Has anyone seen this new digital rebel? A 6.5 MP SLR camera for under $1000. I wonder if this may be indicative of what's to come from Canon, affordable true-professional quality gear, which could mean an affordable HD video camera soon as well. Thoughts?

Just have to wait and see Peter. If you want to read loads of rumors and speculation do a search on "XL2".

Hi Peter,

The Digital Rebel is certainly affordable, but it is definitely not true-professional quality gear. It's very much a consumer piece, with the same plastic body as the consumer-level Rebel Ti 35mm SLR. The Canon EOS 10D, which is a D-SLR with the same chip as the Digital Rebel, is a step toward professional-quality gear.

Many would argue the Digital Rebel is hardly professional quality gear. It's well built and offers great image quality at a previously unheard of low price. However, it is lacking a long list of features required of a camera before a professional would look at it.

Well that's interesting, because the guy in the camera store said the same thing, but when I asked him what the real differences were, he said PQ was roughly equal, and that the 10D would be faster in between shots.

What other features does it lack that would make pros snub it?

Anyway, since this is a camera forum, I guess I would say that any HD camera from canon is also likely to lack some features that "professionals" demand, but will still be usable by all but the most spoiled filmmakers.

It's viewfinder is not a pentaprism. The digital Rebel's finder is a mirror arrangement that is not as bright and not full field. Many pros don't consider the 1.6x crop factor (magnification) CMOS a professional size. The AF is slow for some sports and it lacks spot metering. I could go on with the list, but I think you get the point.

Does that mean that the Digital Rebel can't produce images suitable for professional work? No, the image quality meets or exceeds 35mm film in almost all conditions.

I do get the point. It sounds like a lot of little things that I wouldn't care about. :)

I always manual focus anyway. Though I suppose a better viewfinder would help there.

Just wondering, if you could be so kind - what is a pentaprism? On my ancient (but adored!) all-manual olympus 35mm, there is a small innter-circle that is askew except when the target is in focus. Makes focusing a snap. Is that what you're talking about? Do all SLR cameras have that?

Thanks!

These new DSLR's have a reduced VF and no focusing aid (again, until you get to the pro level). The Digital Rebel is particularly difficult to manually focus because it's VF issues.

Sorry Peter, missed the bottom part of your post. The device your referring to is call a split image focusing aid. The collar around the circle is called a microprism. The entire device is called a focusing screen. The pentaprism (http://www.yesmag.bc.ca/how_work/camera.html) is the five sided, coated glass device in the top of a camera. The Digital Rebel uses a cheaper mirrored device, accomplishing the same ends, but producing less sharpness and brightness.

If you want an excellent 24 page review of the camera, read here:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/

It starts with a feature matrix between the rebel and it's semi-pro older brother the Canon EOS 10D.

I strongly reccomend www.dpreview.com for any digital camera information seekers...

as you may have read my other post i'm a happy 300d user, well worth the 999 i paid for it, even the kit lens is worth the 100 bucks...

personally i don't think the 10d is worth the extra 600, and here is why, the 10d gives you a bit faster fps, it also gives you 3200 thats fine, and a host of user settings that you can program and save...

for me all that does not matter coming from a evrything manual ae-1, i'm just happy to have IS and AF...

the only thing i like is the pentaprism, and kelvin rd out, these are the only two functions that will help me take a better picture...i own a s40 and don't use many of the special features, so for me it was better to put the extra cash into glass

now the 1ds on the other hand is worth it (if i had that kind of scratch for a hobbie) it is big but full frame is somthing i would like to aspire to after having it so long with film...

Thanks Jeff!

I'll take a careful look. The 10D does sound like it is MUCH better constructed. I want this camera to last forever if I'm going to pay so much for it, so I'm going to reconsider.

Quality comparisons between the 300 and the 10D are practically identical. Granted alot of the customizable settings aren't there due to the internal software simply being disabled. The magnesium-alloy body of the 10D is more rugged though I'm not in the habbit of dropping my gear and/or using them in rainstorms.
The 300D is much bigger bang for the buck. I don't see any missing settings I can't "live" without. In other words they aren't make or break features...at least not for an additional $600, not including the price of the lense.

The internal frames of the two are both metal. The only plastic is the shell on the 300D.

For speed of shooting (fps) - if something is moving that much I'll be using my GL2 :-)

The only setting missing that I have had a bit of an issue with is for control over flash output. I can get around this by intentionally setting to underexpose but it is still a nuisance for macros. Getting an external flash will help some.

Quality is good and for the price difference I could get more lens.

Frames per second is similar, but the memory buffer is a major delay. Once the buffer is full you have to wait for the buffer to empty to start shooting again. The Digital Rebel is more restrictive in AF and metering modes.

A simple suggestion...if you are getting paid to take pictures, get the 10D. You'll forget the $600 in a real hurry. Especially if you drop it just once (God forbid), but more importantly if you are covering some action that has no opportunity for re-takes or missed shots--the 10D is just a lot faster. If not, the Rebel is head and shoulders above what most casual shutterbugs are toting.

Jeff--
>>>> For speed of shooting (fps) - if something is moving that much I'll be using my GL2 :-) <<<<
I'd be inclined to agree, BUT...not if you are shooting for a magazine (or any other print work)! I have had the "pleasure" of pulling stills from footage--even broadcast-quality stuff--for some layouts that required it, and it was pretty clear even to the untrained eye that these shots were pulled from video....hopefully that's the look that they want.


Funny, it's all relative. I stood on the camera line at a red carpet event between a young fellow with a Rebel who was shooting for a local publication and a celeb-shooter who was using a Nikon D2x and made me feel like a pauper to own a 10D (which I wasn't using -- I was shooting video). Both of them will have their pictures published, and I'm sure each will fit the respective requirements.

Professional cameras are defined by what a pro needs. Image quality is a given it must be there. This is what camera manufacturers and pros know:

1. All of the hot new technology in cameras is always released in a high end consumer model first; this has been the case for many years, not just in the digital age. Changes in the top of the line pro models lags behind significantly. Why? Because the manufacturers are well aware that there is eagerness among the hardcore armature to run out and buy the latest technological improvement because he may believe it will improve his photography. They covet the equipment as much as the medium and that drives sales.
2. To most professionals a camera is a sizable investment. A tool that must create a return on the investment. The longer the tool can create income the greater the return. Pro bodies are the last to be released as new models because there better be “significant upgrades” or professionals won’t buy them. They are not going to buy an expensive new release unless it will impact their ability to produce quality photos.
3. The needs of a professional photographer are different than the amateur. For example, Canon has made major improvements in weatherproofing their top line lenses and body’s. Did you know or care that there is a rubber gasket that seals the “L’ series lenses to the body? It matters to pros. I shoot in rain, snow, and the dustiest conditions imaginable. A little thing like that gasket matters to me, I have to get the shot, I can’t put the camera back in the bag just because it is getting abused, and I need it to keep working under those conditions. Most people don’t. The body construction thing? I need a camera that can be dropped, or at least take a beating, most people don’t.

The digital rebel is a beautiful piece of technology that will allow professional quality pictures to be taken by anyone with the talent to take them. Is it a professional camera? No, and I was just getting started. The beautiful thing is, unless you are getting paid to get the shot your needs may not be the same as mine (who cares about a little gasket). I have to spend a lot of money on equipment and I sometimes resent it. Digital rebel owners should take pride in their investment and enjoy it. Professionals want to spend as little as they can get away with and amateurs want to spend as much as they can possibly afford to be professional. Not my opinion, that is the marketing strategy behind the industry. Get what you need, enjoy what you have, and remember, shutter speed and aperture still matter.

Steve

Great suggestions, Steven. My question is simply if I want the camera to last FOREVER (something I can give to my children just like my parents gave me their all-manual Olympus), aren't I better off with the sturdier body of th 10D, for example?

No camera you buy today will last forever. I would expect a seven to 10 year life span at best. When you buy a TV, do you say to yourself that your buying the TV that will last forever? My guess is probably not, so why expect your camera to last a lifetime?

Peter,

Jeff is correct (he always is), save the Olympus for your kids. You will never get 2 generations out of today’s stuff.

This is why body construction matters or may not matter:
It has nothing to do with how long the camera will last in years; it has everything to do with durability.

In 1991 I shot primarily with Nikon F3s, I bought a Nikon N8080 to check out the latest technology. The N8080 was similar to the digital Rebel at the time, consumer oriented, new and loaded with electronics. A week later I was ascending a 50 rope to reach a perch in a big tree. As I went up the rope I spun gently around in circles and the flash head on the camera hit the tree, rather softly in my opinion. Instead of the small wings on the flash breaking as you would expect, the whole hot shoe ripped out of the plastic camera body. There was broken plastic and wires spilling out of my decapitated Nikon as the speed light dangled unharmed by wires. The repair cost me almost as much as the camera. Down the rope and back to the truck for the F3s, the most indestructible camera ever made.

So once again I pose the question, what do you use your camera for? You may not have a need for a magnesium body, I do, I can not afford equipment failures. I am not the only pro in the world that is hard on equipment; that is why body construction is hyped much more at the higher end.

Steve

Steve, you said it better than I could. An equipment failure is just not acceptable. If my gear is not 100% ready to rock-n-roll, I risk extreme embarrassment and loss of reputation, financial loss and loss of future work, etc. in addition to the expense of replacing the item. My wife always says "buy cheap, buy twice." It's true.

In the case of the 10D, I didn't have the time to research exhaustively comparative specs and writeups, what I did was to observe what other working folks were using. It seemed that a lot of guys who were coming out of 35mm SLRs had gone to the Canon EOS D30, so I figured I'd get one of those, which were chronically back-ordered. (and I will NOT pay in advance for an indeterminate delivery date!) Pretty soon that was replaced by the D60 (see, the supply shortage was a blessing in disguise) which was--you guessed it--endlessly back-ordered. Finally they came out with the 10D, and after several unsuccessful attempts to find it in stock at the usual suspects, I stumbled on one at a local camera shop (Milford Photo, great bunch of guys), same price as B&H and I jumped on it with not a second thought.

So far it's working out. Since I don't shoot stills 24/7, there's no way I can justify $8000 for a high-end digital body, but with 3K exposures to date on the 10D (and BTW a similar number on my little pocket digicam, a Canon Powershot S400 which is always with me when I am not carying the 10D) I have no complaints and it has more than paid for itself.

Now, as for the Olympus and lasting forever and such, I just have one "yahbut"...I still have an old OM2 from the early disco era (when Nixon was president?), all made of metal, and you could probably hammer nails with it. Pretty hefty with the motor drive. Still works perfectly. Who knows, it may go on forever?? Although it hasn't been fired off once since I got the digital! :-)

Jeff, I expect a 10D to last forever because it's $1600!! :) Plus my Olympus is over 30 years old and still taking gorgeous pictures.

Steven, so is what you're saying, basically, they don't make 'em like they used to? :) If so that's a damn shame.

I wouldn't use it professionally, or in harsh environments, except maybe in the cold in Chicago. As I said, my main concern is it lasting as long as possible and, of course, having all manual features. But I certainly don't plan on climbing ropes carrying it. :) I guess the Rebel is the way to go then?

The 10D will expire much quicker because of the electronic nature of the beast. It will seem very slow and outdated in a few years (just like an older computer). I would buy the Digital Rebel and invest in better lenses.

If you want to hand something down to your children, consider handing down a set of lenses. The lens industry has reached a maturity and lenses are not going to radically change or improve in the next few decades. You'll see minor improvements and modifications, but nothing like the last two or three decades. Lenses, if well cared for, can last a lifetime. The current crop of DSLR's will be dinosaurs in just a few years.

Mike, the first OM2's came out in 1978. We were in the Carter Era. I was a big Olympus fan in those days and anxiously awaited it's introduction.

Peter,

Like I said - Jeff is always correct.

Steve

Jeff--
Ah yes, Carter...I must have just blocked him out of my head..."malaise days!" Hee hee!

Yeah, I had already had an OM1 at that point and was pretty psyched too about the 2. Actually the 2 held up better than the 1. But they are both museum pieces now for all practical purposes, in my current world. I also have some very old audio equipment that still works, but I don't use it either.

I am sure that the 10D will last much longer than I want it to...meanng that like you pointed out it will feel slow and outdated like an old computer, and will have similarly low resale value. By then I'll be ready to strap my lenses onto the new 1000D or whatever they will call it, with 15 MP for $700.

:-)

And yes Steve, Jeff is always correct.

:) Thanks for the great advice, everyone! I guess I'm leaning toward the Rebel, then, and investing more in the lenses than the body is a good idea. Plus I suppose camera bodies will get cheaper in the future as technology improves (bigger, cheaper chips, etc.) but lenses will always be lenses, always be expensive, and always work the same way.

Is the Canon Digital Rebel a good camera to learn basic photography? Or is there another digital camera that offers better manual control?

Dorothy

Dorothy,

I can't think of a better one if you want to learn on a digital camera with removable lense.

Dorothy asked 'Is the Canon Digital Rebel a good camera to learn basic photography? Or is there another digital camera that offers better manual control?'

Leica are about to release the Digilux 2 (http://www.leica-camera.com/digitalekameras/digilux2/index_e.html) which looks like it was designed to be used by old M-type sticks-in-the-mud like me. Manual controls instead of menus. No noisy mirror slapping up and down. Unfortunately it's at a price your dealer will love.

Best,
Helen

Haha, that "mirror slap" was one of the things I used to love about the old Nikon F, it kept telling you it was a "real" SLR!

Of course, I always used to find the Leica aficionados a bit on the snobby side. (Sorry. That's my blue-collar roots coming out.) I guess it came with the price, which like Helen said, only a dealer could love. Plus I always personally preferred an SLR to a rangefinder.

What I would really love to see would be something like that old F, manual controls for everything, basic basic basic and no frou-frou...in digital. Guess I'm dreaming.

Nah; I don't post a lot (here), but I will try to help.

....."better manual control?"

In digicams, that's a tough one. Generally, more manual control comes with more costly models. At the top of the field are digital SLRs; and the Canon is the cheapest of them.
(Of course, film - based photography has been around for over 100 years, and that technology is the traditional and cheaper means to learn basic photography.)
If the plunge into that pool is within your means, then splash away; it's the path to the future. Good luck!

Helen,

i looked into the DIGILUX 2 before i got my rebel, DIGILUX 2 has a great glass, very nice range at 28-90, but the camera is nothing more then a rebranded Panasonic Lumix DMC-LC1 .

although there is no mirror slap, there also is no mirror, it pretty much an expensive point and shot with all manual function done through the lcd, including focus, so you still have to deal with on screen menus and functions, if anything the rebel can be used with less lcd menu fickling..

the digilux will be out in feb, US price is set to be $1850.00 now compare that small 2/3 noisy ccd (11.000 x 6.600) to the rebel's 22.7 x 15.1 mm CMOS sensor (slightly bigger then 4/3) at 900.00

the rebel for the time being is the best bang for the buck for a real d-srl

"best bang for the buck..."

That's about how I would put it.

Since interchangeable-lens SLRs are kind of the default form-factor for the industry, that's what I would like to see someone learn on. Something like the Rebel is the perfect starter. Then, no matter how high up the totem pole you go later (Nikon D2X or whatever, even a "real" film cam) it's going to be familiar territory.

Nail down a good body, then you can accessorize like crazy as you go (Canon has a huge catalogue of lenses and other goodies). One thing to consider first, a speedlight so you don't have to keep using that wimpy built-in flash. A 550EX if you can afford it.

Wow, thanks, Robert, Helen, Mike and Douglas for your helpful info and encouragement!

I'm intrigued by Jeff's observations:

"However, it is lacking a long list of features required of a camera before a professional would look at it."

"Does that mean that the Digital Rebel can't produce images suitable for professional work? No, the image quality meets or exceeds 35mm film in almost all conditions."

Jeff, it's great to hear the Rebel produces such outstanding images. But with the Rebel's diminished pro-features, would it necessarily be better to learn basic SLR-photography on a film camera?

Also, could anyone kindly suggest a book that covers basic photography principles and techniques?

Thanks, again!

Dorothy

Dorothy,

Digital is the best thing for learning about photography as you can experiment and see the results instantly. Many purists will disagree and rave on about manual cameras and developing your own work but in today's relality digital cameras and printing are what beginners should be learning. Where you used to learn about matrix metering, manual flash exposure, fixer, and developing times you now learn about histograms, colour profiles, and white balance.

Adrian just said it all(most), don't forget shutter speed and aperature still give photographs thier look.

Thanks Steve, I wanted to write more about exposure control and composition etc but had to go to work.

But, as I said earlier digital is great for learning, I'd been shooting for 5 years before I ventured into a darkroom. I did it once for the experience then went back to the computer.

Dorothy, books are good for ideas but the best thing you can do is get a Rebel, a couple of cards and start shooting, this way you develop your own style and don't end up emulating someone elses. Pick different subjects and blast away trying different combinations of settings. First of all use the auto modes to develop your eye for composition. Then as you start to get better venture into the creative modes and finally manual mode.

I would like to join the chorus one more time and say it's just like the old corny joke about the young out-of-towner who approaches one of New York's Finest and asks "excuse me officer, how do I get to Carnegie Hall?" The cop answered "Practice, practice, practice."

And so it is with photography. The more you do it, the better you get. And I believe you will get a lot more practice with the Digi-Reb than with any film camera because you don't have the hurdles of getting the film to and from the lab, to say nothing of the expense. My latest digicam has 3K shots on it in 6 months without even trying, which is like 125 rolls of film. (and the little one I got just before it has almost the same number of shots...that would never have happened if I were shooting "real" film.)

Some of the pro features on the 10D are not going to be missed by the beginner, and the Reb still has enough shutter and aperture adjustments to give you the necessary experience. And I don't think it's realistic to expect most people to ever get into the darkroom, although it's a good idea. When my daughter was in middle school, they still taught basic B/W darkroom technique in Photography class. I wonder if they still do.

If I was going to get a 10d over a Digital Rebel, durability would not be the reason. They are both built on a steel frame but the Rebel has a polycarbonate (ok, it's plastic) skin. It may sound cheesy, but if you pick one up and handle it, it feels just as solid as a 10d, and the plastic isn't the same cheap stuff kids toys are made up. It is hard. Remember they make handguns out of plastic these days too.

Anyway, a quick memory buffer question....
I was squeezing off continuous shots on a Digtal Rebel, and after taking the first four shots at full speed, which is supposed to be the buffer limit, it continued shooting but at a slower pace, maybe three shots every two seconds? I probably took about 20 photos like this before I stopped. I thought it would only take 4 shots, then have to write them all, but I was wrong. Do you know how many it can take continuously (at any speed) before having to stop and write them all to the card? It was set at full resolution mode, if it makes a difference.
Oh, once I stopped shooting, it took the camera a looong time to write those 20 pictures to the card. At least a minute or two I think.

Steven, Adrian......thanks!!!!!

"...books are good for ideas but the best thing you can do is get a Rebel, a couple of cards and start shooting, this way you develop your own style and don't end up emulating someone elses. Pick different subjects and blast away trying different combinations of settings."

Adrian, I just wanted a book recommendation to get up to snuff on photography essentials. I have no desire, nor ability for that matter, to emulate others' styles as I always wind up doing my own thing!

"First of all use the auto modes to develop your eye for composition. Then as you start to get better venture into the creative modes and finally manual mode."

I appreciate your suggestions, Adrian. I already have a project in mind! Hope to get my Rebel before next summer. Any chance for an upgrade in 2004?

Happy Chanukah from Santa Monica!

Dorothy

"I would like to join the chorus one more time and say it's just like the old corny joke about the young out-of-towner who approaches one of New York's Finest and asks "excuse me officer, how do I get to Carnegie Hall?" The cop answered "Practice, practice, practice."

Har! Har! So that's why I wound up in Carnegie Hall as a paying customer and not the star attraction!!!

If there's one thing I've learned since my less than sterling piano lessons of yore, it's when one absolutely, fabulously loves to do something, than it transcends pedestrian practice and becomes play and not work.

Thanks for your encouraging words, Mike!

Dorothy

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : Hi Peter,

The Digital Rebel is certainly affordable, but it is definitely not true-professional quality gear. It's very much a consumer piece, with the same plastic body as the consumer-level Rebel Ti 35mm SLR. The Canon EOS 10D, which is a D-SLR with the same chip as the Digital Rebel, is a step toward professional-quality gear. -->>>

Well I guess thats the same argument ppl uses for real broadcast gear vs. our feasily DV cameras.

I'm a happy user of both the EOS-1Ds and the Digital Rebel.

I love them both like children, and the Digital Rebel is a very good camera as well.. but something I like to use when I don't have the presure of professional shooting. It's good for a B camera in the sense that when I'm using the rebel I don't risk my larger investment into the 1Ds.

Robert wrote: 'i looked into the DIGILUX 2 before i got my rebel, DIGILUX 2 has a great glass, very nice range at 28-90, but the camera is nothing more then a rebranded Panasonic Lumix DMC-LC1 .

although there is no mirror slap, there also is no mirror, it pretty much an expensive point and shot with all manual function done through the lcd, including focus, so you still have to deal with on screen menus and functions, if anything the rebel can be used with less lcd menu fickling..'

Listen, I did describe myself as an old stick-in-the-mud. Perhaps that was wrong. I'm not so much sticking in the mud as swimming upstream, but someone's got to do it.

From what I've seen the important functions (focus, shutter speed and aperture) are all controlled by old-fashioned rings and dials. No messing with menus at all. If the Digilux 1 is anything to go by, the Digilux 2 will be more than a rebranded Panasonic - not that there is anything wrong with the Panasonics.

It also differs from most point-and-shoots in having an electronic viewfinder as well as the LCD screen. To me, an EVF seems better than a reflex mirror - you see what is going to be recorded. But that is just my opinion. How many video cameras use reflex viewing in preference to an EVF? (I remember using a reflex video camera back in the 70's)

As far as the brand image of Leica goes, it is best ignored. Leica make idiosyncratic equipment that offers an alternative to the mainstream. I have no wish whatsoever to persuade people to get Leica stuff, or that Leica is any 'better' (whatever that means) than others, just to make them aware that there is an alternative out there (and that it is not mis-represented). It's right for some of us - these are our brushes, not CNC machine tools.

Of course the most important thing is not whether you have a Leica or a Lomo - it is that you use it.

Best,
Helen

Helen wrote"...If the Digilux 1 is anything to go by, the Digilux 2 will be more than a rebranded Panasonic ..."

actually its the exact same camera, except the panasonic is all black and the leica is in its familiar fashion, both cameras are built entirely by panasonic, even the lenses...pretty much like the dvx100 with the leica lens

"this is not your fathers leica",
yes it does have a viewfinder, which features a 5x multiplier box and manual control

however...

the cameras' iso is only 100-400 with a very small and noisy 2/3 chip much too limiting, also shutter speed is limited to 8- to 1/2000

my feeling for the limitations are the small ccd, at 800iso it would have more noise then a someone who just paid $1,800 can stand

longtime leica film owners will feel disapointed jumping into the digital pool with this cam, and it's a shame too

thats why i said this was a glorified point and shoot, folks who want more range will look somewhere else, while yuppies that shop by brand will be the ones picking up this $1,800 cam

although you are right it doesn't matter what type of camera you have, it's what pictures you take.. :)

Funny how the mention of Leica sparks off anti-Leica feeling like no other camera make.

Apart from the cosmetic differences, the Digilux 1 has different firmware from the Panasonic. The images they produce look quite different. They are not 'the exact same'. This was deliberate policy by the Leica/Panasonic team to produce cameras for two different types of user. However, I'll admit that the similarities outweigh the small differences.

Any long-time Leica M owner who 'jumps into the digital pool' with any current camera will be disappointed if they expect the same performance: there is nothing quite like the M in a digital form made by anybody. They will not be disappointed if they are prepared to learn a new way of working.

As I said in my previous post, Leicas are not for everybody, they aren't the 'best', and I'm not trying to persuade anyone to buy one. It is a shame to see them and their users misrepresented.

Robert, can we agree to differ in our views? I know that I'm not going to change your mind, and I really don't wish to argue with you because I agree with you on much more than these minor details that we disagree on!

Best,
Helen
(just in case you were wondering - I've been using Leica M's since '77, so call me a yuppie brand-shopper. There was a time when my Leica kit was worth more than my house - I lived in a 'colliery row' in a mining village in Northern England. It's just a matter of getting your priorities right!)

"Funny how the mention of Leica sparks off anti-Leica feeling like no other camera make."

Well, I don't have a dog in this fight, since I don't have any anti-any-brand feeling and consider myself reasonably objective when iit comes to shelling out hard-earned cash for equipment, so i'll weigh in.

This new product, if Robert's specs are accurate, seems to be worth nowhere near the asking price, no matter whose name is on the front. You can go ahead and call it a Hasselblad or a Gowlandflex for that matter, and it will still have the same chip and ISO limits. etc. And a longtime Leica M user wouldn't even contemplate going down this road, they would not be fooled. But a newbie with money to burn might be taken in by the prestige of the name and be expecting the quality of the legendary M series. But isn't that a bit like if Rolls-Royce were buying Saabs and putting the boxy grille and winged lady on the front and selling them as Rollers?

As for EVFs, I'm happy to leave them where they belong, on camcorders. I've been using still cameras too long to accept anything but an SLR or a proper rangefinder.

It's time to get this thread back on topic folks.

One thing I haven't noticed us talking much about is that there is another motivation for considering an SLR like the Rebel--interchangeable lenses.

Why is this important? Well, it's pretty well known that digital electronics in general and specifically digital camera electronics are on a pretty steep technology curve, where they just keep getting cheaper and faster all the time. For instance, it wasn't so long ago that a 6.3 MP SLR for less than $1000 was unimaginable. But lens technology is on a much flatter trajectory, so the lens you buy today might be the one you strap onto the camera you buy to replace your Rebel three years from now. Actually, when I bought my 10D, the first lens I put on it was a three-year-old 28-80 zoom that I had.

As long as Canon keep coming out with SLRs that fit the whole catalogue of EF lenses (and the whole aftermarket of Canon-compatible lenses) as they do now, that glass you buy will be a good long-term investment and may actually hold its value better than the body.

That'a a good point Mike. If SLR lens compatability is a factor, Nikon is the clear winner. Canon's history isn't quite so good. If past performance for both still and video cameras is anything to go by, Canon are quite happy to change mounts completely.

Best,
Helen
(I still use my perfectly good T90 but have resisted 'upgrading' to a newer Canon because of the huge investment in new glass - because old Canon lenses don't fit new Canon bodies)