«

I've been trying for the past three hours to learn something about the
difference between the (relatively cheap) Rebel XT series and the EOS
10D, 20D, 30D, etc. I'm relatively new to high-end digital
photography, and for some reason, Googling the question isn't
delivering any results.

Why are the lower-pixel, totally digital EOS series so extremely
expensive and the Rebel series so (relatively) cheap? If DSLRs are by
definition better than any digital camera, what about the EOS series
(or any extremely high-end series by any manufacturer) makes them SO
very expensive--and worth the money?

<> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news: ups.com...
> I've been trying for the past three hours to learn something about the
> difference between the (relatively cheap) Rebel XT series and the EOS
> 10D, 20D, 30D, etc. I'm relatively new to high-end digital
> photography, and for some reason, Googling the question isn't
> delivering any results.
>
> Why are the lower-pixel, totally digital EOS series so extremely
> expensive and the Rebel series so (relatively) cheap? If DSLRs are by
> definition better than any digital camera, what about the EOS series
> (or any extremely high-end series by any manufacturer) makes them SO
> very expensive--and worth the money?



"Amateur" Cameras: High volume production, extensive use of molded plastic
parts, built to withstand a few years of typical amateur use (weekend and
vacation shooting), no full frame (24 x 36 mm) sensors - good choice for
amateurs.

"Pro" - Cameras: Low volume production, cost of R&D and tooling has to be
recovered with small series, use of more durable materials to give years of
reliable operation for professional use (like catalog photos, perhaps in
tropical climatic conditions), many with full frame sensors.
Worth the money if you use them as a professional.

On Nov 2, 11:55 am, "Cgiorgio" <m...@nowhere.org> wrote:

>"Amateur" Cameras: High volume production, extensive use of molded plastic
> parts, built to withstand a few years of typical amateur use (weekend and
> vacation shooting), no full frame (24 x 36 mm) sensors - good choice for
> amateurs.
>
> "Pro" - Cameras: Low volume production, cost of R&D and tooling has to be
> recovered with small series, use of more durable materials to give years of
> reliable operation for professional use (like catalog photos, perhaps in
> tropical climatic conditions), many with full frame sensors.
> Worth the money if you use them as a professional.

Wow, you said it all. Thanks.

> wrote:
>
> I've been trying for the past three hours to learn something about the
> difference between the (relatively cheap) Rebel XT series and the EOS
> 10D, 20D, 30D, etc.
> Why are the lower-pixel, totally digital EOS series so extremely
> expensive and the Rebel series so (relatively) cheap?

In the film era Canon had several different bodies (with the same
"resolution" that were priced roughly double each step up the
features/performance ladder. For example the film Rebel (entry level)
was roughly $200, the Elan series $400, the EOS-3 (more serious
amateurs, some pros) was $800 and the 1V (professionals) about $1,600
just for the body.

The more expensive models feature faster autofocus, more precise AF, AF
at f/8 instead of f/5.6 min aperture, better build construction, longer
lasting shutters, faster frame rates for continuous shooting,
weatherproofing etc etc ...

To a large extent the same differences are in the digital bodies.

Bill

Bill Hilton wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>>I've been trying for the past three hours to learn something about the
>>difference between the (relatively cheap) Rebel XT series and the EOS
>>10D, 20D, 30D, etc.
>>Why are the lower-pixel, totally digital EOS series so extremely
>>expensive and the Rebel series so (relatively) cheap?
>
>
> In the film era Canon had several different bodies (with the same
> "resolution" that were priced roughly double each step up the
> features/performance ladder. For example the film Rebel (entry level)
> was roughly $200, the Elan series $400, the EOS-3 (more serious
> amateurs, some pros) was $800 and the 1V (professionals) about $1,600
> just for the body.
>
> The more expensive models feature faster autofocus, more precise AF, AF
> at f/8 instead of f/5.6 min aperture, better build construction, longer
> lasting shutters, faster frame rates for continuous shooting,
> weatherproofing etc etc ...
>
> To a large extent the same differences are in the digital bodies.

In other words, what you're paying more for is generally quality of
construction, and number and quality of "extras".

All of the cameras you mention are part of the EOS group, as are all of the
autofocus film cameras. EOS represents, "Electronic Optical System."
Outside the US, the Rebel series is marketed as EOS 300D, 350D and 400D.
The Rebels are less expensive because they are more lightly built, and lack
some features of the more expensive cameras. The 10D and 20D you mention
are out of production, and are the contemporaries of the Rebel D and Xt,
respectively, both with the same pixel count as the more expensive versions.
The 30D was introduced after the Rebel XTi, and will probably be replaced
sooner than later. Other members of the EOS family, the EOS 5D and 1Ds
mkII, have higher pixel counts than the XTi, and the 1D mkIIn has a much
higher frame rate. Both 1 series cameras have very rugged bodies and
weather sealing, which lesser bodies lack, not just the XTi. The 30D and 5D
have more metal in their construction, spot metering, larger buffers, other
advantages. The 5D and 1Ds mkII have what are known as "full frame"
sensors, i.e, sensors that are the same size as a frame of 35mm film, rather
than roughly 2/3 that size. Such sensors are much more expensive to
manufacture, currently, but give an advantage in noise and with wide angle
lenses.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

On Nov 2, 9:21 pm, "Skip" <shadowcatc...@cox.net> wrote:

> The 5D and 1Ds mkII have what are known as "full frame"
> sensors, i.e, sensors that are the same size as a frame of 35mm film, rather
> than roughly 2/3 that size. Such sensors are much more expensive to
> manufacture, currently, but give an advantage in noise and with wide angle
> lenses.

Thanks for the comprehensive response. I do not understand, however,
the difference (in this context) between "full frame sensor" and
the--well, "lens" (?) in a DSLR. Are you saying the D series are as
expensive as they are because their lens is full frame AND electronic,
while the Rebel series is full frame but not electronic? Sorry if this
sounds stupid.

Please re-read my post. Only the two models I mention are full frame. ALL
of the cameras are what you call "D series," even the Rebel (the initial
digital Rebel was just that, the Rebel D.) All Canon autofocus SLR-type
cameras, whether film or digital, carry the EOS designation. All of the
cameras are electronic (they have to be, digital is electronic.) Full frame
and APS-C refer to sensor dimensions relative to older film dimensions, the
Rebel XTi and 30D are APS-C sensor cameras or have sensors the size of the
old APS film. The 5D and 1Ds mkII are full frame or have sensors the size
of 35mm film. One result of this is that there is a so called "crop" factor
with the smaller, APS-C sensor cameras that gives the apparent effect of
having telephoto lenses appear to have greater reach than the same lens on a
full frame sensor camera or on a film camera, figuring to a factor of 1.6x,
i.e. take the listed focal length of the lens and multiply by 1.6x to obtain
the effective focal length on the smaller sensor. So what is listed as a
100mm lens would behave, on a Rebel XTi, like a 160mm lens would on a 35mm
film camera. The other side of this is that wide angle lenses appear to be
less wide on the same camera, so a 20mm lens on a Rebel XTi gives you the
same angle of view, as it is called, as a 32mm lens would on that same film
SLR. On a 5D, for instance, those two lenses would perform exactly as they
would on a 35mm film SLR, since the sensor is the same size as a film frame.
The 1D mkIIn is an oddball at a crop factor of 1.3x, and not really a part
of this discussion.
For more info, check out:
http://luminous-landscape.com/

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

wrote:
[]
> Thanks for the comprehensive response. I do not understand, however,
> the difference (in this context) between "full frame sensor" and
> the--well, "lens" (?) in a DSLR. Are you saying the D series are as
> expensive as they are because their lens is full frame AND electronic,
> while the Rebel series is full frame but not electronic? Sorry if
> this sounds stupid.

Does this help?

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/the_camera.htm

David

On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 18:21:20 -0800, "Skip" <>
wrote:

>All of the cameras you mention are part of the EOS group, as are all of the
>autofocus film cameras. EOS represents, "Electronic Optical System."
>Outside the US, the Rebel series is marketed as EOS 300D, 350D and 400D.
>The Rebels are less expensive because they are more lightly built, and lack
>some features of the more expensive cameras. The 10D and 20D you mention
>are out of production, and are the contemporaries of the Rebel D and Xt,

There is no "Rebel D"; there is a "Digital Rebel", known as the 300D
in the rest of the world, except for Japan, where it is known as the
"KISS".
>respectively, both with the same pixel count as the more expensive versions.
>The 30D was introduced after the Rebel XTi, and will probably be replaced
>sooner than later.

The 30D was introduced in Feb. of 06, while the XTi was introduced in
Aug. of 06.
>Other members of the EOS family, the EOS 5D and 1Ds
>mkII, have higher pixel counts than the XTi, and the 1D mkIIn has a much
>higher frame rate. Both 1 series cameras have very rugged bodies and
>weather sealing, which lesser bodies lack, not just the XTi. The 30D and 5D
>have more metal in their construction, spot metering, larger buffers, other
>advantages. The 5D and 1Ds mkII have what are known as "full frame"
>sensors, i.e, sensors that are the same size as a frame of 35mm film, rather
>than roughly 2/3 that size. Such sensors are much more expensive to
>manufacture, currently, but give an advantage in noise and with wide angle
>lenses.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"