Low end

[Conk]

I was a little taken by Bob's comment in another thread by calling the D-Rebel a low end camera. I guess one could call it that compaired to the MII it 1DS but I still find that a tough one to swallow.

[blinking8s]

wow, i know i am new to photography and all...but my 300d is low end? I really find that a little harsh. Maybe when the 10d prices drop I'll sell the 300d and upgrade, but its been nothing but awesome to me these last few months...hehe

[defordphoto]

Fact is the Drebel is Canon's low-end dSLR. So what? Don't take it so personally. Bob is matter-of-fact and his comments were not meant to be taken personally. They are facts. Nothing else.

I also have a Drebel. I could care less what anyone calls it. It's a good camera. But, it is a low end dSLR.

[ScottJE22]

I think you need a "none of the above" option.

While the Rebel may lack the features of the 10D or the MkII, I think that anyone who would plunk down almost a grand on a camera would take exception to it being called "low-end." It's all relative. So while it may be a "low-end" SLR in terms of features, it is by no means a low-end camera. FWIW, the Rebel is high-end for me :D

I also wouldn't consider the Pro or the G5 low-end. They both have a wealth of features that would appeal to point-and-shooters and serious amateurs. You'd have to go a little lower in the Powershot line-up for me to call a camera "low-end."

I might call the Rebel a "starter SLR" or something...

Just my $0.02...

[dn7elson]

These type of "definitions" or "value" judgements are all relative and I generally do not give them much consideration.

For someone needing the studio capabilities of the 1Ds, the 10D could be considered inadequate, therefore "low end" for their purposes.

For those merely seeking to impress, low end generally starts with the model below theirs :lol:

I think that the criteria should be how the tool meets the need of the user, not whether it is the low end or high end. A Ferrari is a wonderful road and race car, but makes a terrible earthmover...this must make it "low end" :lol: :shock:

[defordphoto]

:lol: Well said, Dale. I'll take one of those John Deer Ferraris please.

[dn7elson]

I'll take one of those John Deer Ferraris please.

That's the one in harvest green with the snow plow attachment on the front right? :lol:

[robertwgross]

Digital Rebel owners should be happy, even if it is the Canon low-end DSLR with interchangeable lenses.

It has approximately the same functionality, more or less, as my D60, which cost approximately three times as much money. My D60 was the low end less than two years ago.

---Bob Gross---

[defordphoto]

I'll take one of those John Deer Ferraris please.

That's the one in harvest green with the snow plow attachment on the front right? :lol:

Yeah. I can make some extra money in the winter plowing driveways and THEN maybe I can afford a HIGH-END camera! ;)

[PacAce]

I think the question of this poll needs to be a little more specific. Low end of what? All of Canon's digital cameras, including P&S? Or just the DSLR. My answer to the poll would depend on the category we are talking about but in general echos most everybody's take on the topic.

[ScottJE22]

As a guy and a gadget nut, I have to work very hard to stay out of the camera one-upmanship trap. Every time I read a thread about the wonder that is an "L" lens, I feel slightly inadequate (I'm currently in counseling for these feelings, thank you for your concern).

Sometimes it's harder than others, but I have to remind myself that even the most high-end camera and lens can take some low-end pictures -- and vice-versa. And I love my DRebel!! I just try to remember the feeling I had when I unpacked the box and loaded that CF card for the first time and the camera envy is quickly forgotten :)

[Ballen Photo]

I think you need a "none of the above" option.

I might call the Rebel a "starter SLR" or something...



I agree on BOTH counts.
BTW, Even the G-5 is considered an upper end rangefinder style digi cam. :shock:
.......Bruce

[eric1]

i agree with Bob. my camera is the absolute low end of all dslr's known to
mankind. to top it off, it's silver, and it REALLY clashes with my white lenses! i think i'll buy a 10D, and oh yeah, sell my silver truck. :lol: anyway, it's been a fine camera, for a good price. who knew low end
could perform so well? whats next, a drebII for $500? :shock: that one will come in what color, gold? ha ha

eric1

[Conk]

I suppose I'll just chalk it up to opinion. As far as I'm concerned, the Rebel is anything but "low end". Some may even call it a peice of crap but low end? Not!

[Haifidelity]

My Acura RSX is the low end of the Acura line--so what. It's still a great car as is the Rebel being a great SLR (i have a 10d BTW). It's the equivalent to the Film based Rebels, which have always been the entry level, low end of Canon's SLR line.

[Belmondo]

I hate terms like 'low end'. We attach much too much significance to them.

There is no need to defend the Rebel or any of the cameras listed in the survey. They all fill a slot in one camera manufacturer's product lineup. They serve different purposes and have different intended markets.

To say a Rebel is 'low end' compared to a Mk II, for example, is obvious and inane. It costs 80% less---but maybe it's ideal for the person purchasing it. If a Rebel is all the camera a person needs or can use, is it reasonable to call it 'low end'?

Hell no.

[Jesper]

It's simple: In the line of Canon digital SLR cameras, the 300D / Digital Rebel is the cheapest and feature-wise most limited camera. So that automatically makes it the low-end Canon DSLR. It does not mean that the 300D is a cheap, bad quality camera. It's still a powerful camera with a lot of advanced technology. It all depends what you compare it with.

Also, the G5 is not a low-end camera - on the contrary, it is one of the more advanced Powershot cameras.

Why do you take the words "low-end" so seriously? Whatever somebody calls your camera, it's not going to be a worse or better camera because of that.

[MarkH]

On the poll I chose 300D and below, though the 300D is the only low end on the list. The Pro 1 and G5 are top end of a different category, I would call the A series low end in that category.

Personally I would prefer the low end D-SLR to the high end compact cameras.

For the insulted 300D owners, get over it. It doesn't matter where your camera is in the Canon lineup, as long as it takes good pictures.

[Andy_T]

Maybe a better way to address the issue is that we are all pretty sure that the 1D, the 1Ds and the 1DII are Canon's 'High-end' or 'Pro' DSLR's.

So the 10D, D30, D60 and 300D are the 'Non-Pro' Canon DSLR's ... sounds better like 'Low end', 'Medium end' :lol: or else.

Disclaimer: Of course I'm aware that a lot of real Pro's use the above 'Non-Pro' cameras. I'm talking about the way Canon officially addresses this issue as far as durability and eligibility for CPS membership are concerned.

As to the 'don't feel offended' motion .. that's the way to address it.
Same applies to all those Porsche Boxster drivers that feel *in their heart* that they are sneered at by the 'real' Porsche 911 drivers... wish I had that problem :lol:

Best regards,
Andy

[CyberDyneSystems]

It's meaningles..

It's relative...

It shouldn't hurt feelings...

Compared to the Medium format with a 20MP digital back.. the NkII is low end..

[Scottes]

Compared to the Medium format with a 20MP digital back.. the NkII is low end..

But try to capture ospreys in flight with that rig. Or RC planes in flight. Or a crash on the 3rd turn.

The MF with the 20MP back is going to be next to useless in those situations.

It's all relative.


IanD, however, could manage some fantastic duck-butt pictures with that MF...
:D

[dn7elson]

IanD, however, could manage some fantastic duck-butt pictures with that MF...

And without the crop factor...could get some serious coverage on those "wider models". :lol: :)

[Lisard]

No way on the Earth I would trade my Rebel for MarkII. Just go see charts and compare the level of noise. MarkII sucks big time, no matter how hard Canon is promoting that camera. I am thinking about upgrade and I am getting Kodak. Sorry Canon, was nice working with you. But this 14 mgpx beauty is standing out and I don't see any Canon camera that can get even close to Kodak now.
But I would never call Rebel low-end. There Canon called it low-end? Since then it's official?
:twisted:

[rick barclay]

That's funny, all the reviews I read raved about the Mark II's Digic
sensor and the way it handles noise. I may have to go back and look them
up again for the sake of this thread.

The DRebel has been referred to by one critic as a toy camera. Common
sense should tell you the price you pay for your equipment has something
to do with how it is ranked. At $900, the Rebel falls a bit short of Canon's
other sibling's on the digital SLR food chain.

I love my Rebel, shortcomings and all, but that's not to say I would turn
down a 1Ds or a MarkII if either were thrown at me on the street. Even a
1D would be nice, because I'm sure it would help me take better pictures
than my Rebel, and that's what I'm here for. I'll always love my Rebel,
even after I kiss it goodbye and mail it off to whomever buys it on EBay
after I've upgraded. It's nothing personal, you undertand; just business.

[Lunatique]

I love it when I see people with consumer P&S cameras or low-end cameras take pictures that blow away the people using state-of-the-art camera systems. Everytime that happens, people always comment on how it's the artist, not the equipment that makes the picture special.

The DRebel is perfectly capable of taking pictures that trounces most of the shots I see on the internet taken with much more expensive cameras.

[neil_r]

Given that the camera is only the tool, isn't it what is behind the camera that makes the output either "High or Low End?"

Just a thought

N

[rick barclay]

But some tools have better features and are made of better quality materials than other tools. Thus, you can do better work with them.

Yay, I've seen some really crappy pictures posted that were taken with
a Mark II, and I've seen some unbelievably sharp and colorful shots
posted here by an alleged DRebel. So, yeah, it's the tool wielder as well
as the tool, I'm sure.







But I still want something "better," like a D1s or a Mark II.

[Canuck]

I am wondering what difference is makes? I have some family that have Olympus 2MP digital cameras that you can thow in your pocket. I guess it all is based of what you shoot and what you want and of course how much money you want to toss into it. Sure I joke about the Oly camera, but it is great for what they are doing! They don't need the 3076x2048 pixel pics that take some time to play with to get them sharp. While it is true, even the 10D will blow the Oly away in the jpeg small/reg dept but who cares? It makes for a good wind up amungst friends/family but end of the day, that suits them perfectly and why be so condescending?

[Ballen Photo]

I am wondering what difference is makes? I have some family that have Olympus 2MP digital cameras that you can thow in your pocket. I guess it all is based of what you shoot and what you want and of course how much money you want to toss into it. Sure I joke about the Oly camera, but it is great for what they are doing! They don't need the 3076x2048 pixel pics that take some time to play with to get them sharp. While it is true, even the 10D will blow the Oly away in the jpeg small/reg dept but who cares? It makes for a good wind up amungst friends/family but end of the day, that suits them perfectly and why be so condescending?

In my humble opinion, the absolute BEST camera is the one you have with you when the photo op presents its self. :wink:
........Bruce

[Canuck]

I am wondering what difference is makes? I have some family that have Olympus 2MP digital cameras that you can thow in your pocket. I guess it all is based of what you shoot and what you want and of course how much money you want to toss into it. Sure I joke about the Oly camera, but it is great for what they are doing! They don't need the 3076x2048 pixel pics that take some time to play with to get them sharp. While it is true, even the 10D will blow the Oly away in the jpeg small/reg dept but who cares? It makes for a good wind up amungst friends/family but end of the day, that suits them perfectly and why be so condescending?

In my humble opinion, the absolute BEST camera is the one you have with you when the photo op presents its self. :wink:
........Bruce

That is kinda what I wanted to elude to the one that does what you want when you want is the best for you. You nailed this one Bruce, spot on!

[Scottes]

In my humble opinion, the absolute BEST camera is the one you have with you when the photo op presents its self.

The first time I saw a Bald Eagle I had a Rebel Ti with a 28-90mm lens. The bird wasn't close, and I debated wasting film, but since it was the best camera I had I took the shot. The pictures sucked. Big Time.

Then there was the time I raced my Gremlin at Indy - hey, it was the only car I had!

Once I painted the bottom half of my house because I only had a stepladder. It was interesting.

And another time I built a garage, using a rock rather than buy a hammer. Nobody was hurt. Well, *I* was hurt building it, but only once when the butter knife slipped as I was cutting a board.


Sorry, but I believe in using the appropriate tool. If a 20x40 print is the goal, a 2MP camera ain't the tool. If you're going to shoot wildlife, don't bring the fisheye lens. And if you want to catch the crash on the 3rd turn then the MkII is better than the 10D.

[Ballen Photo]

Sorry, but I believe in using the appropriate tool. If a 20x40 print is the goal, a 2MP camera ain't the tool. If you're going to shoot wildlife, don't bring the fisheye lens. And if you want to catch the crash on the 3rd turn then the MkII is better than the 10D.

No argument about the appropriate tool for the job, but when that Flying Saucer lands near by where you're camped out, and all you have with you is your 2 mp camera, will you just say; Naw, this camera isn't worthy of the shot, or will you take it anyway?
..........Bruce

[PhotosGuy]

More measurbating... WTF is "low end", anyway? By whose standards?
It's not what you use that counts. It's the end result.
My answer is none of the above.

[samdring]

Compared to the Medium format with a 20MP digital back.. the NkII is low end..

Narks have always been low end :)

[polloloco81]

Isn't it a bit subjective? 300D would be on the low end of the dSLR spectrum, since it is the cheapest. It was built to be the low end dSLR. Regarding the Pro and G series, these cameras are in a different class.

[Scottes]

Sorry, but I believe in using the appropriate tool. If a 20x40 print is the goal, a 2MP camera ain't the tool. If you're going to shoot wildlife, don't bring the fisheye lens. And if you want to catch the crash on the 3rd turn then the MkII is better than the 10D.

No argument about the appropriate tool for the job, but when that Flying Saucer lands near by where you're camped out, and all you have with you is your 2 mp camera, will you just say; Naw, this camera isn't worthy of the shot, or will you take it anyway?

As I said, I believe in using the appropriate tool. I said nothing about not using the only tool available.

[Pekka]

Once G1 was for me "high end". Then D30, then D60 and then 10D and now Mark II. None of these cameras were/are never used to their extreme limits (well, except G1 perhaps) so to me the low end / high end categorization sounds pretty much fruitless because it is all relative to you in your present state of mind and developement - I feel that I have always had gear that is better than me. Having better gear is just more comfortable. All cameras can produce good quality photos. All cameras can be limiting in certain stage. All cameras can be inspirational tools and all cameras can be sometimes boring.

[Ballen Photo]

Sorry, but I believe in using the appropriate tool. If a 20x40 print is the goal, a 2MP camera ain't the tool. If you're going to shoot wildlife, don't bring the fisheye lens. And if you want to catch the crash on the 3rd turn then the MkII is better than the 10D.

No argument about the appropriate tool for the job, but when that Flying Saucer lands near by where you're camped out, and all you have with you is your 2 mp camera, will you just say; Naw, this camera isn't worthy of the shot, or will you take it anyway?

As I said, I believe in using the appropriate tool. I said nothing about not using the only tool available.

OK, I give. This certainly isn't worth getting all heated up over. :shock: I'm happy with my equipment, and hopefully will learn how to use it to it's fullest.
PS, I like Pekka's take on this. :D
......Bruce