Why the hate on the Rebels??

"professional" can be both, one who makes a living from a profession or someone who is an expert in something.

a person who earns a living in a sport or other occupation frequently engaged in by amateurs: a golf professional.

a person who is expert at his or her work: You can tell by her comments that this editor is a real professional.

Professional | Define Professional at Dictionary.com
 
You people are nuts today.

Personally, I hate Rebels. They keep blowing up perfectly good space stations.


lol hilarious.

And I've seen that Judge Joe Brown video probably 10 times and it never gets old.
 
I question any pro who doesn't buy the best gear he or she can afford - relative to their photography needs.

Besides, is there a good reason to use a DSLR with a 1.6x or 1.5x "crop factor"... if you are a wedding photographer?

The 7D is superior to every Canon model outside of the 1D or 5D series...and it's actually superior to most of *them* in many regards, as well.
 
but then again, it costs more then everything so it kinda makes sense for it to be better.
 
but then again, it costs more then everything so it kinda makes sense for it to be better.
That statement isn't always true. The 5DmkII costs $800 more than a 7D, but I wouldn't necessarily consider it "better." It has a full frame sensor.... and..... that's about it*. Pretty much everything else is better on the 7D.



*OK, it also has 3 more MP and better high ISO performance; mostly due to the fact that it is a full frame.
 
That statement isn't always true. The 5DmkII costs $800 more than a 7D, but I wouldn't necessarily consider it "better." It has a full frame sensor.... and..... that's about it*. Pretty much everything else is better on the 7D.

I know price isn't everything, but in this case it makes sense 7D costs what it costs because it is better than everything else, yet not full frame. FF is more of an exclusive club right now. It costs more than it's worth.

I think comparing 5d mk2 to 7d is pretty useless because these two camera are differently oriented.

It's like comparing D3x to D3s. Which one is better? Depends what you're doing.
 
I have to drop 2 cents in here again. My fiancee has a rebel she shoots with from time to time. It's alot smaller to carry around, it's lite, ..it's convenient. However, professionally we shoot Nikon.

The pictures she can capture on a rebel are simply amazing. Of course there are obvious limitations. However, it helps if the photographer is not a goob, chopping of limbs and crap.
 
but then again, it costs more then everything so it kinda makes sense for it to be better.
That statement isn't always true. The 5DmkII costs $800 more than a 7D, but I wouldn't necessarily consider it "better." It has a full frame sensor.... and..... that's about it*. Pretty much everything else is better on the 7D.



*OK, it also has 3 more MP and better high ISO performance; mostly due to the fact that it is a full frame.


Yeah, that's about it. It looks like it has a stronger AA filter, too. Probably because it would have too much noise without it.

I agree that the 7D is the better camera, but as far as image quality goes, the 5D II is far superior, at every ISO. And, as you know, because it's a full frame, it gives you much better control in DOF. Subject isolation is an issue in some of your photos, IMO.
 
I think I can chime in here on the Rebel, because unlike many of you, the Rebel was my first decent camera and I shoot one regularly.

Does it take nice pictures? Yes it does! Is it a 1ds Mark II? Not a chance in hell! Does L glass make the image better? You bet it does, I shot a tree through the 75-300mm beercan and then the same thing with a 28-300mm L and the L looked 1000 times better. And, btw, 400mm 2.8L = :drool:

Two photographers will sprout from buying a Rebel. One will keep it and think "it's good enough" or "I've got pro equipment I'm going to go shoot a wedding in full auto for some big bucks" etc.

The second, which is kind of the direction I'm heading, is the guy who got his first taste of a higher end camera and realizes what's out there and can learn the basics on it, and once he has mastered that he can spring for the 7D or the 1D, or jump ship and get the D3x. Good gear makes the shot but I think Ansel Adams said it best, "The most important part of a camera is 12 inches behind the viewfinder"

Give a good photographer a Nikon Coolpix, Casio Exlim, Powershot SD1300is, etc. and in the right lighting they'll nail a good shot. A good camera always helps but at the end of the day there's still a human being pushing all the buttons on it.
 
I agree that the 7D is the better camera, but as far as image quality goes, the 5D II is far superior, at every ISO. And, as you know, because it's a full frame, it gives you much better control in DOF. Subject isolation is an issue in some of your photos, IMO.

Oh believe me, I know. But I'm not gonna throw down 2500 bucks to get slow burst and laggy AF, among other "downgrades." I used a freind of a friend's 5DII with the kit 24-105 and a 50 1.2. I was really unimpressed with its speed and handling in low light. When it could actually achieve focus, the pics came out great, but I had to fight with it every step of the way. So until Canon steps up the handling of the 5D (or releases a low MP speed FF like Nikon's D700), I'm more or less stuck with this or an APS-H 1D (which out of my budget at the moment). Not that it's a bad thing; as long as I'm aware of the limitations and work with/around them.
 
Last edited:

Most reactions

Back
Top