Novice questions about Canon cameras

I've been thinking about buying a Canon Rebel TI. On paper it looks
like a great value, tons of versatilty, innovation, and great features
at a real good price. But... I handled one the other day and found
myself wondering if it was very well built. It just didn't feel that
solid in my hand.

Is the Rebel TI a durable product? Would I be better of buying a
higher end used camera for about the same kind of money. It seems
like an ELAN 7E might be comparable in price used.
If the Rebel TI gets good marks for quality, I can see no reason not
to buy it. I have read some reviews. Most ofthem were good, but the
one bad one said that the camera wasn't well built.

So I turn to you camera buffs for insight. Thanks in advance for any
helpful comments

Matt

 

Where did you ever get the idea to buy this kind of crap? Get hold of
a used Leicaflex and get to know what a REAL camera feels like, sonny
boy.

 

Where did you ever get the idea to buy this kind of crap. Get hold of
a used Leicaflex and get to know what a REAL camera feels like, sonny
boy.

 

The camera is quite well built. The body is made of polycarbonate, an
engineering plastic that is better than metal. Don't let lightness fool you.
On the other hand, if you are an experienced 35mm SLR user, teh Elan 7 is a
camera you will not outgrow. It can do most things faster than any Rebel and
is a camera used by many professionals. My wife has an Elan 7 and I swear
it's the best consumer priced camera I've ever used.

 

Well, since your the only answer I have so far, I'll bite.

I went to ebay and dug into leicaflex. Limited stuff to see, but
either very spendy (by my standards) or old and beat up, with repairs
and lenses needed. Must be a high quality unit, but I think that a
latemodel one in good shape will run more than I want to spend.

Why do you consider the Canon equipment to be crap? That's kind of
what I was trying to find out anyway.

Sonny Boy
aka
Matt

 

My girlfriend has the ti (I have a 2000). It is an excellent camera.
It doesm feel light, I agree. If you buy the battery grip, which I
recommend anyway just for the battery issue, it feels much more
substantial and comfortable in your hand. At least, to me.

 

Thanks Tony, that's very helpful. I appreciate the insight.

Matt

 

Gee, Scarface. Is that nervous twitch getting the better of you? We only
need to hear your bile once, thank you.

 

Thanks Dave, that's a good tip about the battery grip. I'm starting
to warm up to the Rebel Ti after much research and positive comments
here on the list. I'm going to have some questions about lenses next.

Matt

 

Firstly, if you have to ask these questions, you are probably at the
stage where you really do not need an autofocus camera, or at least
don't know that you do.

Secondly, the Rebel and other consumo Canon cameras available are
not, under any circumstances, all that durable. The pro models are
built with different materials and they are not particularly known for
ruggedness vis-a-vis the metal cameras.

Mr.Spadaro to the contrary, polycarbonate is not more durable than a
good aluminum structure. The 70s and early 80s SLR families were and
still are more durable, more reliable, and far more repairable-when
parts are to be had-than the current generation of cameras.


Canon PRO bodies and lenses are not poor tools: they are very
versatile, reasonably rugged, their user interface is liked by some,
and the optical quality is good. The consumer versions such as the
Rebel are none of the above.

Hands down, used manual focus gear is probably a better bet: if you
are determined to own new I would look at Nikon. Not that Canon is
necessarily poorer, but manual and autofocus Nikon optics interchange
and there are a lot of them.

Why do camera manufacturers work so hard at making new camera models,
with more and more functionality, but less ruggedness and user
elegance? One reason is that the new camera invariably costs less to
build. Plastics are moldable, with an upfront outlay for tooling, but
very low unit cost once set up. And electronics are cheap if made in
volume. On the other hand, the more stuff it does, the easier it is to
promote, and most camera buyers are not knowledgeable or even
intelligent.

Medium format has changed much less than 35mm since the "Golden Era",
and large format even less. Large format, being tripod-bound and
heavy, is never bought as a phallic status symbol (or far more
rarely), and occasionally medium format is, but not nearly as often as
35mm.

If I were starting from scratch I would look around for manual focus
mechanical or semi-mechanical 35mm SLRs from Nikon, Canon or Pentax,
used and not cosmetically perfect, at good prices. I have bought used
Canon and Pentax cameras with the obligatory 50mm lens for as cheap as
$50 for gifts and "loaners" and at that price can afford to shelf a
body or lens if it proves bad against the day when I set up a proper
camera repair bench or can supply it for parts if needed. Autofocus
cameras should IMO be viewed as specialized tools for pros and
dedicated amateurs in particular fields.

When buyers smarten up, the camera manufacturers will have to go back
to making the cameras people want. Yes, digital will kill much of the
market currently extant for 35mm. That's ok because it's still going
to be bigger than the large format market. The end of consumo film
cameras and minilabs will be a blessing for good photography.

 

Even if he doesn't "need" autofocus, it is sure handy to have for
situations when you typically do - like sports or action.

They're plenty durable for ordinary use. No camera is going to like
being dropped - the consumer models might fair slightly worse, but the
best thing is not to drop the camera or abuse it in the first place.

It is quite a bit more durable. Is it as rigid? No. Will it deform
upon impact like aluminum? No. Is it lighter and cheaper to
manufacture? Yes.

Polycarbonate is a excellent material if you know what it can and cannot
do. Unfortunately, many people do not know what it can do, much less
what it can't. Without getting too technical, it's rugged enough for
most people who aren't going to drag it across rocks.

I don't see the relevancy. Are you putting your cameras through the
wash?

Nikon manual and autofocus interchange to a point - many of the newer
(especially consumer) models do not fully support the older lenses. Not
necessarily a point in Nikon's favor.

Uh, progress is good? Better to have features you use occasionally with
good results than never have them in the first place. Technology is not
the devil.

I don't think people are breaking any more cameras today than they used
to (per capita, at least), so I doubt the build is a valid worry.

....which has nothing to do with anything.

Judging by market trends and camera sales, the camera manufacturers HAVE
smartened up. They produce affordable cameras with wide feature sets
that appeal to amateurs. They also produce tank-like metal bodies with
expensive glass for professionals. Depending on your whim, you can go
nearly any direction at any budget and still get better gear than you
could have 20 or 30 years ago.

Now the REAL point of this post should have been: "It's the
photographer, not the camera."

 

My that was helpful.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

My that was helpful.

 

Even if he doesn't "need" autofocus, it is sure handy to have for

Here's an example of a shot I would like to have auto focus for... a
bald eagle is coming in close to pick up a fish I have just thrown
back.

(Snip discussion of merits of plastics versus aluminum bodies. Very
informative.)

Left it in cause it made me laugh. Good one. I've put my cell phone
through the wash. I learned that they are NOT submersible.

Gotta admit it... I am probably a fairly typical consumer. I look for
technology to help me do things I should probably learn how to do the
old fashioned way. I'm impressed with trick stuff. Also, since I
don't really know what to look for in used equipment, I'm afraid I'll
buy someone else's problems for not knowing better. I looked hard at
some of the old Canon's but never had a sense of peace that I was
getting something good, and I felt like I was sacrificing things that
were not available at that time. I'm always afraid I'll miss
something. That's why I was drawn to that sigma lens package. 2 zoom
lens's for the same kind of money as one? That makes my mouth water.
I'm just glad I took the time to ask you guys before strolling down
that garden path.

I know this is true. A certain percentage of the pictures I have
taken with my point and shoot 35mm and with my olympus digital have
turned out very well, because I put some thought into composition. Or
sometimes I just got lucky. But I believe the SLR will greatly
enhance my luck and increase my capabilities, especially with low
light and action type shots. Anyway, I'm excited about taking more
nice photographs and less snapshots.

The reviews I have read comparing the various models comparable to the
Rebel Ti seem to favor the Ti on most fronts. I know that in other
price ranges, there are probably better quality products. Incidently,
here's the deal I have found that looks great compared to anything
else I have seen, new or used.

www.buydig.com offers the Rebel Ti, with the Canon 28-90 IIM zoom,
batteries, caps and strap brand new for $198. B&H offers the same
package for $40 more. PriceGrabber.com shows Buydig.com has a very
high satisfaction rating. This is $100 less than my local guy will
do. I have a feeling this is a bargain that will hold up.

Thanks for the helpful feedback Ted and Brian.

Matt

 

(Matt) wrote in

I have a Revel XS, a Rebel G, and a TI. The TI is a work camera
actually; the others I've used for a long time and have been very
happy with. I generally shoot slides outdoors, but often pack a
second body for B&W prints, so have been carrying two Rebels for
well over a decade. The TI is the best of the lot; while it feels
light the polycarb body is tough. They finally used a metal lens
mount, and the overall form factor and controls are improved.

I'd suggest looking for a used Rebel from someone who is trading
up or giving up on film. There are a lot out there in almost
unused condition, sometimes to be had with several lenses at
bargain prices. Or buy a new TI at a warehouse club (Sams or
Costco) and look at B&H or CameraWorld for additional lenses
after you have shot enough film to know what you want.

People will argue about this forever, but the Rebels are easy to
use for beginners, very reliable, and quite capable of taking
excellent photos. If you're starting out and want a Canon
autofocus, there's really not much reason to consider another
model.

-Derek

 

Get one in your hands, and that will convince you.

If it looks like crap, smells like crap, etc........

You found out.

 

Wow Scarpitiful, I thought they had you:

http://www.cdfe.org/scarpitti_captured.htm

 

IMO, you'll probably want AF, not necessarily because you'll want to use
it all the time (although IMO that's pretty likely), but because today,
its an Industry Standard and you'll eventually run into hassles if you
don't have it because you'll be incompatible with the rest of the world.

Also, because AF is so common, you'll also probably generally find that
it will be more expensive for you to try to avoidthis feature than
simply buying a camera with AF and turning it off when you don't want it.

Its kind of like trying to buy a quality car and avoid power windows

Yeah, a pretty good discussion. There were two things I didn't see
mentioned. One was that some people have fairly strong preferences for
retaining metal in their lens mount, under the rationale that this is
the highest-wear item. Not sure how many grains of salt to apply here,
although it does make sense. IIRC, some of the Rebel had a plastic
mount; on the Canon line I think you need to upgrade to the Elan to make
sure its metal.

The second was that physical camera weight helps reduce body shake.
OTOH, being too heavy makes it an anchor that becomes a hassle, so you
leave the SLR at home and take the P&S...ultimately counterproductive.
There needs to be a compromise based on how you're going to use the
equipment, or else its going to become a Garage Queen.

And on durability, the reality is that barring some obvious abuse or
accident, most consumer-grade cameras are sufficiently durable such that
by the time that it wears out because of its "inferior" construction,
there will probably be enough new product features that will tempt you
to buy a new replacement anyway, and its manufacturing advantages will
provide cost breaks such as what we see right now with the digital Rebel
versus the 10D: $599 vs $1199 is hard to argue against.

You have to go pretty far up the product lines to get to the dust/water
resistant models with O-rings...and your lens costs are going to be what
you notice a lot more than your body cost.

A very fair point. In general, you have to decide how much "legwork"
you're willing to do to try to minimize your buyer's risks. Since this
level of consumer gear simply isn't expensive, I'd opt for the extra
bucks to buy new and get a "real" warranty. I know that used is
technically a better deal, but after including a cost factor on how much
my time investment is worth, its a close enough horse race.

Just beware of "2 cheap lenses for the price of 1 good lens" offers

And while its probably out of your price range of consideration, I've
been surprised to find an advertisement from A&M Photo World of a Canon
EOS-3, a 28-135mm IS, 75-300mm IS and the usual package extras for
$1299, which is roughly $300 less than the sum of their individual
costs; nearly a 20% discount. If I had my Canon film gear burned in a
car fire this afternoon, this is probably the package I'd buy to rebuild
from.

With your anticipated application being stuff other than basic/normal,
you'll probably have a greater need for the "advanced" features, which
will affect what you believe your choices to be. Personally, I find I
use depth-of-field functions (& preview of same) a lot, so that's an
important feature for my next SLR, whatever and wherever that will be.


-hh