Canon finally dumps HORRIBLE Rebel body!

Discussion in 'Canon' started by RichA, Jan 24, 2008.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Jan 24, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. 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...
    Joseph Meehan, Jan 24, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    TH O Guest

    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.
    TH O, Jan 25, 2008
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    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.
    RichA, Jan 25, 2008
  5. RichA

    dwight Guest

    Mine continues to have a good run.

    I can't believe you buy a camera based on its cuteness.

    dwight, Jan 25, 2008
  6. RichA

    rwalker Guest

    I agree.

    What an incredibly stupid thread.
    rwalker, Jan 25, 2008
  7. RichA

    Mr. Strat Guest

    We're all still waiting for him to buy a camera...period.
    Mr. Strat, Jan 25, 2008
  8. RichA

    Guest Guest

    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.
    Guest, Jan 25, 2008
  9. Welcome to the HORRIBLE world of RichA. Always stupid thread maker

    Dr Hfuhruhurr, Jan 25, 2008
    Joseph Meehan, Jan 25, 2008
  11. RichA

    Bob G Guest

    Would you also say, "I can't believe you like a picture based on its
    Cuteness has a lot to do with it.
    What would life be like without cuteness?
    Bob G, Jan 25, 2008
  12. RichA

    Neil H. Guest

    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

    Neil H., Jan 25, 2008
  13. 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

    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.
    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
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jan 25, 2008
  14. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Cheap, flimsy, ergonomic nightmare made for people with the hands of
    midgets. Apart from that, it was fine.
    RichA, Jan 25, 2008
  15. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Yes, sure. Whatever you say.
    RichA, Jan 25, 2008
  16. RichA

    RichA Guest

    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.
    RichA, Jan 25, 2008
  17. RichA

    Mr. Strat Guest

    I wouldn't buy it because it was a Sony.
    Mr. Strat, Jan 25, 2008
  18. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Sounds like you might have been burned by a Sony product in the past?
    RichA, Jan 25, 2008
  19. 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.
    Joseph Meehan, Jan 25, 2008
  20. RichA

    Mr. Strat Guest

    No. Like Sigma, I avoid products made by companies that are known to

    With respect to digital photography, I've yet to see where Sony has a
    Mr. Strat, Jan 25, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.