rebel 350 v. 20d

has anyone published a review of both images and handling of the rebel
350 and canon 20d - using the same lenses, taking the same pix etc? is
there any disadvantage other than the perhaps 0.3 megpixel difference
in their chips?

tia ... steve

wrote in message
...
has anyone published a review of both images and handling of the rebel
350 and canon 20d - using the same lenses, taking the same pix etc? is
there any disadvantage other than the perhaps 0.3 megpixel difference
in their chips?

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/digital_rebel_xt/

I find the 350D too small. "If I was a 5ft female, maybe the size would be
perfect."

But it sounds as though the image quality is very very similar.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

wrote in message
...
has anyone published a review of both images and handling of the rebel
350 and canon 20d - using the same lenses, taking the same pix etc? is
there any disadvantage other than the perhaps 0.3 megpixel difference
in their chips?

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/digital_rebel_xt/

I find the 350D too small. "If I was a 5ft female, maybe the size would be
perfect."

But it sounds as though the image quality is very very similar.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
has anyone published a review of both images and handling of the rebel
350 and canon 20d - using the same lenses, taking the same pix etc? is
there any disadvantage other than the perhaps 0.3 megpixel difference
in their chips?

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/digital_rebel_xt/

I find the 350D too small. "If I was a 5ft female, maybe the size would be
perfect."

So are you a 7ft female? 6ft female?

I think that you are simply "used to" the huge size of earlier Canons etc
and have not yet opened your mind.

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
has anyone published a review of both images and handling of the rebel
350 and canon 20d - using the same lenses, taking the same pix etc? is
there any disadvantage other than the perhaps 0.3 megpixel difference
in their chips?

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/digital_rebel_xt/

I find the 350D too small. "If I was a 5ft female, maybe the size would be
perfect."

So are you a 7ft female? 6ft female?

I think that you are simply "used to" the huge size of earlier Canons etc
and have not yet opened your mind.

"Pete D" wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:
wrote:

has anyone published a review of both images and handling of the rebel
350 and canon 20d - using the same lenses, taking the same pix etc? is
there any disadvantage other than the perhaps 0.3 megpixel difference
in their chips?

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/digital_rebel_xt/

I find the 350D too small. "If I was a 5ft female, maybe the size would
be
perfect."

So are you a 7ft female? 6ft female?

I'm someone who has actually handled the thing: it's seriously awkward _for
my hands_. The 300D and Mamiya 7 are very nice _for my hands_. Some people
much prefer the 1D series size and weight.

It's a radically different beast from the 300D, and for people who don't
have a local store that carries it, IMHO, it's important to point out that
Canon really busted their collective butts to make it smaller, and
succeeded. It's not a cheap version of the 20D, it's a miniature version of
the 20D.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

"Pete D" wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:
wrote:

has anyone published a review of both images and handling of the rebel
350 and canon 20d - using the same lenses, taking the same pix etc? is
there any disadvantage other than the perhaps 0.3 megpixel difference
in their chips?

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/digital_rebel_xt/

I find the 350D too small. "If I was a 5ft female, maybe the size would
be
perfect."

So are you a 7ft female? 6ft female?

I'm someone who has actually handled the thing: it's seriously awkward
_for
my hands_. The 300D and Mamiya 7 are very nice _for my hands_. Some people
much prefer the 1D series size and weight.

It's a radically different beast from the 300D, and for people who don't
have a local store that carries it, IMHO, it's important to point out that
Canon really busted their collective butts to make it smaller, and
succeeded. It's not a cheap version of the 20D, it's a miniature version
of
the 20D.

Sorry I did sound a bit of a ****** but have Canon got it that wrong? My
little Pentax *ist Ds is seriously small but great to use and handles really
well, I have reasonably big hands as I am 6ft.

"Pete D" wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"Pete D" wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/digital_rebel_xt/

I find the 350D too small. "If I was a 5ft female, maybe the size
would
be perfect."

Note that the grammatically problematic quote above is from the linked
review.

So are you a 7ft female? 6ft female?

I'm someone who has actually handled the thing: it's seriously awkward
_for
my hands_. The 300D and Mamiya 7 are very nice _for my hands_. Some
people
much prefer the 1D series size and weight.

It's a radically different beast from the 300D, and for people who don't
have a local store that carries it, IMHO, it's important to point out
that
Canon really busted their collective butts to make it smaller, and
succeeded. It's not a cheap version of the 20D, it's a miniature version
of the 20D.

Sorry I did sound a bit of a ****** but have Canon got it that wrong?

I don't think they got it wrong: they got what they wanted, which is a very
different camera from the 20D. Lots of people think the 20D's too big. Look
at the picture in the review: it's much closer to a P&S dcam in size than to
the 20D.

My little Pentax *ist Ds is seriously small but great to use and
handles really well, I have reasonably big hands as I am 6ft.

Both the Pentax and the 350D leave my little finger swinging in the breeze
and me holding the camera by the tips of my middle and ring fingers. The
300D fits my hand perfectly. (OK, truth in advertising: I'm 6'2" with tip of
thumb to tip of little finger being 25 cm. That's a large hand. (It drives
the drillers at the pro bowling shops here in Japan up a wall, because their
jigs can't handle hands that large.))

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

"Pete D" wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"Pete D" wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/digital_rebel_xt/

I find the 350D too small. "If I was a 5ft female, maybe the size
would
be perfect."

Note that the grammatically problematic quote above is from the linked
review.

So are you a 7ft female? 6ft female?

I'm someone who has actually handled the thing: it's seriously awkward
_for
my hands_. The 300D and Mamiya 7 are very nice _for my hands_. Some
people
much prefer the 1D series size and weight.

It's a radically different beast from the 300D, and for people who
don't
have a local store that carries it, IMHO, it's important to point out
that
Canon really busted their collective butts to make it smaller, and
succeeded. It's not a cheap version of the 20D, it's a miniature
version
of the 20D.

Sorry I did sound a bit of a ****** but have Canon got it that wrong?

I don't think they got it wrong: they got what they wanted, which is a
very
different camera from the 20D. Lots of people think the 20D's too big.
Look
at the picture in the review: it's much closer to a P&S dcam in size than
to
the 20D.

My little Pentax *ist Ds is seriously small but great to use and
handles really well, I have reasonably big hands as I am 6ft.

Both the Pentax and the 350D leave my little finger swinging in the breeze
and me holding the camera by the tips of my middle and ring fingers. The
300D fits my hand perfectly. (OK, truth in advertising: I'm 6'2" with tip
of
thumb to tip of little finger being 25 cm. That's a large hand. (It drives
the drillers at the pro bowling shops here in Japan up a wall, because
their
jigs can't handle hands that large.))

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

My hand is 22.5cm, perhaps you need a bit of a redux on the hands ;-)

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

"Pete D" wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"Pete D" wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/digital_rebel_xt/

I find the 350D too small. "If I was a 5ft female, maybe the size
would
be perfect."

Note that the grammatically problematic quote above is from the linked
review.

So are you a 7ft female? 6ft female?

I'm someone who has actually handled the thing: it's seriously awkward
_for
my hands_. The 300D and Mamiya 7 are very nice _for my hands_. Some
people
much prefer the 1D series size and weight.

It's a radically different beast from the 300D, and for people who
don't
have a local store that carries it, IMHO, it's important to point out
that
Canon really busted their collective butts to make it smaller, and
succeeded. It's not a cheap version of the 20D, it's a miniature
version
of the 20D.

Sorry I did sound a bit of a ****** but have Canon got it that wrong?

I don't think they got it wrong: they got what they wanted, which is a
very
different camera from the 20D. Lots of people think the 20D's too big.
Look
at the picture in the review: it's much closer to a P&S dcam in size than
to
the 20D.

My little Pentax *ist Ds is seriously small but great to use and
handles really well, I have reasonably big hands as I am 6ft.

Both the Pentax and the 350D leave my little finger swinging in the breeze
and me holding the camera by the tips of my middle and ring fingers. The
300D fits my hand perfectly. (OK, truth in advertising: I'm 6'2" with tip
of
thumb to tip of little finger being 25 cm. That's a large hand. (It drives
the drillers at the pro bowling shops here in Japan up a wall, because
their
jigs can't handle hands that large.))

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

My hand is 22.5cm, perhaps you need a bit of a redux on the hands ;-)