Rebel XT: CreativePro review doesn't add much, but ...

.... in the penultimate paragraph a link to the author's site leads to a
comparison of the XT and the 20D, for those who are vacillating ...

http://www.creativepro.com/story/rev...l?cprose=daily

--
Frank ess

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:32:25 -0700, "Frank ess"
wrote:

... in the penultimate paragraph a link to the author's site leads to a
comparison of the XT and the 20D, for those who are vacillating ...

http://www.creativepro.com/story/rev...l?cprose=daily

Obviously, Canon tried to position lightness as an attribute,
something that has a limit, in a camera. All a hyperlight camera
gets you is insufficient grip area and lots of camera shake
that a heavier camera helps damp out.
At least the author mentioned this.
-Rich

RichA wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:32:25 -0700, "Frank ess"
wrote:


... in the penultimate paragraph a link to the author's site leads to a
comparison of the XT and the 20D, for those who are vacillating ...

http://www.creativepro.com/story/rev...l?cprose=daily


Obviously, Canon tried to position lightness as an attribute,
something that has a limit, in a camera. All a hyperlight camera
gets you is insufficient grip area and lots of camera shake
that a heavier camera helps damp out.
At least the author mentioned this.
-Rich

Humm. So the ideal camera would weigh in at 20 lbs., and be the size of
a breadbox? Somehow I doubt I would carry one like that.


--
Ron Hunter

RichA wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:32:25 -0700, "Frank ess"
wrote:


... in the penultimate paragraph a link to the author's site leads to a
comparison of the XT and the 20D, for those who are vacillating ...

http://www.creativepro.com/story/rev...l?cprose=daily


Obviously, Canon tried to position lightness as an attribute,
something that has a limit, in a camera. All a hyperlight camera
gets you is insufficient grip area and lots of camera shake
that a heavier camera helps damp out.
At least the author mentioned this.
-Rich

Humm. So the ideal camera would weigh in at 20 lbs., and be the size of
a breadbox? Somehow I doubt I would carry one like that.


--
Ron Hunter

RichA wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:32:25 -0700, "Frank ess"
wrote:


... in the penultimate paragraph a link to the author's site leads to a
comparison of the XT and the 20D, for those who are vacillating ...

http://www.creativepro.com/story/rev...l?cprose=daily


Obviously, Canon tried to position lightness as an attribute,
something that has a limit, in a camera. All a hyperlight camera
gets you is insufficient grip area and lots of camera shake
that a heavier camera helps damp out.


A heavier camera will tire you out faster making control more difficult.
A lighter camera, properly held, will not shake in your hands unless
you have other motor control problems.

OTOH, there are monopods.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

RichA wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:32:25 -0700, "Frank ess"
wrote:


... in the penultimate paragraph a link to the author's site leads to a
comparison of the XT and the 20D, for those who are vacillating ...

http://www.creativepro.com/story/rev...l?cprose=daily


Obviously, Canon tried to position lightness as an attribute,
something that has a limit, in a camera. All a hyperlight camera
gets you is insufficient grip area and lots of camera shake
that a heavier camera helps damp out.


A heavier camera will tire you out faster making control more difficult.
A lighter camera, properly held, will not shake in your hands unless
you have other motor control problems.

OTOH, there are monopods.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

In article ,
RichA wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:32:25 -0700, "Frank ess"
wrote:

... in the penultimate paragraph a link to the author's site leads to a
comparison of the XT and the 20D, for those who are vacillating ...

http://www.creativepro.com/story/rev...l?cprose=daily

Obviously, Canon tried to position lightness as an attribute,
something that has a limit, in a camera. All a hyperlight camera
gets you is insufficient grip area and lots of camera shake
that a heavier camera helps damp out.
At least the author mentioned this.
-Rich

Angular momentum is a lot more important than total weight. You want
the weight at the edges, not the center.

I doubt there's much difference between the XT and 20D as far as angular
momentum goes. The quality of your grip on the camera would matter much
more. You have to try holding them.

The 10D is a camera where I'd say that weight is a disadvantage. My
wrist would be in spasms if I had to carry that brick and a lens for a
few hours.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:59:04 -0700, Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

Angular momentum is a lot more important than total weight.
You want the weight at the edges, not the center.

I know what you mean, but I think that's the wrong term. If the
camera isn't rotating it has no angular momentum. Sorry, but I
don't recall what the proper term is. Possibly moment of inertia?
Or some other term coined with "moment". Placing more of the weight
at the edges inhibits changes in momentum. For the reason you
mention I always thought the design of many "pro" cameras would have
been more functional if some of their excessive height was traded
for a bit more width.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:59:04 -0700, Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

Angular momentum is a lot more important than total weight.
You want the weight at the edges, not the center.

I know what you mean, but I think that's the wrong term. If the
camera isn't rotating it has no angular momentum. Sorry, but I
don't recall what the proper term is. Possibly moment of inertia?
Or some other term coined with "moment". Placing more of the weight
at the edges inhibits changes in momentum. For the reason you
mention I always thought the design of many "pro" cameras would have
been more functional if some of their excessive height was traded
for a bit more width.

ASAAR wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:59:04 -0700, Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

Angular momentum is a lot more important than total weight.
You want the weight at the edges, not the center.

I know what you mean, but I think that's the wrong term. If the
camera isn't rotating it has no angular momentum. Sorry, but I
don't recall what the proper term is. Possibly moment of inertia?
Or some other term coined with "moment". Placing more of the weight
at the edges inhibits changes in momentum. For the reason you
mention I always thought the design of many "pro" cameras would have
been more functional if some of their excessive height was traded
for a bit more width.

"Polar moment of inertia"?
http://www.k12.nf.ca/gc/Staff/Teache...olarmoment.htm

Seems to me a light camera on a heavy lens is more likely to rotate
around some locus in the lens; a heavy-heavy camera-lens is likely to
rotate around the center of the combination; a light-light is more
likely to respond to small inputs than either of the preceding.

I think the determining characteristic is mass. Heavier is harder to
start and stop, more stable static and in motion. The "balance" is
pretty much secondary.

Of course if you clamp that sucker to your forehead with your eye to the
viewfinder, the system is now quite a bit more stable and complex. It
may be that technique can compensate for low mass.


--
Frank ess