I have both. To me there is nothing about the Rebel D that seem to not be solid. I think if it were black everyone would think it felt solid.
But the Rebel D goes down to 100
third party batteries for the Canon DSLR's are very inexpensive so there is no reason not to have several extra ones. They are very powerful and retain their charge far far longer than Nickel metal hydride batteries do.
I personally think plastic is a much better camera material. It is much more resilient and takes shock and impact much better. Drop an all metal point and shoot in the gravels and see how many dents in the metal you end up with. Drop a plastic one and see pretty much nothing at all. A couple years ago, I literally threw my Fuji 2600 into the gravels in my driveway. I was shocked to find hardly even a scratch on it. I bumped the corner of a Canon S10 against my chair arm and put a big dent in it. Plastic is nonconductive and its shock resistence protects fragile internal circuits from both shock and static electricity. Plastic is stronger and lighter than the metal subframe used in the Rebel D probably. I think the only reason DSLR cameras have the metal subframe at all is to support the camera when it is attached to really long lenses.
Hmm, do you own and use both cameras. I do. I don't know what you mean by either of those things. Actually the Rebel D is faster in response than the *istD, primarily because of faster focusing speed. Build quality is a totally subjective thing. I'll bet if the Rebel D were black no one would even talk about build quality. The build quality of both my cameras is superb in my mind.
Well that's for sure. The first thing I had to get used to with the *istD is the shallow hand hold. The Rebel D gives me a much much more confident grip on it than the *istD does. Definitely personal preference.
I doubt a small company like Pentax will ever be able to drive censor technology either by making their own or supplying a market of sufficient magnitude to demand something special from major manufacturers.
Steven ManiscalcoBut I like your balloon photos. Really cheered up my dayThank
you. I took a look at your other galleries, too. I think your work
is great.
... though there seemed to be a dust particle on the 300D sensor ;-)
sonny
http://www.pbase.com/dazedgonebye
--Tell him that you didn't like his crippled down camera ... And real
DSLRs are black ... And that Canon makes copiers, don't they ... ;-)
sonny
Steven ManiscalcoBut I like your balloon photos. Really cheered up my day
you. I took a look at your other galleries, too. I think your work
is great.
... though there seemed to be a dust particle on the 300D sensor ;-)
sonny
http://www.pbase.com/dazedgonebye
I have used a 300D. It takes nice, sharp photos. It actually is a good camera at a good price. Yeah, it may be silver and black, but so is my Pentax K1000.
True. As long as something is rechargeable then I see it as
advantageous over standard Alkalines.
Other than to allow smaller form factors in compact (smaller than
DSLR) equipment, yes.
A conveniece that is very big.
A small convenience. My equipment that does use AA's is so power
hungry that I'm never caught w/o spare Nimh AA's already charged.
Unless something is rechargeable I tend to disagree.
For some types of equipment yes. Considering we are talking about
Pentax vs. Canon vs. Nikon though, I don't see that as happening
anytime soon.
--
Trust that little voice in your head that says, 'Wouldn't it be
interesting if....' And then do it. -Duane Michals
As Will Rogers said, I have never met a DSLR I didn't like. I really do not think there is a bad choice in sub $2000 DSLR's.
