Canon finally dumps HORRIBLE Rebel body!

As ugly and revolting as the GM X-Car of the 1980s, Canon has finally
dispensed with the old Rebel body, giving it's entry-level camera what
looks like a decent body. It looks like a smaller D30-40.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08...50dchanges.asp

On Jan 24, 7:20 pm, TH O wrote:
In article ,
"Joseph Meehan" wrote:

"RichA" wrote in message
...
As ugly and revolting as the GM X-Car of the 1980s, Canon has finally
dispensed with the old Rebel body, giving it's entry-level camera what
looks like a decent body. It looks like a smaller D30-40.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08...50dchanges.asp

Other than you appeared to be insulted because they used weak plastic
(You know the stuff they make football helmets out of.) for some parts of
the body, which, it appears have never been the cause of any problems, why
was it horrible?

There's nothing wrong with well-constructed plastic bodies. There is
something wrong with poorly constructed plastic bodies (eg. The Rebel).
Canon's 10D, 20D, 30D, and 40D have all been well constructed with
quality parts. The Rebel has been constructed like a creaky, throw-away
toy. Hopefully Canon beefed up the construction on the new body.

The funniest thing about this announcement is that commentary is
suggesting that Canon moved to SD cards because that was the reason the
Nikon D40/D40x was doing so well. SD card likely had little to do with
it. The ergonomics and construction of the Rebel can't compare to the
Nikon bodies. Anyone comparing the two in the store can see that. The
Canon may have the D40 beat on features and internal performance, but
the fact that it had such poor exterior construction was not something
consumers could overlook.

The Rebel had a good run, it lasted way longer than it should have,
solely on the strength of its sensors.
Now hopefully the body will be a good match.

"RichA" wrote in message
...

The Rebel had a good run, it lasted way longer than it should have,
solely on the strength of its sensors.
Now hopefully the body will be a good match.

Mine continues to have a good run.

I can't believe you buy a camera based on its cuteness.

dwight

In article , dwight
wrote:

I can't believe you buy a camera based on its cuteness.

We're all still waiting for him to buy a camera...period.

It is all rather fitting. Canon and Nikon hasn't had a truly innovative
camera in years. Canon has milked that poor rebel of which the first one was
an innovation, at least in price. But, it has been pretty much the same crap
from both companies ever since.

On 25 Jan, 02:26, "rwalker" wrote:
"dwight" wrote in message

. ..

"RichA" wrote in message
...

The Rebel had a good run, it lasted way longer than it should have,
solely on the strength of its sensors.
Now hopefully the body will be a good match.

Mine continues to have a good run.

I can't believe you buy a camera based on its cuteness.

dwight

I agree.

What an incredibly stupid thread.

Welcome to the HORRIBLE world of RichA. Always stupid thread maker
2006/7.

Doc

I can't believe you buy a camera based on its cuteness.

dwight

I agree.


Would you also say, "I can't believe you like a picture based on its
cuteness"?
Cuteness has a lot to do with it.
What would life be like without cuteness?

"Bob G" wrote in message
...


I can't believe you buy a camera based on its cuteness.

dwight

I agree.


Would you also say, "I can't believe you like a picture based on its
cuteness"?
Cuteness has a lot to do with it.
What would life be like without cuteness?

Absolutely. In cameras, girls, cars, computers and in fact just about
anything smaller than an airliner, cuteness is important.

I bought my very first Nikon because it was cute, and I've been buying
Nikons ever since. (More recent ones have been gorgeous rather than cute,
but if not for the cuteness of that first one I might never have become a
Nikonian.)

Neil

"Neil H." wrote:
"Bob G" wrote:
I can't believe you buy a camera based on its cuteness.

I agree.

Would you also say, "I can't believe you like a picture based on its
cuteness"?
Cuteness has a lot to do with it.
What would life be like without cuteness?

Absolutely. In cameras, girls, cars, computers and in fact just about
anything smaller than an airliner, cuteness is important.

Actually you've almost got it right. But, I had the
opportunity to hear learn this bit of philosophy from a
*real* expert. As they say, only from the mouths of
children... (do we get this sort of pure clarity in
though!).

Last August, a month before his 6th birthday, I was
giving my neighbor, young Benjamin Kim, a haircut. He
was very insistant on sitting in front a mirror where he
could see _exactly_ what was happening, and when he
noticed that I didn't fully comprehend the significance,
he graced me with his wisdom:

"Hair doesn't count; *ugly* counts!"

He's not wrong.

Now, rethink the above discussion in terms of "ugly"
rather than "cuteness"! It *is* valid.

I bought my very first Nikon because it was cute, and I've been buying
Nikons ever since. (More recent ones have been gorgeous rather than cute,
but if not for the cuteness of that first one I might never have become a
Nikonian.)

Actually Nikon goes to a bit of an extreme to make sure
that nobody would call their cameras "ugly". The
bodies, since about 1980, are in fact designed by
Giorgetto Guigiaro, from Italy, who also has designed
Niccki sewing machines, Seiko watches, and more cars than
anyone.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Jan 24, 5:08 pm, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message

...

As ugly and revolting as the GM X-Car of the 1980s, Canon has finally
dispensed with the old Rebel body, giving it's entry-level camera what
looks like a decent body. It looks like a smaller D30-40.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08...50dchanges.asp

Other than you appeared to be insulted because they used weak plastic
(You know the stuff they make football helmets out of.) for some parts of
the body, which, it appears have never been the cause of any problems, why
was it horrible?

I bet they read your insightful messages and decided to change it...
Yea..

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

Cheap, flimsy, ergonomic nightmare made for people with the hands of
midgets. Apart from that, it was fine.