Lisa Horton <Lisanews1_at_lisahorton.net> wrote in message news:<4040ED86.71EF28A1_at_lisahorton.net>...
> "pioe[rmv]" wrote:
> >
> > David J. Littleboy wrote:
> >
> > > Really. The film Rebels last forever.
> >
> > Oh yes. There is no problem finding people who can tell you how
> > content they are with cheap products, and how stupid it is to desire
> > something more. This can be seen with stereo equipment, electronic
> > drills, bicycles, scanners or whatever. There is however no denying
> > the increased reliability and longer service life of the better
> > constructions.
> >
> > > And I prefer the feel of the Rebel to
> > > the 10D. Useless weight is stupid, and the camera fits my hand perfectly.
> > > I'll put up with an EOS 3 based dSLR if it has a full-frame sensor in it,
> > > but I'll be irritated about the ergonomics.
> >
> > Many others would not hesitate to say that the firm feeling of the 10D
> > makes it a much more pleasant tool to work with. A solid construction
> > is never useless, and I can only encourage everyone to try out the
> > alternatives for themselves.
>
> I use both a 10D and a DRebel, regularly. I don't find the Rebel
> particularly cheap feeling, nor does it seem poorly constructed. Like
> David, and unlike many others, I don't feel that more weight is
> automatically better. Although the 10D does seem more solid and robust,
> the difference does not seem particularly large. This is very different
> from the situation with the film SLR's, where the Rebel's do seem
> considerably less robust and durable than even the next line up, the
> Elan's.
>
> I actually find the Rebel preferable to hold and carry, but many
> situations call for the increased functionality of the 10D. If the 10D
> was the size and weight of the 300D, I would not be unhappy.
>
> >
> > An EOS 3-based camera with the capabilities of the 1D Mk II would be
> > an excellent product.
>
> Agreed strongly, as long as the 3D had a form factor similar to the 10D
> or EOS 3, and not like the 1D MkII
>
> Lisa
Unfortunetly, I don't own either of the cameras in question, (yet) but
if I ever get the $$ it would be for the 10D, mostly because of the
added weight.
(It's the lens that takes the picture, not the body.) Since I, like
most other folks, often don't use a tripod, I find that the added
weight of a heavier camera helps me get sharper pictures. I use a
Canon T90, and F1 for "serious" shooting and a old Kodak DC3400 for
(digital) ebay use. I've tried the new tiny digital cameras for ebay
postings but cannot get sharp pictures unless I put the little things
on a tripod. I surely wouldn't want to rely on one for general travel
photography unless I always used a tripod.
