing is? Both Nikon D40 and Olympus's E-410, smaller than the Rebel, are BETTER designed. So you are right, size is only part of the issue, design is the other. ... > Not at all. But I have to admit, a PROPERLY designed small metal > camera would be a better offering from Canon than another malformation > like the Rebel. You know what the laughable thing is? Both Nikon D40 > and Olympus's E-410, smaller than the Rebel, are BETTER designed. So > you are right, size is only part of the issue, design is the other. Did you ever stop to think why you are the ONLY ONE who seems to believe what you write? SignatureJoseph Meehan Dia 's Muire duit > ... >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Did you ever stop to think...... I think the answer to that is in every post! >> On Jan 25, 4:24 pm, "Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAM...@hotmail.com> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Do us a favour Rich and credit others here with just a modicum of > common sense. Actually, Rich is right for once here. The 350/400D's are the only cameras that I've found problems using, because my hands don't fit well on the grip. When I hold it, my middle finger rubs on the lens. After a day of using a 350, it had actually worn the skin off - quite painful. I have no dramas with any of the smaller compact bodies, including my S2IS which has a fairly similar grip design. I have no dramas with the smaller (eg E410) and larger SLRs. Some are not ideal for me to hold, but I can hold and use them no worries. I've had 2 physical injuries from the Canon Rebel series DSLRs - a 300D had poor fitting body parts that flexed in use, and so the camera "bit" me, giving me a blood blister. Then the 350D wore the skin off my finger. Glad to now be a Pentax K10D user. > Doc .. > Actually, Rich is right for once here. The 350/400D's are the only cameras > that I've found problems using, because my hands don't fit well on the > grip. No, that only proves that the 350/400D's are not right for YOU. They may be great for me, or someone else. To suggest that a product is "HORRIBLE" because it does not fit, would be like saying that Nike shoes are bad because you tried on a size 6 shoe and it did not fit. So far all Rich seems to have proven is that HIS hands don't fit the Rebel. SignatureJoseph Meehan Dia 's Muire duit > .. >> Actually, Rich is right for once here. The 350/400D's are the only [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > and it did not fit. So far all Rich seems to have proven is that HIS > hands don't fit the Rebel. I am willing to bet his fingers fit his nose PERFECTLY On Jan 28, 7:34 am, "Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAM...@hotmail.com> wrote: > .. > > Actually, Rich is right for once here. The 350/400D's are the only cameras [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Dia 's Muire duit You missed my other point. The Nikon D40 and Olympus E-410 are SMALLER and yet human males can handle them without skinning a finger. The Canon's DESIGN stinks. > On Jan 28, 7:34 am, "Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAM...@hotmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > and yet human males can handle them without skinning a finger. The > Canon's DESIGN stinks. I really hate to tell you this, but the overall size of the camera is not the only issue of whether a camera will be comfortable in your hands or not. It is far more complex than that. It is not even just a problem of the size of the hand either. The only way to find out if you will be comfortable with a camera is to have it in your hands and use it, doing everything you normally do when taking photos. SignatureJoseph Meehan Dia 's Muire duit >> As ugly and revolting as the GM X-Car of the 1980s, Canon has finally >> dispensed with the old Rebel body, giving it's entry-level camera what [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I bet they read your insightful messages and decided to change it... > Yea.. If people would just ignore the idiot, instead of debating it like it had valid points, then it would just dry up and blow away. You are right. >>> As ugly and revolting as the GM X-Car of the 1980s, Canon has finally >>> dispensed with the old Rebel body, giving it's entry-level camera what [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > If people would just ignore the idiot, instead of debating it like it had > valid points, then it would just dry up and blow away. SignatureJoseph Meehan Dia 's Muire duit It is all rather fitting. Canon and Nikon hasn't had a truly innovative camera in years. Canon has milked that poor rebel of which the first one was an innovation, at least in price. But, it has been pretty much the same crap from both companies ever since. "The poetry of photography will always be more important than mechanics of the camera... you see the picture is taken with the eye,the heart.The most sophisticated camera in the world can never replace this." Jacques-Henri Lartigue It will never end the 'upgrades' but the photos won't get much better if you don't know what you're doing- Me > As ugly and revolting as the GM X-Car of the 1980s, Canon has finally > dispensed with the old Rebel body, giving it's entry-level camera what > looks like a decent body. It looks like a smaller D30-40. > > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08012415canoneos450dchanges.asp > As ugly and revolting as the GM X-Car of the 1980s, Canon has finally > dispensed with the old Rebel body, giving it's entry-level camera what > looks like a decent body. It looks like a smaller D30-40. > > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08012415canoneos450dchanges.asp Yet it's still a plastic shell... > > As ugly and revolting as the GM X-Car of the 1980s, Canon has finally > > dispensed with the old Rebel body, giving it's entry-level camera what [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Yet it's still a plastic shell... I'll give Canon credit in that it is the ONLY model the make that is plastic. |
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
|
©2008 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.