Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (
-   General Discussion (
-   -   camera vs lenses (

rcsdds Nov 13, 2003 8:12 AM

camera vs lenses
I am moving from 30 years of 35mm film (hobby) to digital and quickly moving past point and shoot. I am considering the Digital Rebel but without their included lens. I would like something faster and I know it is more expensive. My question: if I'm going to spend $900 on a camera body and $1000+ on a lens should I just move up to the Canon 10D or Nikon D100? Is the Rebel body worth saving $500-600? I have always considered the lens more crucial than the body with film but this might be different with digital.

JimC Nov 13, 2003 11:16 AM

The new Digital Rebel does have some features missing (or disabled in firmware), compared to the EOS-10D. There are some metering differences, missing Exposure Compensation with some flash types, etc. This may or not be an issue to you, but I'd take it into consideration.

If they gave the Rebel everything in the higher priced 10D, then it would probably cut into sales of the more expensive models, so they apparently made some marketing decisions to distinquish the models.

marokero Nov 13, 2003 1:41 PM

Are you looking to use the camera professionally or continue in the hobby? The 10D will certainly take much more abuse than the plastic body of the Digital Rebel. The 10D should also be a bit faster in processing images (playback, CF writing), greater burst depth, perhaps a brighter viewfinder. I do not own a 10D, but have used my photog friend's, and also handled a Digital Rebel at a store. The 10D is much more solid compared to the Digital Rebel which feels somewhat toy like. I too am of the thought a lens is more important than the camera body. The body will become obsolete long before a lens does.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:47 AM.