What's wrong with the Rebels - seriously!

I upgraded from an XTi to a 50D and I could definitely see an improvement in the bokeh, colors and quality of the photos. Although the XTi was a great camera and allowed me to get the photos I needed, I can't imagine switching back, mostly because of speed. The 50D was definitely worth the money to upgrade.

When I upgraded from the T2i to the 50D, it wasn't about image quality for me. It was about the hardware aspect. I wanted the bigger magnesium alloy body and the other features the 50D had that the T2i did not. Rebels are 100% fine for some people though. There is nothing wrong with them, it is just a preference thing.

It's like a Honda Civic vs Accord (Or insert favorite car brand). Some people actually prefer the smaller civic because it gets better gas mileage, costs less and gets you to work at the same time. Many prefer the Accord because it rides smoother, has a bit more HP and has more interior space. If they were the same price, not many would buy the civic, though.

Well for me, I started off with Nikon, used the D90, then switched to Pentax, used the K-x and K-7, and finally went to Canon and used the T2i, 7D then 5D Mark II.

Out of all the cameras, I would say that the 5D Mark II cured my gear lust. It actually made me feel content with the type of lenses that I had. It was THAT good. All the other camera bodies just made me want more and more. And I think that's the problem with the Rebel Series. It gives you a taste of what's better out there. I really think if you have the budget, go for the best body you can buy. That way, you won't have to waste money upgrading it when you finally reach your full potential.

drmaxx wrote in post #13063122
This is a serious question - I am thinking about 'upgrading' to a 'better' body but have a hard time to see the benefit in terms of picture quality.

Reading POTN now for quite a while there are all this quotes about the Rebels: "better point & shoot", "beginner camera", "entry level", "base to move up", ....

I shoot with a Rebel 450D for a few years now. I am comfortable with producing decent pictures even under more difficult conditions. I use most of the buttons on my camera frequently and shoot raw.

Now, I am looking at the other Canon bodies and have difficulties to be able to identify a good reason to switch. And yes, I am aware of the specs (higher ISO, faster shutter speeds, ..). But it seems to me that most of the 'upgrade' are bells and whistles and not much an improvement in picture quality (e.g. like going from a compact to a SLR).

So, here's my question:
Did anybody switched from a Rebel to an xxD or xD and his pictures improved? Why? Or: Did you switched and you improved as a photographer because of the new camera (UI, ...)?

I've had a XS & a T1i,IMO opinion they are great cameras ! nothing wrong with rebels at all ! except for the ergonomics.

once I felt how a 50D body felt in my hand,that's the biggest reason I switched from the rebel line,plus I really never used the video.

the picture quality improvements from switching gear has been more from upgrading lenses than anything else,plus I am constantly learning
I also think I can hold the 50D steadier than a smaller body.

As far as I'm concerned it's all about controls etc. How you change settings, how you view settings. I much prefer the 2 wheel approach, and that's after starting with a 300D (single wheel arrangement). I'm also a huge user of the top LCD - settings always visible with almost no battery use, and at night time I don't have to be blinded by the rear/main LCD. Interestingly the 300D and 350D had the separate LCD however it was on the rear.

The other things I like are the buttons on the left side of the screen so I can operate them with my left hand while still supporting the weight of that side of the camera and not having to move my right hand. I use the joystick thing to change focus points. And the buttons across the top are easier to locate without having to shift my hand.

If I were primarily a landscape shooter and were happy with an APS-C camera then I'd probably have a rebel. But for what/how I shoot I'd choose to go back to a 20D rather than a new rebel - the ergonomics mean that much to me.

Other bonuses of the xxD and 5D/7D:
- Viewfinder
- Bulkier grip
- Nicer build/feel

Agreed on the AF Point selection, much easier with the D-pad on the 60D instead of having to cycle through them. I also prefer the dual wheel approach, and the top LCD is great. Anymore I rarely have the rear LCD open on my 60D - just do a quick review and make sure my settings are dialed in (shoot almost entirely in Manual..was actually doing full manual with wireless flash and built-in for a fill light the other night, fun stuff.)

With that rear LCD closed and not doing much, the battery life on the 60D is beyond insane. Right now it is sitting at about 60% after shooting over 1200 pictures in full burst at an airshow, and then doing the photoshoot of my kids with everything on manual and using the built in flash/wireless flash recording jpeg + raw. The battery on the 60D is just amazing.

When I was looking for an upgrade for my 10D (yes, 10D) early last year I initially purchased the T2i based on features and price point. I had to return after a few days because I was unable to get used the much smaller body. It was uncomfortable to hold in my hands. Now I don't have huge hands or anything, but after shooting Canon bodies (AE1, A2e, 10D) for 20+ years I just prefer a full size body and find I am much more stable with more weight, etc. I've added the grip to my 7D and find that a perfect size for me.
So while image quality might have been same/similar between lineup, I went with the pricier 7D with ergonomics a big part of the decision.

drmaxx wrote in post #13063122
This is a serious question - I am thinking about 'upgrading' to a 'better' body but have a hard time to see the benefit in terms of picture quality.

Reading POTN now for quite a while there are all this quotes about the Rebels: "better point & shoot", "beginner camera", "entry level", "base to move up", ....

I shoot with a Rebel 450D for a few years now. I am comfortable with producing decent pictures even under more difficult conditions. I use most of the buttons on my camera frequently and shoot raw.

Now, I am looking at the other Canon bodies and have difficulties to be able to identify a good reason to switch. And yes, I am aware of the specs (higher ISO, faster shutter speeds, ..). But it seems to me that most of the 'upgrade' are bells and whistles and not much an improvement in picture quality (e.g. like going from a compact to a SLR).

So, here's my question:
Did anybody switched from a Rebel to an xxD or xD and his pictures improved? Why? Or: Did you switched and you improved as a photographer because of the new camera (UI, ...)?

Yes, I switched and some portions of my shooting improved due to better technology. I have faster and more accurate focus. I think the metering is more accurate. I like the ISO performance.

That being said, mostly my photography improved because I improved technique both while I had the Rebel XT and afterwards. I wore out that XT and plan to wear out this 50D.