Difference Between Canon DSLRs and EOS *0D (10,20,30)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by mutefan@yahoo.com, Nov 2, 2006.

  1. Guest

    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?
     
    , Nov 2, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Cgiorgio Guest

    <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:...
    > 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.
     
    Cgiorgio, Nov 2, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    On Nov 2, 11:55 am, "Cgiorgio" <> 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.
     
    , Nov 2, 2006
    #3
  4. Bill Hilton Guest

    > 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, Nov 2, 2006
    #4
  5. Matt Ion Guest

    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".
     
    Matt Ion, Nov 2, 2006
    #5
  6. Skip Guest

    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
     
    Skip, Nov 3, 2006
    #6
  7. Guest

    On Nov 2, 9:21 pm, "Skip" <> 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.
     
    , Nov 3, 2006
    #7
  8. Skip Guest

    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
     
    Skip, Nov 3, 2006
    #8
  9. 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
     
    David J Taylor, Nov 3, 2006
    #9
  10. Bill Funk Guest

    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"
     
    Bill Funk, Nov 3, 2006
    #10
  11. Skip Guest

    "Bill Funk" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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".


    I forgot that. It was just referred to as the Rebel D, since that
    differentiated it from the film Rebels

    >>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.


    My statement above was entirely due to a massive braing fart, I really meant
    to type "before," since that would justfy the 30D being replaced before the
    XTi...
    ..--
    Skip Middleton
    www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    www.pbase.com/skipm
     
    Skip, Nov 4, 2006
    #11
  12. Guest

    On Nov 3, 9:45 am, "David J Taylor"

    > Does this help?
    >
    > http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/the_camera.htm


    Quite a bit! An *extremely* approachable, professional site for
    amateurs. You deserve a lot of credit. Thanks for the sensor
    paragraph especially.
     
    , Nov 4, 2006
    #12
  13. Matt Ion Guest

    wrote:
    > On Nov 3, 9:45 am, "David J Taylor"
    >
    >
    >>Does this help?
    >>
    >> http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/the_camera.htm

    >
    >
    > Quite a bit! An *extremely* approachable, professional site for
    > amateurs. You deserve a lot of credit. Thanks for the sensor
    > paragraph especially.


    Hmm... MOSTLY good info (the "focal lenght[sic] multiplier" bit is entirely
    misleading), with some hideous English mistakes ("Wheather sealing," et al.)

    mutefan, check out these sites for a better explanation of "crop factor" (which
    David's site very improperly calls "focal length multiplier"):
    http://www.millhouse.nl/digitalcropfactorframe.html
    http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/digital-crop-factor.html
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-mag.shtml
     
    Matt Ion, Nov 4, 2006
    #13
  14. Guest

    On Nov 4, 1:15 am, Matt Ion <> wrote:
    >
    > check out these sites for a better explanation of "crop factor":
    >http://www.millhouse.nl/digitalcropfactorframe.html
    >http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/digital-crop-factor.html
    >http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr...


    These are indeed incredibly helpful sites. I am not mathematically
    inclined, one reason I avoided photography even "back in the day"; the
    factoring in of aspect "ratios" and computation of focal length (with
    various perplexingly-numbered lenses) was just too much for a person
    not the brightest flash in the pack, so to speak.

    The article on Crop Factor (as opposed to Focal Length Multiplier) was
    the most helpful. All excellently-written. Thank you.

    I'm still waiting delivery of my Canon EOS D400 and now, however, have
    grave doubts about whether it will be significantly better than my
    little old PowerShot A620, in terms of field of view. I can't afford
    to sell my first-born (well, cat at least!) to buy all the lenses I
    apparently will need in order for this costly camera to take really
    decent landscape pictures.
     
    , Nov 4, 2006
    #14
  15. Skip Guest

    There's the Canon 10-22 f3.5-4.5 for about $690, the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 for
    about $500 that will both give you significantly wider field of view than
    your point and shoot, but with significantly less reach.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    www.pbase.com/skipm
     
    Skip, Nov 4, 2006
    #15
  16. Bill Funk Guest

    On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 16:51:33 -0800, "Skip" <>
    wrote:

    >> 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".

    >
    >I forgot that. It was just referred to as the Rebel D, since that
    >differentiated it from the film Rebels


    That's interesting; I've never heard the Digital rebel referred to as
    a Rebel D.
    I've called mine a DRebel at times, tho.
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Nov 4, 2006
    #16
  17. Skip Guest

    "Bill Funk" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 16:51:33 -0800, "Skip" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>> 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".

    >>
    >>I forgot that. It was just referred to as the Rebel D, since that
    >>differentiated it from the film Rebels

    >
    > That's interesting; I've never heard the Digital rebel referred to as
    > a Rebel D.
    > I've called mine a DRebel at times, tho.
    > --
    > Bill Funk
    > replace "g" with "a"


    Hmm, I thought I'd seen it referred to here, back when it first came out, as
    that. Or maybe it was just I who referred to it that way... ;-)

    --
    Skip Middleton
    www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    www.pbase.com/skipm
     
    Skip, Nov 4, 2006
    #17
  18. Matt Ion Guest

    wrote:
    > On Nov 4, 1:15 am, Matt Ion <> wrote:
    >
    >>check out these sites for a better explanation of "crop factor":
    >>http://www.millhouse.nl/digitalcropfactorframe.html
    >>http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/digital-crop-factor.html
    >>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr...

    >
    >
    > These are indeed incredibly helpful sites. I am not mathematically
    > inclined, one reason I avoided photography even "back in the day"; the
    > factoring in of aspect "ratios" and computation of focal length (with
    > various perplexingly-numbered lenses) was just too much for a person
    > not the brightest flash in the pack, so to speak.


    In practical terms, crop factor is only really relevant to anything if you're
    familiar with using a 35mm SLR. Multiply your lens's focal length by the
    camera's crop factor, and the number you get tells you what length of lens on a
    35mm will give you the same view - example, a 50mm lens on a 1.6X crop-factor
    camera will give approximately the same view as an 80mm lens (50 * 1.6) on a 35mm.

    If you're not familiar with 35mm shooting though, the number is really
    meaningless, as you won't know what 80mm looks like on a normal camera.

    > I'm still waiting delivery of my Canon EOS D400 and now, however, have
    > grave doubts about whether it will be significantly better than my
    > little old PowerShot A620, in terms of field of view. I can't afford
    > to sell my first-born (well, cat at least!) to buy all the lenses I
    > apparently will need in order for this costly camera to take really
    > decent landscape pictures.


    If you're big into landscapes, then yes, you should find it "significantly
    better": the quality of your pictures should really benefit from the larger
    sensor and lower noise of the dSLR. The beauty of the interchangeable-lens
    system is that you can select a lens or lenses that are best suited to your
    specific needs, rather than being stuck with the one lens the camera is designed
    with. You certainly don't need "one of everything" :)

    For landscapes, you typically want something on the wider end, and you should
    find the 18-55mm kit lens (if you went for the kit lens - I'm assuming it comes
    with a similar one to the 350D/300D) has a good FOV, if not the greatest optical
    quality, for landscapes. With the 1.6x crop factor, it's basically equivalent
    to the 28-90mm lens Canon bundles with their consumer-grade 35mm DLRs.
     
    Matt Ion, Nov 4, 2006
    #18
  19. >In the film era Canon had several different bodies (with the same
    >"resolution" :) that were priced roughly double each step up the
    >[...]
    >To a large extent the same differences are in the digital bodies.


    The difference is that a particular lens on any of the film cameras
    would produce the same quality image, whereas the higher pixel dSLR's
    may produce better images than the lower pixeled ones. E.g., the new
    digital Rebel may produce better images than the higher-prices 30D.

    -Joel
     
    Dr. Joel M. Hoffman, Nov 8, 2006
    #19
  20. Steven Guest

    > digital Rebel may produce better images than the higher-prices 30D.

    no Rebel could produce better images than the 30D imo
     
    Steven, Nov 8, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. zxcvar

    Difference between Canon G5 and Canon S50

    zxcvar, Jul 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    447
    Roland Karlsson
    Jul 23, 2003
  2. loem01

    Older Canon EOS Speedlites on current DSLRs

    loem01, Dec 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    1,192
    Jim Motsinger
    Dec 17, 2003
  3. Bill Hilton

    Best techniques for Canon EOS 1 class dSLRs

    Bill Hilton, Nov 5, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    341
    Bill Hilton
    Nov 9, 2004
  4. peter
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    507
    Lester Wareham
    May 7, 2005
  5. 223rem

    Optical difference between film SLRs and DSLRs?

    223rem, Nov 17, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    1,168
    Father Kodak
    Dec 20, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page