Rebel or Rebel XT???? pls help

[Tomasz Dziechciarz]

Hi

My collegue asked me for help which one he should buy DRebel (300) or Drebel XT(350).

He needs for some family picture, holidays, etc

[kenyc]

If it's just for snapshots, the 300 works fine! If he's going to do any post-processing I'd go for the 350.

KAC

[weemannie]

The XT has more control than the Rebel, but it is tiny!

If your colleague has big hands he might find it a little small. :)

I've just bought the UK version for my wife, and she loves it. Probably, as much because I find it too small, as for the control it gives her:lol:

[condyk]

Well ... not long ago the 300D was the bee's knees and it is still a really superb camera available at an equally superb bargain price these days. The user and lens will impact on quality more than the choice of which of these camera they buy!

I am still happy with my 300D and don't intend to change any time soon. I wouldn't class myself as a 'snapshot' shooter and I also 'post-process' my images :lol: There are numerous A1 shots posted from this camera and from the 350, which is also a fine choice.

Depends on budget and how the buyer feels each handles. I don't think the small size of the 350 is helpful and many agree ... and many others don't, which is fine :cool:

Personal choice, but there's little depreciation with the 300D now and that helps should they decide to sell or upgrade. I would always spend more on lenses and if getting a 300D enables that then I would make the choice. The 20D is worth the extra and in my view the 350 isn't.

[griff2]

In terms of picture quality there's little to choose between the two cameras (despite the XT's extra Mpixels), in terms of facilities the XT has a faster start-up, bigger buffer etc., it's a typical increment from the previous model. Whether the XT's worth the price premium over the Drebel is debatable. I'd save the money and go fo the DRebel.

[lordjim]

The 300D is a fantastic camera. I find the 350D too small and it really looks like a toy. That being said, it has some excellent reviews. I guess that if your friend can afford it and if he feels comfortable with the 350D, he should go for it. If not, the 300D would be a great choice.

A more interesting alternative is to buy the 300D and to use the difference to buy a good lens (ie, Tamron 28-75, Canon 70-200 F4 L).

[chap]

I've used a 300D and own a 350D and the biggest reason to go for the 350 over the 300 is speed. The 350 has a super fast startup time and is significantly faster when reviewing images. Since many of the features added in the 350 are pretty advanced and most are available with the hacked firmware on the 300 its nearly a wash for snapshots.

[Mitcon]

I don't know much yet about photography as I'm brand-new to it all myself. I got the 350D a couple of weeks ago & love it. I think both cameras are great & in fact most cameras might be good. It all depends upon your needs from the camera itself or the type of lens system you need for what you shoot. After all, the camera needs to be good & have the settings you need, but give lenses some thought as the best camera won't get a good photo with poor glass.

The XT/350D is meant to be faster which was a plus for me. I turn it on & it's ready to shoot before I can get it to my eye. It's also much lighter/smaller, I didn't really care about smaller but I like lighter as I hike alot. I've got big hands & find it quite ok, but some people find it small for them. See how they both feel I guess.

The only really helpfull thing I can say is listen to these people as there is a wealth of information here. Do some searches & read up abit. But don't buy something just because a salesperson tells you to, end of the day you have to like it, use it & pay for it. Work out what you need from a camera, the type of shooting & what features will be better for that type of photography.

Then enjoy it :D

[David1943]

Hi

My collegue asked me for help which one he should buy DRebel (300) or Drebel XT(350).

He needs for some family picture, holidays, etc
If I were shopping for either a 300D or 350D right now, I'd take advantage of the incredibly cheap offers available, at least here in the UK, due to the disccontinuation of the 300D.

However, if I wanted to buy a really nice camera and money wasn't overly important, I'd definitely go straight for a 20D.

Regards, David :)

[David1943]

If it's just for snapshots, the 300 works fine! If he's going to do any post-processing I'd go for the 350.

KAC
Please come off it mate, I use a 300D and definitely don't regard myself as just a snapshotter.

I also do post processing in RawShooter and then PS Elements!

Regards, David :)

[bauerman]

The speed of the XT is a great thing – I have used a friend’s quite a bit. But you know what, I’m pretty sure that I am not ‘losing’ pictures due to the slowness of the 300D. In 99.9% of the photographic situations that I am in – the startup time and other processing time is not prohibiting me from doing what I want photographically. Things like this, at least for what I do, are “nice to haves”.

The main thing that I like about the XT is the ability to choose the focus mode and the metering mode manually – however with the hacked firmware on the Rebel I have some of that choice given back.

The body is really secondary to the lens in creating great photographs, couple the 300D with a great lens and you have some pretty much unrivaled picture quality overall.

[chris clements]

The difference in spec isn't necessarily the key question: they're both very good cameras.

Big hands or small hands?
Many people (including me) just find the XT too small to hold comfortably

[chap]

David is right. The 300D isn't just for snapshots, and that can really be a loaded term. However, the original poster indicated that was what his colleague was going to use it for. They're both really great cameras (especially at these prices) and it really does boil down to personal preference. The only way to decide is to go out and try them both and see which one suits him better.

chap

[BrandonSi]

If it's just for snapshots, the 300 works fine! If he's going to do any post-processing I'd go for the 350.

KAC

That makes no sense.

IMHO, there is not a large enough difference between the 300D and the 350D to warrant the prince increase.. Start up time? You turn your camera on once, the 300D takes at most 15 seconds from power up to shooting. The 350D has a slightly larger buffer, but the only time I've hit that wall with the 300D is sports shots, which neither camera is really the best for. 8MP v 6.3? Don't even worry about that, if you're trying to get really large prints you're going to need to upsample either way. The value for the 300D is excellent, and you'll save money towards a decent lens, which neither the 350D nor the 300D comes with in the "kit."

[cfcRebel]

He needs for some family picture, holidays, etc
Get the 300D and the money he saves, he can get a great lens for those type of pictures.
Again, if money is not a big issue, get a 20D + good lens. ;)

[Belmondo]

That makes no sense.

IMHO, there is not a large enough difference between the 300D and the 350D to warrant the prince increase..

That's a valid opinion, and for you, it's the right answer.

For many others, however, $200 extra is easily justified by the 33% greater resolution and additional features of the XT. In fact, I was shocked that the difference wasn't greater, and am somewhat astonished that people even consider a 300D when the 350D is only $200 more.

I also don't understand why people buy SLRs to take 'snapshots.' Chances are, a decent P&S at about half the price is going to produce results at least as good directly out of the camera, and likely better if the user isn't inclined to fiddle with the images after the fact.

[lostdoggy]

I have relatively large hands and my DRebel fits nicely but little light. The XT is too small, but the 20D is sweet. Function wise the XT is better and improvement over the DRebel with or without the Hack.
No, the the DRebel is not for Snap Shots for that I use the P&S it fits in my pocket easier.
For the Money buy the DRebel body and use the extra money to buy a nicer lens like a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX he'll be happier.

[BrandonSi]

For many others, however, $200 extra is easily justified by the 33% greater resolution and additional features of the XT. In fact, I was shocked that the difference wasn't greater, and am somewhat astonished that people even consider a 300D when the 350D is only $200 more.

I also don't understand why people buy SLRs to take 'snapshots.' Chances are, a decent P&S at about half the price is going to produce results at least as good directly out of the camera, and likely better if the user isn't inclined to fiddle with the images after the fact.

I question what the 33% greater resolution actually gets you. Resolution at that size is only useful for printing, you're not going to display a graphic on your PC at 3456 x 2304. That being said, at 250ppi you get the following prints sizes from the two cameras.

300D - 12.288" x 8.192" ( 3072 x 2048 / 250 ppi)
350D - 13.824" x 9.216" ( 3456 x 2304 / 250 ppi)

Hardly a 33% increase. You're going to upsample to print a 20x30 no matter which camera you use.

Look at the side by side at DPreview http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_eos300d%2Ccanon_eos350d&show=all

If you can find where the extra $200 went, please let me know because I can't find it :)


I do agree with you on the SLR for snapshots, I think either it's a status thing, or to give others the impression that they really know more about photography than they do, kind of like starting to play tennis and going out and buying the $500 racket to make you play better.

[condyk]

... am somewhat astonished that people even consider a 300D when the 350D is only $200 more.

Now that may well be true in the good ol' USofA humble sir, but it certainly isn't in the UK and I pretty much bet the financial situation is even less clear cut in Poland, though I think they can import VAT and Duty free now from throughout Europe.

In the UK it is around £200 at shopping around prices, or almost $400 US. That give a BIG bonus amount to a better lens purchase budget.

However, very good point about P&S. I reckon the Panasonic FZ5 is about the perfect point and shot camera. 12x optical Leica zoom with image stabilization. It's almost worth buying as a carry around! I had the FZ3 a while back and awesome little thing that was very happy living in my pocket .... but what wouldn't be :lol:

[Belmondo]

I question what the 33% greater resolution actually gets you. Resolution at that size is only useful for printing, you're not going to display a graphic on your PC at 3456 x 2304. That being said, at 250ppi you get the following prints sizes from the two cameras.

300D - 12.288" x 8.192" ( 3072 x 2048 / 250 ppi)
350D - 13.824" x 9.216" ( 3456 x 2304 / 250 ppi)


Here again, it's what's important to the individual. I do occasional 13 X 19 prints, and the extra resolution is somewhat helpful. It also affords me an opportunity to do a little more cropping.

The actual difference in resolution is less than 20% on each axis, but that does matter on larger prints. For your average 5 X 7, and even on an 8 X 10, the difference is not that important. In that regard, you're correct.

[Curtis N]

the 300D takes at most 15 seconds from power up to shooting.It's actually closer to 3 seconds.
It sounds like your friend is a casual photographer. The extra features of the 350D probably won't be of much benefit to him, and the extra pixels are only useful if you have a really sharp lens (as in "L glass").

For most people, the $200 (?) price difference would be better spent on glass.