[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gene Clean
[B]For a person who was successful enough to form a company that was 'in the business for a long time' you certainly show some lack of understanding about pro photography, camera weight, the importance of stability, and last but not least, you show a disturbing lack of grammar skills. In a hurry?
Thank you for commenting on the fact that I neglected to check through my post, as I usually do. That makes your argument stronger, no doubt.
I certainly don't lack knowledge about pro photography. I'm willing to match my knowledge against yours any time.
Camera weight is a matter of preference. While theoretically, a heavier camera will add to stability, and I prefer heaver cameras myself, there isn't much to be gained when using wide angle to moderate tele zoom lenses. Another few ounces one way or the other won't make a difference in low light conditions either. What matters more, is how you hold the camera, how you stand, whether you let your breath out when pressing the shutter, and whether you have mastered the gentle release.
Smaller people with small hands often have more problems with large, heavy cameras than with small, light ones. A heavy camera will often lead to hand shake for someone who isn't strong.
I'm certainly not recommending a Rebel, or for that matter, a D50, for a pro. As a main camera, they will choose higher end models. Even the D200, and the 30D aren't considered to be pro models. They are both thought of as prosumer models, or, at best, light duty studio cameras.
But, pros will throw them into their camera bags just to be safe.
Unfortunately, not all pros do the kind of work that generates the kind of fees that will enable them to spend upwards of $4,000 on a body. Those pro's may rely on D200's, and 30D's. They will throw Rebels and D70's in their bags instead.
You missed the whole point. They can use rose gold and pay through the nose for it, but that doesn't change the fact that the camera feels like a snapshot camera that is cheaply built. 'Cheaply built' doesn't mean that the exterior was cheap to get for Canon, or that it's made of cardboard, but that it's a camera that was not built to last a long time.
We've already had a post from someone who doesn't agree with your statement.
But, just how long do you expect any of these low end camera's to last? Models that were criticized as being plastic and flimsy have lasted for three decades now. Polycarbonate is more rugged than the aluminum that most camera bodies were made from. When an aluminum body drops onto a hard surface, it often cracks. The parts inside are subject to the enormous shock. With poly bodies, the camera remains intact. The interior sustains less damage. The lighter weight of these bodies contributes to that as well, as less mass is involved.
The very expensive pro bodies are made from heavy magnesium castings that sustain much less damage than aluminum ones that cheaper bodies use. The pro bodies are also designed with shock mounting for critical assemblies. They are also carefully sealed against dust, water, and some chemicals. None of the lower price cameras can claim that, though the D200, and the 30D do have some seals in delicate areas.
Weight and feel are not good indicators of longevity.
Not in a discussion about camera bodies.
The discussion isn't just about camera bodies.
Again, this doesn't matter when talking about the build quality of the CAMERA BODY. Lenses are interchangeable. The body is not. That's the point.
And Canon lenses are not a God's gift to humanity, au contraire, most of Canon lenses are lenses that are not of higher quality when compared to Nikon/Nikkor lenses; only the highest of high-end Canon lenses have a slight advantage when compared to high-end Nikon lenses.
The rest are... well, lenses.
We have to compare oranges to oranges. Or, lens lines to lens lines. Both Canon, and Nikon have several lines of lenses. The cheap lines that beginners buy. Those are bought by those buying the cheapest 35mm bodies. the mechanical and optical is pretty good, considering what people are being charged for them.
Then there are the medium quality lenses. Those are bought mostly by amateurs. They are made better, and the optical quality is also better. They may be a half stop or so faster as well.
Then there the pro lenses. These are often much more expensive. Again, they are more rugged, and have much better optical quality. They MAY be faster.
At last we have the top of the line lenses. These use special glass, fluorite (yes, a few lenses still use it), and aspheric elements. They also have complex focusing and zooming mechanisms. They are often faster than any other lenses in their focal length. 300mm f 2.8, 400mm f 2.8, 600mm f 4, etc. These are much more expensive than even the regular pro lenses.
so, compare line to line.
The cheap lenses are a catch as catch can. None of them will win any prizes except when compared to each other. The comparisons between the better lenses are more meaningful, because if one is going to buy only the cheapest lenses, they any camera is good enough.