Rebel XT/350 still dominating the reviews

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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 ---

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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