I’m thinking of buying the Canon Digital Rebel XT. All the SLRs I’ve ever owned were film cameras and before I buy I think I should ask a pertinent question.
What lifespan should I expect from one of these digital SLR’s? When I would invest in a film SLR in the past I expected it to last years if not decades. Now that everything is going digital, purely electronic devices have a limited lifespan (planned obsolescence). Should I expect my camera to die in three years even if I take care of it?
I wouldn’t plan on it dying in 3 years. From what I’ve heard around my photo forums, the Rebels are good for a minimum of 30,000-50,000 shutter cycles, and oftentimes much more.
The march of progress may make you feel like you have an obsolete camera, but as long as it’s taking the pictures you need it to take, then it’s worth something to you (though the market may disagree).
I still shoot with my D60 (dating to the early part of 2002), and am only starting to contemplate an upgrade now. I saw a pro shooting a wedding a couple weeks back with a DCS560 (that goes back to the late 90’s if I remember right…).
The one tip I would give you is that if you’re looking for an XT, I’d wait about a month or so. The XTi was just announced yesterday, and prices on the XT will start dropping as soon as the XTi becomes available to the public (supposedly mid-Sept according to Canon).
Also, if you have larger hands, or plan to use larger lenses, the optional battery grip is a great addition to the XT. Not only will it double your battery life, it’ll make a small camera balance better (at least IMHO). The part no. is BG-E3.
In railfanning cameras can get hard use, but in spite of that I still have my two Pentax K 1000’s and my Pentax ZX 50’s which are useable even though each camera has been dropped at least once in the heat of the chase. Whether digital cameras can take any kind of a beating remains to be seen. Because of my recent investment in a digital SLR and a DVD camcorder you can be sure I’m going to take better of them than I did with the film-based cameras and my tape-based camcorders.
One piece of advice I have heard about digital SLR’s. Be careful where you change the lenses to avoid dusty areas to prevent dust from getting on the sensor; further, it is not too good an idea to change lenses too frequently for the same reason. If dust gets on the sensor it has to be cleaned, and in some cases it may have to be done professionally.
I’m not an expert on cameras, but wasn’t the Rebel XT the one with the poor shutter life? Canon had designed the shutter pin too small, and after 4,000 photos at the most, the pin would break. Canon never did anything about it.
Please correct me if I am wrong. I know that one of the Rebels had that problem, and I believe it was the XT.
I think the problem was in the original Rebel, not the XT. It was also spotty at best (though it would be frustrating to be one of the ones who had a shutter failure at less than 10,000 cycles as some did). I don’t remember hearing anything about shutter issues with the XT, but I’ll do a little snooping around my photo forums today.
I don’t know about decades, but your pretty safe with the major camera brands… They tend to make stuff that’s fixable. The brands that have mainly an electronics background… That’s a different story. They tend to take more of a disposable attitude with products. Dave http://www.dpdproductions.com - Featuring the TrainTenna Railroad Radio Antennas -
I have used many cameras in my life. Now I normally just take my little Canon “Power Shot” because it fits in my shirt pocket and the tripod fits in my backpocket. The picture quality is satisfactory.
Well isn’t that just the neatest little thing ever! That would be the greatest thing to throw in the backpack while I’m out hiking ever!
It’s interesting that this topic popped back up today. I think I’m about to make a huge camera decision. Not just the camera, but my whole system might be getting a makeover.
Currently I’m thinking the following:
Pick up a new Rebel XTi…the D60 becomes the back-up camera. Sell off the remaining Rebel G body (no more film EOS cameras).
Sell the 16-35mm f2.8L and pick up a 17-55mm f2.8 IS.
Sell the 70-200 f4L and pick up a 70-200 f4L IS.
Sell the 200-500mm f5-6.3 and pick up a 400mm f5.6L and a 1.4x Cheater.
Add a 35mm f2, 85mm f1.8, 135mm f2L and maybe a 200mm 2.8L.
The only thing I worry about is the XTi failing, and not being able to use the 17-55 on the D60 (the D60 isn’t EFs compatible).
Eventually, when full frame falls into the price range of mere mortals, I’ll pick up a FF body, ditch the 17-55 for a 24-105L IS, and maybe a 17-40mm f4L.
At any rate, thanks for the link Miniwyo, I think I’ll be picking one of those up!
Thanks for the advice. I will wait a little more until the Canon XTi comes out and see where the XT prices go.
I still use my old Pentax K1000 film camera and I have a few Canon A1’s and AE1’s that I’m still holding onto. Too bad slide film is so hard to come by these days. I guess it’s time I finally bite the bullet and buy myself a digital SLR.
" Too bad slide film is so hard to come by these days."
There have actually been some great slide films made in the last few years. Kodak updated E100S and E100SW to E100G and E100GX, both of which are extremely fine grained(RMS 8) and pleasantly saturated. Fuji updated Velvia 50 to Velvia 100, which has finer grain and close to the same color pallette. Fuji also just announced a new finer-grained 64T and, perhaps the most exciting, an updated Provia 400X with an RMS granularity of 11.
Any well stocked camera shop should still have a good selection of fresh films. If not, many people order from B&H or Adorama in New York.
What’s the theory behind all these lenses? (especially the 35, 85 and 135 fixed ones).
I’m also wondering about the 55 - 75mm gap. I find that to be quite a popular range.
Basically I’m a lazy so & so. I got 3 lenses; 18-80, 70-300 & 150-500 so I get a bit of overlap, and continual coverage from wide(ish) to quite long. Now tht I’ve gone digital I’m thinking of getting a 12-24 to bring me back to the wide end, but they’re so darned expensive.
I think they’re lenses that will fit in well with my style of shooting. I’ll try to outline my thoughts each one individually:
17-55mm f2.8 IS - When this lens came out, I was sort of neutral about it. It looked good, but it was one of those darned EFs things. Now that I’m finally going to own an EFs capable body, I thought it might be worth a try. I’ve started disliking my 16-35mm f2.8L lately. It simply doesn’t perform to the level I expect of my lenses. I’ve read that apart from a little barrel distortion and vignetting (both present in the 16-35, and both easily correctable in post processing), the 17-55 is a gem of a lens. Having a 3 stop IS on an f2.8 lens on a body that should do decent ISO 1600 means that I’ll be able to shoot a black bear, at midnight during a new moon (OK…maybe not that drastic, but you get the picture).
70-200 f4L IS - My non-IS 70-200 is the best zoom I’ve ever used (and trust me, I’ve played with a lot of zoom lenses). Having an IS version makes this the essential lightweight mid-range zoom IMHO. I fully expect this lens to be nothing short of spectacular, and one I think I’ll use quite a bit.
400mm f5.6L - My Tamron 200-500 is another OK lens, but not a great one. The 400mm has earned quite a reputation around my various hang-outs. I wish it was IS, but I’ve already got plans for it’s replacement in about 2-3 years. The 1.4x teleconvertor will add a little more reach without much loss in image quality.
35mm f2 - The 35mm focal length works out to be pretty close to a “normal” focal length on a cropped body. I’ve looked at the 35mm f1.4L and the Sigma 30mm f1.4 as well. The former is just too expensive and heavy for me right now, and the latter is great…but only in the center of the picture. It lacks quite a bit on the edges. The f2 version is a little old, but it’s a respectable performer. It’s tiny, lightweight, and is a stop faster than the 17-55 (sometimes one needs shutter speed to stop motion…IS won’t help there).