Canon EOS-300 (Rebel 2000)

One trick that I have never had the patience to try is to fake flash-exposure compensation with the built-in flash by lying to the camera about the film-speed. Tell it that it has faster film than you have actually loaded to get flash-under exposure and slower to get flash over-exposure. Obviously this is prohibitively inconvenient, probably should only be done in manual mode and runs the risk of leaving the camera set to the wrong film speed.

John Mount: Yes, that trick works, at least in manual mode (I have heard reports that the exposure compensation that one has to give in the auto exposure modes also compensate the flash back to its initial point), with all the inconvenience you mentioned.

The automatic fill flash feature worked okay for me the few times I used the flash in well-lighted situation (open sun in early afternoon), but I didn't use it enough to criticise. Make sure the active focus point is on top of the subject, so that the camera doesn't try to flash that little bistro in the shadow a hundred feet farther. :-)

I have both the Rebel 2000 and an EOS-3. I thought the Rebel will be great for backpacking and climbing trips, but I end up taking the EOS-3 almost everywhere. Way too often I get a badly focused or badly exposed picture, which doesn't happen with the EOS-3. I also get more scratched film with the Rebel then the EOS-3.

I dislike the pre-wind feature of the Rebel. The slides return from processing numbered in reverse, and it is causes too much confusion trying to deal with it.

Ron

A great review, I agree with the points. Just to support the view that an EOS 300 is a truly great first 35mm autofocus camera, it really excited my interest for photography. Its now my second camera, the first being the EOS-50E, which gives a lot more control and is significantly heavier.

The 50/1.8 is also a must, I dumped my 28-80 very early in its life for a fixed prime, not regretted it once. SO light, it is also good for hiking with a 24/2.8, all in a padded bag on my belt - never notice the weight.

Idiot modes can come in very useful, especially if you are tring to keep three points of contact on a rock at the time....and they rarely take BAD shots. Just not amazing shots.

With my first set of film, untried before I took the Yoesmite picture in my portfolio (with a 28-80)- which was 2 weeks after I bought the camera.

You mention you don't like the way you adjust manual mode. A trick I learned on my Rebel G that probably works on the 2000 as well is to switch first to Av and set your apeture, then switch to Tv and set you shutter speed, then switch to manual mode and the settings stick.

I mostly agree with this review. But concerning assistance with manual focus I have to disagree. In focus indicator in viewfinder works even in MF mode. When you adjust focus manually it lights up when subject is in focus, difference is that it has no beep sound. Be careful with eyepiece, it falls off easily. My advice is to buy BP-200 and 50mm f/1.8 II. For photos taken with EOS 300 see my photo.net portfolio. There are some photos taken with this camera.

That the EOS300 comes out quite badly in this review should not come as a surprise. Conventionally a product is compared with its peers rather than the next model up!

Those missing features -- the mirror lock-up, the custom functions, the second control wheel -- are also absent from the Nikon F65, its main competition. Don't forget that the EOS30 costs around 50% more than the EOS300, it should have extra, more professional features!

I think the EOS300 is good value for money and greatly prefer the faster, quieter auto-focusing to the marginally better build-quality of the Nikon. Not everyone can afford to buy an EOS30.

If you buy the camera, read carefully the manual to learn how to use the different metering modes. With respect to metering, this camera is actually as capable as the Elan, but how to switch to center-weighted (use M) and partial metering (use *) cannot be figured just by looking at the camera.

It continues to amaze me that people are willing to spend money on, and entrust their picture-taking to, a shoddy plastic toy with a second-rate plastic zoom-lens. There are any number of used, well-built cameras that will simply destroy the "Rebel." Someone I know owns one of these Canons and, on one occasion, the owner became quite depressed when my pictures of something we'd both shot completely embarassed his effort. The camera I used was made in 1957 and purchased for $32 on eBay.

Ask yourself "Will this comment help other photo.net readers take better pictures?"---Photonet

Yes, it will. Buying an old mechanical camera will not only provide them with far superior optics, the lack of "automated" features will require them to spend a couple of hours reading about exposure and ultimately learn the sort of fundamentals that are critical for taking good pictures in any consistent or consciously creative manner.

I think Vuk could have been said it in a more constructive way, but he's mostly right.

Getting the Rebel 2000 kit (and actually, most SLR kits are the same) will get you an awfully bad zoom lens that is just about at the rock-bottom of the quality you can get. You'll get the WORST Canon makes, there's not the shadow of a doubt.

SAVE YOURSELF THE PAIN, AND DO NOT GET THE KIT.

Also, there is still no way of making good pictures without using your brain. The Rebel will try to let you, but this is a curse, it'll let you lie to yourself about your actual talent. An old mechanical camera will be ruthless at exposing you for the brainless idiot that you are.

Getting a used mechanical camera could be a very good alternative. But for a relatively clueless newbie, this can be a truly painful experience. There is comfort in getting a sparkling new camera fully covered by a well-known manufacturer's warranty. See this article about a comparison between modern and old cameras, why you'd pick one over the other and what and where to get them.

I will soon update and expand my review to include the very relevant comments made up to now.

I justed wanted to pitch in and say that the camera was the first AF camera I bought (grew up with an old Fuji manual). I couldn't believe the weight when I first tried it - I though the guy had given me a plastic replica. I travel a lot & like others have said it's a great camera to stick into your bag. I've taken some great shots with it and while it doesn't have some of the features of its bigger brothers, I'm very happy with it.

One weak point that does annoy me is auto-focusing in low-light/night time conditions. The AF assists strobes the flash, but quite often the lense keeps searching without finding it's target. (I bought 28-80 USM lense with it).

I must have taken over 4,000 shots with this camera in the last 2 years and overall I have to say I love it. However, I've learned a lot from it and am thinking of moving up to an EOS-3, but I'll still take the EOS-300 everywhere with me as a backup.

There are any number of used, well-built cameras that will simply destroy the "Rebel." Someone I know owns one of these Canons and, on one occasion, the owner became quite depressed when my pictures of something we'd both shot completely embarassed his effort. The camera I used was made in 1957 and purchased for $32 on eBay.

I disagree with this - a camera is a camera. Lenses might make a difference to image quality, but not the camera (unless it malfunctions). You pictures came out better because you're a better photographer, not because you used a manual camera.

The Rebel is perfectly capable of doing everything that a manual camera can do, just swing the dial to 'M'. I think that automation (especially aperture priority) frees you from technical detail and allows you to think about taking photographs and looking and thinking about your subject rather than fussing with a camera. And for beginners it is very useful to have automated exposure systems as it means you are far more likely to get good exposures rather than have to learn the hard way and get frustrated and lose a lot of shots like they had to in the good old days. You can always learn how to do it the hard way later, that's what I did anyway - but there's no obligation if you find it too technical and boring!

As for it being made of plastic, well that's another matter...

The way the Canons "count down" the remaining pictures might make sense, but it's the opposite of every camera I've ever used. It got me into big trouble once, while helping a friend on a shoot. Asked to load a certain film, I saw the counter on "1," so I figured I'd just pull that roll right out. A blank roll, right? With the leader and one frame's worth left out, it could even be used later. WRONG! By mistake, I trashed a whole roll of a friend's precious Halloween pictures. Thank you, Canon.

However, I must not have read the review carefully. Pierre pointed out to me that this camera winds the exposed film back into the canister, which makes sense. It would have prevented my little faux pas. It's certainly an improvement over the earlier model I got into trouble with.

I think that the Rebel 2000 when paired with either the 50/1.8 lens or the 24-85 zoom makes a dynamite travel camera. I own more sophisticated EOS bodies and L glass and they are great. But last summer when my wife and I went to London and Paris I took the Rebel 2000 and the 24-85 lens and it was the perfect photographic tool for the trip. Lightweight, good optics, and enough control to get the job done. Rebel 2000 + 50/1.8= 1 pound! Rebel 2000 + 24-85 zoom = 1.5 pounds. Much better than any point and shoot out there for only a few ounces more. Plus, when I want to take a carefully composed, well executed photo I can use the DOF preview, partial metering, and manual mode if I want to. But, when I hand the camera to my wife to take a snapshot of me in front of the Seine, zoot alors!! I am actually IN FOCUS!

No, it is not an EOS 1V, but you can buy 6 Rebel 2000's for the price of one 1V. I am tired of people deriding entry level cameras for not being professional cameras. I have found this camera to be absolutely perfect for hiking and travel. I have recommended it to friends who want something better than a point and shoot to record their kids and family events and they all love the camera. If you want to really learn photography get a Pentax K1000 or a Leica M6. If you aspire to be a pro shooter get an EOS 3 or 1V. If you want access to Canon glass with more control than a point and shoot get this camera. You will like it.

Everything has its PROS and CONS

I bought a Rebel 2000 but I didn't get a fast 50mm prime because I wanted the versatility of many focal lengths and figured the trade-off of speed and some sharpness would be worth it. I traveled around Italy for 4 months last year with a wonderful (but heavy!) Minolta from 1969 armed with a fixed Rokkor 45mm/1.8 lens. The lens is of excellent quality but after a while I found the fixed focal length to be extremely limiting.

Sometimes you just can't get closer to recompose your shot... like when you're standing on a bridge that crosses the Tiber River in Rome and you want to get a nice (though admittedly hackneyed) shot of St Peter's Basilica and its reflection in the river but you can't take the shot because there's the corner of a docked, hideous boat that creeps into the frame and that a zoom lens would have allowed you to easily cut out with a twist of your wrist. Those were the kinds of frustrations and limitations that I endured with a prime 45mm lens and I didn't want to repeat that experience by only buying Canon's 50/1.8 lens. The 28-80mm/3.5-5.6 kit lens is far from stellar, but it's decent and it suits my purposes for the time being.

How nice, someone finally did a review on the camera I use. As an entry-level photographer, I can truly say that this entry-level camera works very well. It is very affordable (w/ out the kit, for the love of all you hold sacred - horrible optics on the crappy zoom), wonderfully light, and, all things considered, an easy camera to use. I find that my Rebel affords me a lot of opportunity to get excited about photography and begin to refine my skills. I find that MY kit works wonderfully for traveling and hiking and just about any situation: a 50 f/1.8 (version one, hardish to find, but better constructed), a 100-300mm USM (it's hard to move the camera tens of meters sometimes, decent enough optics, affordable-ish), a soon to be bought 24 f/2, and a Slik 6600 (I think that is the right model, extremely light tripod, affordable [I bought it for $30 on sale], good for not-too-long exposures). At this point in my forray into photography, this camera is very flexible and gives me an ease of use over many features that used to only belong to "pro" cameras, (like, five years ago). As a college student, I was able to afford buying the body and two used lenses and a tripod and STILL had enough budget for a couple of filters and 40 rolls of film. *Sigh*, as mentioned before, the eyepiece is very easy to lose .... as can the remote cover. At this point I have to finally interject my one minor, original comment - there is a lot of talk of mechanical vs. more computerized systems and just switching the settings to 'Manual', but isn't that pretty much the same thing as setting aperture priority and then letting the camera decide the speed? I know that's how my oldish mechanical minolta did things. Plus, what is the difference between setting the aperture and speed and checking the "exposedness" on the handy exposure (+2,+1,0,-1,-2) display and just using aperature priority? Is one really more "professional"? I'd really like to know. Thanx =-)

This review is almost meaningless beyond the customary list of the cameras's features. The overall negative tone of the "analysis" is completely unjustified and it will probably steer prospective users away unnecessarely. The reviewer bemoans the lack of features, flexibility and potential durabilty when compared to pro-level bodies. This is like reviewing a Honda Civic and complaining that it's not up to Porsche standards; it's meaningless! This cameara is loaded with advanced features and offers great flexibility from fully manual, or aperture priority to the full "idiot" mode, as he calls it. Sure it can't track and shoot motor racing at 10fps, and it probably won't fare as well after 6 months of war photojurnalism in a Columbian rain forest, but who cares. This camera is more than capable for it's intended audience and it makes an excellent backup even for a hard working pro. The Rebel 2000 has been reliable and consistent for me from the cold and wet Candian Arctic to the hot and dry American Southwest; in fact I have stopped lugging around my other 2 "pro bodies" about 2 years ago when I realized that the Rebel was equally capable. Combined with the 28-135IS, I highly recomand it as the perfect travel-adventure setup.

I disagree with this - a camera is a camera. Lenses might make a difference to image quality, but not the camera (unless it malfunctions). You pictures came out better because you're a better photographer, not because you used a manual camera.-- richard harris

Richard, I agree that the lens is everything and I was using the word "camera" loosely to mean both body and lens. The point remains that a $30 camera/lens combination from 1957 will demolish a 21st century Canon that's about 20 times the price.

Plus, what is the difference between setting the aperture and speed and checking the "exposedness" on the handy exposure (+2,+1,0,-1,-2) display and just using aperature priority? Is one really more "professional"? I'd really like to know. -- stefano poggi

Stefano, it's different in two ways, First of all, you do not necessarily want to follow the camera's suggested "0" (perfect) exposure, which is what will happen in aperture priority mode. Of course, there's "exposure compensation" but that removes you even further from knowing what is actually going on and having proper creative control over the process. Second, the exposure decisions in both of these cases depend on a measurement of reflected light. That means if you were, for the sake of argument, to photograph a white wall or a black wall individually and under identical light conditions, the camera would do it's best to make them look the same. In less radical circumstances, it still destroys the mood in many cases by wanting to make all situations look homogenous. An incident light meter measures what is falling on the subject and is a far better tool. It will also allow you to learn about light by giving you a number that means something, as opposed to the over/under that is absolutely meaningless outside of the very limited context of what you are doing at the moment. The next best is an in-camera spot-meter, but that will force you to make difficult/unreliable judgments all of the time and is hardly useful in any automatic mode (unless you've locked in on what is actually 18% grey).

The overall negative tone of the "analysis" is completely unjustified and it will probably steer prospective users away -- Anton Marcu

It is a second-rate plastic camera with a third-rate lens. For about half the price of the body alone, you can purchase a Canon AE1 Pro with a 50mm f/1.8 in the bargain! I can't imagine advising anyone set on purchasing Canon not to go with this alternate option.

By the way, the review has been updated.

Stefano: You are right, the 50mm/f1.8 Mk I is of a nice built, made of metal and sports a much nicer focusing ring, complete with distance markings. Very nice (and cheap!) lens, if you see one, get it!

The thing with manual exposure compared with aperture-priority is that you can have more control, in the sense that you can use the partial meter to evaluate certain difficult areas in the scene, check the contrast, and so on, and make an (hopefully enlightened) decision based on all of these factors, as well as what YOU want. The aperture-priority exposure is decided by the computer and might have a different idea of what is important, and will not warn you about excessive contrast in your scene. For example, it might be fooled by a streetlight in the frame or something like this.

Anton: Maybe the overall tone was negative, but I didn't mean it so much. I am a beginner in photography, and I am very grateful of the good services this camera is giving me. But I am growing, and I'm feeling the pain of not being able to set flash compensation to do fill flash for example.

I mean every words of the first paragraph of the conclusion (in fact, I mean every words of the whole review!). As you say yourself, it is an excellent backup body if you're on a budget (I still suppose you'd want a second identical body if you have enough money) and it's light weight makes it awesome for traveling. Less demanding users will be fully satisfied by this camera, but I stand to my conclusion that if you are serious, it might be better to save a bit more and buy an EOS-30 right away rather than buy a Rebel 2000 only to be selling it (losing money on it) for an EOS-30 (or other) later on. Acceptable body to start with, and can be kept as an excellent backup or when you want a lighter camera to carry around.

The point remains that a $30 camera/lens combination from 1957 will demolish a 21st century Canon that's about 20 times the price.

This is undeniable if you are comparing it to the kit version with the nasty zoom. In terms of value for money your suggestion is unbeatable, but that doesn't mean that modern cameras don't have many benefits. Paired with a decent lens (and Canon make many), the Rebel is very capable. It also has the benefits of modern metering systems, and though you may disaprove of them they are very good. They do not teach the user much about photography however, but that's not to say that you can't learn this by using the camera in manual mode as I said earlier. With a modern camera you can get the best of both worlds, it's up to the user to decide.

Vuk, this is a review of the Rebel 2000 body and the review should compare it against its peers. This is NOT about learning how to read light conditions, incident light meters, 1957 manual mechanical cameras, or "plastic zooms", and it is certainly not about forcing people to "spend a couple of hours reading about exposure and ultimately learn the sort of fundamentals that are critical for taking good pictures...". Your argument that your 1957 camera destroyed your friend's Rebel is meaningless and contradictory. It was your skill as a photographer that was better than your friend's. Furthermore, an old mechanical body will not provide anyone with better optics, it will only provide an old mechanical body on which you can stick any lens you want: a plastic shitty zoom or an aspherical prime; which will produce an equally mediocre result in the hands of a novice. However, in the hands of a novice, regardless of optics and composition, a Rebel 2000 can provide a far greater percentage of shots that are in focus and have a well balanced exposure compared to any center-weighted manual exposure mechanical camera; and this is what it's all about. I will argue that this is better because it allows one to concentrate on composition and subject mater, which I think is more important than ultimate lens sharpness or the perfect exposure.

an old mechanical body will not provide anyone with better optics, it will only provide an old mechanical body on which you can stick any lens you want-- Anton Marcu

Anton.

I guess you didn't read my second posting in which I clarified that I didn't mean just "body" when I spoke of my old 1957 camera. As for the rest of what I've said, I believe it is tremendously relevant and I will do my best to discourage people from accepting shoddy, marketing-driven products--not only in the arena of photography. Restricting comparisons to other comparable devices only makes sense if you accept that the class of product is worthwhile to begin with. I do not. In an attempt to be as constructive as possible in such a context, I have also pointed to a viable second-hand alternative from the same manufacturer (the Canon AE1-P) that is a far superior camera at less than half the price of the Rebel. IMO, it is much a more appropriate entry-level solution for anyone interested in the level of photography that SLR represents.

I disagree with those that are simply trashing the Rebel 2000 as a plastic toy without merit. I wanted to get my feet wet in photography starting about a year ago, and did quite a bit of research before making any purchase. Given my beginner status and given my budget, the Rebel 2000 made perfect sense.

Agreed, the zoom included in any "kit" is pretty bad. Simple...just don't buy the kit!! After doing the research, for a few dollars more, I simply bought the Rebel body, and the much better quality 28-105 USM lens. The Rebel, combined with this lens, provided a wonderful entry into the world of SLR's.

Is the Rebel "cheaply made", as is implied throughout the discussion here? Only if you equate plastic with cheapness, which I know many folks do. Being a clumsy sort, I've either dropped it or fallen down with it a few times, with no negative repercussions. I for one welcome the light weight.

As for those implying that this camera body itself makes it difficult to get a good photograph...all I have to say is that's a bunch of bunk! Don't get me wrong...I'm just starting out and am anything BUT an accomplished photographer, but in the hands of a skilled photographer, this body is perfectly capable of producing wonderful photographs.

Do I realize it's a "starter" body? Of course...just as I realize that my horribly soft 75-300 USM zoom is terribly insufficient for a bird photographer wanna-be. However, the negative focus of many of the comments on this thread shouldn't be directed towards the Rebel body, but rather towards the poor lenses usually packaged with it. As one about to purchase a longer prime Canon L lens, I will have no problem attaching said lens to the Rebel body, at least until my finances (and ego) allow me to get that top-of-the-line Canon body.

$300 for a point and shoot zoom or $400.oo for an entry level slr??? The rebel is geared towards entry level photogs and I wish pros would not compare it to a pro canon slr. Sure, the L lenses are great but they are 25 times more expensive. Let people enjoy their foray into real photography. It should be noted that a lot of amateurs use this site and the comments/advice have to be tempered with the audience for the camera in mind. I enjoy my Rebel and prefer it as a perfect travel camera with the 50mm and the 28-105 zoom lens. With the 420 ex flash photography is incredible. Try doing it with a Canon Ae1. This from a Canonet and rangefinder addict. Manual and old slrs are great but require more knowledge and patience from the user. Lighten up, you gearheads...

Vuk wrote : Buying an old mechanical camera will not only provide them with far superior optics, the lack of "automated" features will require them to spend a couple of hours reading about exposure and ultimately learn the sort of fundamentals that are critical for taking good pictures in any consistent or consciously creative manner.

With that logic, you must be using an old 8x10 view camera and coating your own glass plates. An 8x10 will give you a far better image quality than any 35mm camera. And it's got no "automated" features. People can very well learn the fundamentals using an AF/AE SLR if you put your mind to it.

A camera is an instrument which allows me to capture images. The argument about fully manual cameras "forcing" you to learn this and that is rubbish - do you really want to be forced into learning photography? Someone who is not interested in understanding exposure/metering/focusing will do a bad job, whether he/she uses a manual-everything camera or something else. Most likely, the AF/AE SLR will produce much better results in his/her hands.

About optics, are you really sure the "older mechanical" cameras had better optics? There are scores of excellent lenses available for modern AF/AE SLRs, some of which don't even exist for older cameras. Since I primarily use Canon, I can comment on some of the lenses I've had/used - like the EF24/2.8, 50/1.4, 100/2.8 macro USM, etc. In what way are these inferior to older MF lenses?

Glue the removable eyepiece to the camera, or you'll lose it, sooner or later.

I don't know why Canon didn't make the locking springs tight enough. Maybe this was to reduce the number of support calls "How do I remove the eyepiece". Maybe it boosted the sales of spare eyepieces and diopter attachments. Sure, it also nudges users towards purchasing a more expensive body.

Locks are better on higher-end cameras (like everything else). EOS-3 has a lock that is nearly strong enough; still, my diopter attachment flew off to the ground recently, causing me to curse and reach for lens paper.

Since I have owned both the Rebel G and Rebel 2000, I think I can offer some opinions. I had used a Rebel G for about 3 years as a backup to my A2 (EOS 5) before giving it to my brother. Just recently I bought a Rebel 2000 as a backup body. So far I only played with this camera and have not taken any pictures with the it, but I think that is irrelevant to my review here.

The most important advantage of either Rebel model is that they are incredibly small and lightweight. So light and compact in fact, when used with the EF 50mm f/1.8 lens or EF 35mm f/2.0 lens, you will hardly notice its existence if you sling it around your shoulder. So light and compact, in fact, I can put it in the side pouch of my camera bag (when there is no lens attached). It is not much heavier than one of the more clunky point-and-shoot cameras (but maybe a little larger) and definitely no larger or heavier than those "posh" compact cameras and rangfinder cameras (the Contax G2 comes to mind). Of course, the fact that they have auto-focus, built-in flash and use interchangeable lenses makes them capable of being "serious" too.

Now the advantages of the Rebel 2000 vs. the Rebel G:

1. Depth-of-field preview. For this alone I would choose the Rebel 2000. In fact, the dedicated DOF preview button is much easier to use than the custom function DOF preview on my A2.

2. The 2000 has a nice battery pack and vertical grip. I bought it too. When attached to the battery pack, the Rebel 2000 suddenly becomes almost as large as my A2, and vertical handling is much improved too. The battery pack allows you to use either 2CR5 batteries or 4 AA batteries. AA batteries are much easier to find, especially when you travel overseas. In comparison, the Rebel G doesn't have a battery pack, and the vertical grip is not very good -- it has a built-in table top tripod, but the tripod is off center. The Rebel 2000 has one vertical grip with a built-in table top tripod too, and I've seen it in Canon's catelog, and its tripod is in the center -- apparently Canon realized their mistake.

3. Better metering (35-zone vs. 6-zone). But since I haven't taken any pictures with the Rebel 2000, I wouldn't comment on this.

The disadvantages of the Rebel 2000 vs. Rebel G:

1. It doesn't come in all-black color. I don't care much for the silver color as it is quite conspicuous.

2. It uses the pop-up flash as AF assistant. The G uses a separate illuminator. The Rebel G's AF assistant light is already annoying (compared with the A2's near-infrared light), but the Rebel 2000's rapid flash is downright murderous. While I was playing with it in my room at night, the AF assistant light came on, and my wife shouted at me: "What did you do? Did you just take a picture of me???" -- she mistook the assistant light for a "real" flash burst.

Their common weakness:

Build quality. Both are very, very plasticky, with the Rebel G feels a little better. This is probably psychological though, as the Rebel G is in an all-black color. Somehow when it's all black it looks more "serious". That being said, the Rebel G, during its 3-year service, never let me down. I've used it in scorching Texas summer, rain and drizzle in the Pacific Northwest and blizzard in New York City and never had a problem with it.

Some people complain that about the Rebels 92% or so viewfinder coverage. Because of this, you may take unwanted objects in your picture. While this is true (and it has happened to me before), you can learn to get used to it. With a zoom lens it is even easier to fix this problem: just compose, then zoom out a little bit to see if there are any unwanted objects around the border of the frame, then zoom back a little to take the picture. Or you can simple zoom in a little "just in case". Even if you use a prime lens, you can "extrapolate" the composition. Compared with a rangefinder, whose view finder is not even centered due to parallax error, framing really shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Overall, think the Rebel 2000 is a more than capable camera. It has a plethora of features (DOF preview, aperture priority, shutter priority, programmable and manual exposure, exposure compensation, E-TTL .. to name a few), yet it is lightweight, compact and quite reasonably priced. It is more than sufficient as a entry-level SLR, can be used as a great travel camera and serves as a more than adequate back-up camera for non-professionals like myself.

Howard

I have recently purchased the Canon Rebel 2000, and I received it on the 18th January 2002. I now have it a day and I am pleased with it. Some of the comments made are very discouraging and I don't think that is being helpful to us aspiring photographers. I am an amature photographer and I think after much research the Rebel 2000 is ideal for me. I can learn to use the camera with a little help from auto and then gradually learn how to manipulate the manual aspects. I am pleased with this camera, and I plan to learn a lot from it in the future.

Just had to comment on the supposed "Common weakness" listed in the previous post for both the Rebel G and the Rebel 2000.

It says "Build Quality" is one of these supposed weaknesses, primarily because it's "plasticky". However, the same paragraph says that this person has had the Rebel G for 3 years without any problems, even when using in bad conditions. Why is build quality then a "common weakness"?

Plastic has an extremely bad rep...whenever someone wants to say something is "cheaply" made, they always refer to the plastic parts. However, note there haven't been any comments on anybody having trouble with the Rebel because of this supposed poor build quality.

I'll take light, "cheap" plastic any day over heavy, "reliable" metal, as long as it performs.

I've too heard from other users of this camera that despite its plastic look, it's very robust. Some have used it in harsh conditions, some have handled it otherwise carelessly - and they all agree that the camera can take more beating than what they had thought. I haven't been careless with my camera and I don't intend to, but it's good to know that there's more in the camera than what meets the eye. If the camera lacks pro equipment look although it's a reliable tool, what's wrong with that look? That it doesn't look expensive enough?

[edit: apparently editing these messages bring them to the end of the list, I posted this many days ago and before my message above]

I bought EOS 300 some time ago and it's my first SLR camera. I've never used another SLR camera, so I think my experience from beginner's point of view is useful.

EOS 300 is an entry level camera with features designed mainly for first-buyers, but apparently the camera isn't that bad because also many professionals use it as backup or second camera in some situations. However, One must bear in mind that this is the first SLR camera to many users - the undersigned included - who don't even recognize some of the drawbacks which annoy the more experienced users.

First the "reversed" film transform. As a beginner I couldn't care less how the film transfer is handled after I've loaded the film, if it works so that I don't have to pay attention to it. Because I have no experience in what order the frames are, I won't for example do the mistake of asking my photo shop to make a print of frame 1 when I actually mean frame 36. I also appreciate the quietness of the camera after the last frame is shot - in a wedding or other delicate situation a noisy, rewinding camera is an unwanted attention drawer.

Second, I won't deny that I don't have what it takes to use manual focus. It's easy for experienced photographers to recommend a second-hand manual body over an electronic SLR because they have a lot of experience in shooting with manual focus, but autofocus lets beginners concentrate on more important things, such as composing and adjusting exposure. Beginners are simply not prepared to adjust just about everything, especially when you have to take photos in a hurry. I noticed this when I tried taking photos in manual mode, manual focusing included - I often missed the moment or at least had no time to think of composition. Manual focusing isn't uselful before the photographer handles his/her camera with routine, that's why EOS 300's autofocus is fairly good (when there's enough light) at giving the user more time to adjust the exposure and learn composing. I soon learned that point-recompose-shoot method with the center focus point is almost idiot-proof compared to the seven focusing points the camera apparently chooses randomly. But when there's little light, autofocus really tests your patience. It's horrible!

Third, plastic, light feel - although I don't mind the lightness of the plastic body or that it's in general plastic, I'm planning to buy the BP-200 battery pack / vertical grip. It should make the camera more stable and it also lets me use normal batteries instead of the more expensive lithium batteries, which also don't stand cold too much. I've heard that the cheap feel of EOS 300 practically disappears with the BP-200.

Fourth - I did the mistake of buying the kit with standard zoom and tele lenses. Although they serve well in learning photography, they hardly give you any chances to take exceptional photos. The next lens I'm going to buy is the 50mm/1.8.

I did consider EOS 33 (Elan 7e), but it was simply too expensive for my budget, as it is for many other beginners looking for their first SLR camera. Of course it felt better and more professional in many ways and I would've wanted to buy it, but EOS 300 is good for a beginner and with the battery pack, better lenses and for example remote switch, it goes well beyond the beginner phase - if you take photos mostly in situations when you have plenty of time to prepare the shoot.

I'd like to add that I've had my Canon Rebel 2000 since 1/00 and overall, have been very pleased with it. Would I buy it again? Yes. Would I recommend it as an entry-level SLR? Absolutely. I can't really comment on the Auto modes; I bought this camera to learn to use the creative capabilities of an SLR and signed up for a class. I've learned a lot, and I've taken some photographs that people with experience way beyond mine say are very good. Yes, with some experience under my belt, I realize there are features that this model lacks that I will eventually want; mirror lock-up, and faster flash sync speed, for example. But when I do upgrade, I will continue to use this body as a backup, as well as for situations where weight is a real factor. I read about lots of cameras before I chose the Canon 300, and one of the deciding factors was its low weight. I do a lot of bicycle touring, and some hiking and x-country skiing, and as a petite woman, not carrying too much weight is a real priority. A lighter camera means being able to carry an extra lens. I have had absolutely no mechanical problems with this camera, and I take issue with anyone who thinks it is "cheap" or flimsy just because of the manufacturer's use of plastic.

By the way, one of the disappointing things about this site is the number of people(I don't need to name anyone; you know who you are, and so do the rest of us) who feel the need to frame their opinions of equipment in a manner that is arrogant and contemptuous of those who disagree and/or own such equipment. I fail to see how conveying such an attitude is useful to anyone other than the writer, who presumably obtains some ego gratification from doing so.

Amen Jean, on your last paragraph. I'm constantly amazed at the EGO and attitude of many people on this site.

I own a Rebel XS, which has many of the same pluses and minuses as the 2000, and it's about six years old, so I can make some comments about the durability. It's suffered some mild abuse over the last few years. It's been left in the truck for several days at a time in the middle of summer, it's been rained on a couple of times, it's been knocked against solid objects periodically, and suffered other slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

In other words, I've been using it to take pictures.

It's held up reasonably well until now, but is definitely entering it's cranky period. The LCD panel has darkened a little bit, it sometimes doesn't recognize when the external flash is attached (Speedlite 380EX), and, most worrying, the last couple of rolls have some blank frames where the shutter obviously didn't fire (I mean, *blank*, just clear film between two other frames). It got rained on about 14 months ago, and water got into the shutter release contacts. I turned it on the next day and it started shooting continuously. I lost half a roll before figuring out what was happening. After it sat for a day to dry out it seemed to be fine so I didn't worry about it, but now I wonder if the shutter release mechanism didn't sustain more damage than I thought.

The plastic body parts that everyone seems to be most worried about have held up just fine. The lens mount is still in good shape (I have a couple of primes and a tele zoom, and I think I swap lenses more than most users of this camera typically would). It's the innards that seem to be having problems.

So, word of warning to potential buyers: this isn't the world's most durable camera. You're probably not going to be handing it down to your kids. The good news is that this particular camera's failure mode isn't catastrophic (apart from the occasional shutter misfires and flash glitches, I can still get good pictures out of it). However, I doubt the cost to repair it will be all that justified. I've grown frustrated with the warts mentioned in the review (single control wheel, cramped viewfinder, and the XS lacks DOF preview), and am starting to think about getting the Elan 7.

With regard to the opinions concerning whether or not a manual camera is superior, etc, I'd like to say a few words.

I got started with an all-manual Pentax K1000. I used this rig exclusively for twelve or fourteen years. Over two years ago I bought a Canon EOS Elan IIe (EOS 50e). Here is why I bought it:

• After twelve years, I was still screwing up way too many exposures. Even with very deliberate attention to exposure compensation, I found I had a difficult time getting enough light onto the film with the K1000. I figured another dozen years of reading books about exposure and shooting pictures wasn't going to improve me much, and I thought more sophisticated metering might rescue me from this lack of skill. Some have what it takes, and some don't - I'm obviously in the latter category.
• After twelve years, the list of shots that I had missed - completely and utterly failed to trip the shutter for - was longer than I cared to admit. There must have been hundreds of shots that I anticipated three seconds before the opportunity was ripe - but I could rarely focus, set the shutter, and set the aperture in three seconds, even if I had one or more of these preset. I thought a bit more automation would speed things up and at least give me a chance at getting these "grab shots" that I was passing up with the K1000.

Since I've been shooting with the Elan IIe, I've learned the following:

• My expectations above were entirely realistic.
• I rarely underexpose a shot now.
• The first roll of film gave me five passable grab shots, which I might put in my portfolio if I can get them decently scanned. One of the shots was of a couple horses trotting past me. Another was of a man hoofing it across a field. Both required me to see the shot and take the picture within about a second of time. These would never have been taken with the K1000. The Elan doesn't make the pictures good, but it gives me a chance at making a good picture under such circumstances, and that's all I ask.
• I still take some shots manually. Nothing about my camera (or the one reviewed here) prevents that. I find aperture and shutter priority modes are just intermediate levels of automation, and I use them accordingly - as another tool in my toolbox.
• I have learned that it is just as easy to use a handheld meter with an automated camera as with the K1000.
• I have learned that when I'm shooting with the Elan and the Canon 24-85 USM zoom - said by some to be a cheap plastic zoom lens - the images are equally sharp when compared to shots taken with the K1000 and its supposedly excellent prime lens. I've gone so far as to check with a microscope, and I can't tell the difference. This is undoubtedly because almost all of my shots are taken handheld. (I have a good tripod, it just doesn't suit my style to use it very often, with either camera.) While I'd still avoid Canon's kit lens, I'm not sure handheld shooters have much basis for lens favoritism.
• I've learned that nothing "blows away" an automated camera, if the automation is the right tool for the job.
• I've learned that nothing "blows away" an all-manual camera, if the manual control is the right tool for the job.
• I've learned that photographers take pictures, but cameras don't do anything.
• I've learned that bokeh is apparently some non-English word meaning "bull****."

Well, that dragged on longer than I had anticipated....

Despite what some have said, I know someone with this camera and it literally fell apart on them. It wasn't abused, either. While a lot of people won't have any problems with it, some definately will.

If I were advising a beginner photographer, I would strongly suggest they consider an older body, like an AE1 or x700. It may seem difficult to someone who's never touched a camera before, but let em' shoot a few rolls...they'd be suprised that it's not that difficult. Afterall, these things do have some autoexposure. Anybody can make a competent exposure with aperture preferred autoexposure; it requires just enough thought to teach someone how to learn photography basics.

Older cameras are cheaper and do the same thing: expose film. Older cameras are also cheaper and will hold their value. If the aspiring photographer decides to give it up, they haven't lost as much.

"Second-curtain flash sync is not possible, even with a Speedlite."

This is incorrect. I verified a few moments ago that my Rebel 2000 will indeed rear-curtain sync with my 550EX.

As for the comments on plasticity: Impact is bad for any camera, plastic or metal. I've sold roughly 20-25 Rebel 2000's in the last year. I've taken in roughly 75-100 camera repairs during that same period. I've only ever seen one camera which had "just fallen apart" for no good reason. And that was actually a pretty good reason: it was a Lomo. (Mass-produced Soviet range-finder.) In every other case where a camera had "just fallen apart", there was an obvious reason, ranging from impact damage, the most common, to tampering, "the dog ate it", great age, etc. A small part might not have been properly affixed (film pressure plate, for example, on certain Minolta P-and-S models), but that's not the same as "just falling apart", which implies a massive quality control problem. I'm not saying it didn't or can't or won't happen, just that, in my experience, it's not common.

As Rebels get older, they will start to fail, same as any camera. Buying a used AE-1 Program at this point is a crap-shoot. We take far more of them in for repair than we do Rebels. Obviously, this is because they're older, not because they're any more poorly made. A reputable used camera seller will at least make sure they aren't suffering from obvious problems, like mirror-box screech, but getting an old metal camera is no more an assurance of quality than getting a new plastic one.

Metal cameras are nice, but they certainly aren't inherently better than plastic cameras, just because they're made of alloy instead of oil.

Alot has been said about this camera-good and bad-fair and unfair, but the bottom line of the matter to me is what I see. If an idiot camera helps me take great shots that I would botch with an old camera-great. I am amazed to see how many great shot I have seen on this site-generated from this camera--most of which are using the 28-80 lens that is so "worthless". While I am in 100% agreement that to be a "Great" photographer you need to know how to do thing right and use your brain. If you rely only on a camera you are limiting yourself drastically, but a good camera sure can help--look at what is being done with the digital camera and manipulation. I use this camera and will readily acknowlege many of the weaknesses mention here. I do also agree with one comment mentioned earlier-when you compare it to it's competition, in todays market-it hold it's own very nicely. I also think that the limitations of the packaged lens can be a great learning tool just as using a old manual camera can be--either way you have to use your brain to compensate for the inheriant weaknesses of the equipment, but can still generate great results.

Dear fellow photographers, I am a professional photographer, owning a minilab shop as well. I do weddings and stuff, and my EOS 300 is my second body. It is a fantastic camera, for the purpose that it is light, reliable and small. The most important about it is that the meteering mode can really do wonders, while it might not be user determined. Anyway, while my first body is an EOS 5, i will always keep an EOS 300 in my bag, because in the very end, composition of a subject is much more important than adjusting speed and aperture and missing the moment...Because the moment is more precious sometimes then anything else. As about the kit lense, i have shot a couple of Sensias and they do look sharp on my wall even when I enlarge them quite a lot. So, yes, it is not a pro camera, but to my own opinion, it does the job you buy it for, for a lot less than you would have to pay another brand to do the same. (Today I fitted on my EOS300 a 75-300 USM and it focuses right. What else can one expect from this camera? Wanna spend money? You get what you pay for, so get a Hassel instead, and be happier, ha ha...)

If one thinks that the kit zoom can be just fine compared even to a cheap prime, check this out: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/400-do.htm

Look in the "Wide Open" section and spot the photo taken with a zoom. By the way, this is taken with a freakin' expensive pro zoom. Extrapolate to cheapie zoom quality that's at least 20 times cheaper than this one, guess what you're getting?

For some people, this quality will suffice, but I gather that these would not be the case of the majority of the photo.net readership.

As for the more on-the-point comment by David Martin: unfortunately, I only tested with a 420EX, which is also most probably the most expensive flash that one would buy along with an EOS 300. I'm okay with the plastic myself, but I was just reporting that many are afraid of plastic. The battery cover is my guess for the first thing to break, but I don't change batteries that often, so I should be good.

I would like to offer a different view about the 50mm f1.8 as a travel lens. Having travelled a bit with just a 50mm on a SLR body, I found myself several times back to a wall or with no where to back up with the site covered by something else, especially in the cities in Europe. A must better choice is a 35mm f2.0. A 35mm is just as compact as a 50mm. Low-light photography is at least equal if not better than the 50mm. (Handhold the 50 at 1/60, whereas handhold the 35 at 1/30.) On a price level equal to the 50mm, a Sigma 28-80mm would take just a good pictures at f8 with an added benefit of the 1:2 macro.

I've had one of the original Rebels for... don't know, many years. I've put about 500 rolls of EPH through it, shooting with available light at concerts and bars with the lovely EF 100/2 usually with just a monopod for support. It has served me really well. The "plastic" is holding up fine....

I also have a few compact rangefinders, the EOS A2 (usually wears the 50/1.4 or the 28/1.8) and a Nikon FM with a few Nikkor primes, and a TLR. The cameras that get used are the Rebel (with the 100/2), the Konica S3 and the Olympus XA. I don't worry about those cameras so I can actually take them where people get rowdy, so I can just worry about taking pictures. (The Rebel was the one that got to go to Burning Man.)

When people ask me for recommendations I suggest the Pentax K-1000 or the Rebel but remind them it's the glass that matters and that the most important piece of equipment is behind the camera.

I have used the Rebel 2000 for about a year and a half, with some 100-150 rolls of film put through it, slide and negative alike. On balance it's an excellent perfomer, even though I sure wish it had more of the features of the heavier and pricier Canon bodies. Its light weight, small size and good set of features mean that even if I do get a more advanced camera, the Rebel 2000 will still go hiking/cycling/skiing with me, as it has been going for more than a year, without any durability problems.

My main gripe (besides the understandable, at least for marketing reasons, lack of many features from the pricier bodies) is that some of the basic functions are too "smart" - sometimes it's hard to tell what the camera is really doing, when it's going to make a mistake and how to correct it - particularly the ambient metering and flash exposure compensation.

The evaluative metering is excellent for most situations, but its complexity means that it's hard to tell when it's going to fail. And sometimes it fails (like for example here, where the white T-shirt caused the camera to badly underexpose the slide, which is crappy even after extensive post-scanning tweaking) - probably because the metering is so heavilly weighted on the selected focusing point that it acts more like a partial then an evaluative meter. Also, the evaluative metering seems to be overexposing (as compared to center-weighted or partial) by up to a stop in very bright situations (sunny snow scenes - I verified this myself recently). While this makes sense, it means that if the photographer does the same (we are supposed to do it when on the snow, right?), slides will be overexposed too much. To further complicate matters, this fact is not described in the manual and it's not clear when (at what EV) this auto-compensation kicks in (an EOS FAQ list suggests EV 16). It's also not clear at all how the auto flash exposure compensation (for fill flash) behaves when the camera starts overexposing.

The automatic cross-over of flash exposure compensation between ambient EV 10 and 13 (from FEC 0 to FEC -1.5 or so) poses a similar problem. At EV 10, which for a fast prime lens is still a lot of light, the flash wants to illuminate the main subject fully, even though I usually want only fill. If lighting is constant, I can "set" the flash exposure compensation (by fiddling with ISO override and exposure compensation - by the way, this works in all creative modes), but if lighting changes between EV 10 and 13 (or more), like for example going from sunlight into shade, I must watch carefully the exposure and according to it fiddle with ISO and exposure compensation... needless to say, spontaneous photography is impossible under such conditions. By the way, the Elans won't help here either - only the A2/5, 3 and 1's have a custom function that disables the automatic flash exposure reduction... Canon, do I have to be a pro and carry around a 2 lb camera to be able to control it?

I find the autofocus adequate, although a simple switch to be able to toggle between one-shot and continuous (tracking) AF would simplify shooting moving subjects considerably, since the camera usually defaults to sinle-shot AF and it takes a lot to make it start tracking. Incidentally, this would solve the lack of the famous CF-4 - in one-shot AF you press the shutter half-way, camera locks focus and you can manualy retouch it, if necessary. As matters stand now, you can do it as well, but the camera will sometimes start tracking and reversing your corrections, which is a lot of fun :-)

All in all, it's a good camera (especially for the weight, bulk and PRICE), but I feel that it may not the best learning camera - the complex electronics is certainly geared more towards an occasional user who needs all the help he/she can get in getting the right exposure and sharp focus than towards a learner who needs to know what the camera is doing and be able to control it in a simple and transparent manner.

There's no substitute for going to your local camera store and trying out the bodies.

I was very disappointed by this review; reviewing two cameras at different price points from the SAME manufacturer doesn't really do anyone looking to buy a camera a whole lot of good. I don't think many people are limiting their choices to Canon only - I would have rather seen a comparison similarly-priced cameras from other vendors like the Pentax ZX-5m, Nikon N65, and Minolta Maxxum 5, all cameras the Rebel 2000 competes with.

I tried them all out, and the Rebel 2000 won over them all - I want to go digital some day, and want to be able to use the lenses I buy today. That eliminated the Minolta and Pentax. I tried out the Rebel 2000 and Nikon, and found the partial metering of the Canon to be a major selling point for me over the Nikon's matrix-only metering. The battery pack for the Canon has a vertical shutter release, the Nikon doesn't. I gave the Nikon votes for ergonomics, but in the end the single dial/button for manual setting didn't faze me. I tried it out, and it wasn't a show-stopper to me - maybe I have more dextrous thumbs than the reviewer...

I think this camera is pretty damn good myself...if everyone stopped belly achin about the defaults thinkin they are some hot shot photographer get over...its a good camera that takes good pictures...i have the lens that came with it and it works just fine and i just purchased and 75-300mm ultrasonic....and have yet to take pictures with it yet..

I just recently bought a rebel 2000 a few weeks ago and i love it. I like the quality it gave me on a vacation trip i took a month ago over my digital camera. I wish i had taken more pictures with my rebel than my digital. Digital cameras will never replace a 35mm in my opinion. I couldnt believe how light weight this camera is over my canon t50. I didnt like the t50 because i could only get a small amount of pictures that i liked either because it was too dark or not enough flash etc...Id recommend the rebel 2000

EOS300V

Well I've had mine for 3 years now and I still love it. And now i see they have brought out a replacement with even better features,although it's rather ugly. I won't upgrade to the 300v but i wouldnt mind upgrading to a EOS55/33 or 30(Elan 7E) Above is a pic of the new EOS300V

I'm about to trade in my Canon A1 with winder and 28-200 f3.5 lens for a used Canon 300 body. A straight trade. I hate the 300, as you can imagine after my beutiful A1. It's a hard to use peice of junk. My little finger drops off completely and no I don't want to spend extra on the winder! The controls are hard to use and choosing a focus point is a slow difficult nightmare. Although it's safer in the long run the wind at the beginning is also bad, I used to get 38 plus pics from my A1 on a 36 roll.

So why?

Because no none will take my FD equipment any more on a trade in. I need to go EOS and cannot afford the EOS 30 that I want because no one wants my FD equipment. The 300 (with a decent lens) will at least give me something that they will trade in when I can save up enough for the 30

Ben - You might want to consider the Elan II / Eos 50 as well if you are looking for a used EOS system. It offers quite a bit more than the Rebel2000/EOS300 and since it is now discontinued (thanks to the Elan 7/EOS33) you should be able to get a good deal on a used one.

Leader-Out rewind is possible... Hit mid roll rewind, and wait till the camera advances the first frame back into the canister. Immediately pop open the back, and the motor drive stops, leaving the leader out. I have done this once, and am reluctant to do it again. I'm not sure whether this could be detrimental to the motor drive system or not. Any opinions?

The Rebel is a plastic camera and does feel cheap. I use it as a backup and found its lightweight to be very nice. I have owned this camera for one year now and am VERY satisfied with the pictures I can take with it in all modes (including M which I use the most).

However, 3 months ago, one of the indicator lights inside the viewfinder burned out. Since the camera was still under warrantee , I took it back to the store for repair. Three weeks later, the camera came back and was not repaired. Needless to say, I was disappointed but sent the camera in again. Another three weeks passed, the camera came back not repaired...

This still continues today 3 months since I originally sent it in for repairs. I have sent the camera to Canon 4 times and it is still not fixed. The store has even called Canon's facility to tell them that the camera really is broken, and had a supervisor show the technician what is wrong. I also contacted Canon directly a month ago but never got a response.

The conclusion: The Rebel is a good camera and takes great pictures when used with a good lens. However, it is poorly built. BEWARE: if it does break, Canon's customer service and warrantee system leave much to be desired.

WOW.........I am interested in starting to learn about photography, and have been trying to figure out what type of camera I need. After reading through the numerous reviews on this page I think I have figured out that the 2000 is suitable for my current needs, both financially and for its purpose. The general trend in reviews, from what I could understand, is that I should just buy the body, and purchase a better quality lens such as a 50mm f1.8 II. When my experience level and ability increase I will look into the higher end products.

This is a great site with much useful info, but for reviews of low-end/beginner products, it would be much more useful if the reviews were written for the person who would typically buy this product.....a beginner. Great site......will be back many times I'm sure for help. Thank you

Ben Wrote: Because no none will take my FD equipment any more on a trade in. I need to go EOS

Ben ,I would love a canon A1,my dream camera for many years. Would even possibly consider swapping my 300 outright for an A1!And there of loads of FD lenses out there cheap, a lot cheaper than the lighter build of the USM lenses. Mind you, i love my 300.

I am using my SLR four or five times a year for taking pictures of landscape or to do some snapshots. Until now I used a 12 year old Yashica 200AF. During my holidays in Mauritus I had to learn, that I am growing older. My neck dint' like having to carry this heavy SLR the whole day. Back home again I recognized that my Digi-Cam did a better shooting than my SLR. Reading all the reviews I decided to buy the Canon EOS 300V (I presume this is the Rebel TI in USA. If my neck could write, he'd write al long letter! Now I can run around the whole day with my camera 'round the neck. For my needs the cute plastic-toy did the job I expected. Compared with the fotos of a friend taken with a highend Nikon and his highend lens it is of poor quality. But: he spent really a lot more bucks for his equipement and counting all the hours needed to gain this bucks more..... 50mm f/1.8: when I had it for the first time in hand I thought it is a fake or a toy for my little daughter because it feels very verx cheap. But it does a nice job as I you can read in many reviews.

So if you buy this camera with the kit-lens be aware of what you are doing. You don't buy a high end product at all. The camera is a fine toy but it is plastic, so if it drops out of your bag ... if there is al ot of sand in the wind ... handling this lens is like playing with your childrens dolls. For me it was a great aquirement. It is very lightweight and it does all the things a good point and shoot camera does and (nearly) all the things I can use on a SLR.

Most important thing: ENJOY TAKING PICTURES BE IT THIS OR THE OTHER WAY.

Have fun, Juerg EOS 300V, Kit lenses 28-90 and 75-300, 50mm f/1.8

I have owned several point and shoot cameras over the years and have never been satisfied with the results I get with them. I understand that the best way to get better results is to educate myself on the principals of photography. Unfortunately, it's not a passion of mine and I don't plan to spend a lot of time learning the nuances of lighting, apetures, etc, etc, etc. I do however have a GREAT appreciation for quality photographs. I just want to get a better result than I've been getting without investing a lot of time and money. For under $500, can anyone tell me if this model camera is a good option? Please include suggestions on kits, specific lenses, etc. Most of my picture taking is on vacations, holidays and family photos.

Canon EOS-300V (Rebel Ti) mini-review

While I recently upgraded my EOS-300 to an EOS-30, I saw the new EOS-300V at the store, so I thought I might have a look at it and update the information here.

The EOS-300V fixes a good number of the complaints that people had with the EOS-300. Here's a short list:

• The lens mount is now metal rather than plastic.
• Explicitly controlled auto-focus mode.
• Choice between single shot film advance and continuous film advance.
• Slightly better low-light metering capability.
• Built-in flash is positioned higher, reducing red-eye.
• Focus point selection button is in a handier place.
• "Indiglo" LCD panel illumination.
• The selected focus point is now illuminated (instead of having a pictogram at the bottom of the viewfinder).
• Dioptric adjustment.

There are a few downsides as well.

• The exposure compensation button is in a rather obnoxious place (in the middle of the back). Ok, maybe it's not that bad, but it's not improving!
• It feels a whole lot flimsier and plasticky than the EOS-300. If you thought the EOS-300 felt cheap, you have seen nothing yet! But again, this is just feeling, this thing might be made out of space age indestructible material, for all I know, I didn't use it.

The position of the LCD panel is rather different as far as Canon/Nikon cameras go (I think that Minolta has a similar setup on some of their cameras, I'm not sure), I think I'd like this better, based on my 10 minutes handling of the camera. Just pull the camera away from your eye to see the panel, without really changing your overall position or where it is pointing at (useful for when it is tripod-mounted). The LCD illumination would have been really welcome on my EOS-300 (and even my new EOS-30!), as I'm a bit into night photography.

The overall shape might not make the unanimity either, but I felt that it had better handholding than the EOS-300. The EOS-30 and others have size going for them, but for the smallish EOS-300V, this is nice. It reminds me of the difference between older manual cameras that were flat, and more modern cameras that grew the "bulb" on the right hand side, this could be seen as the next step.

All in all, I would say that the EOS-300V supercedes the EOS-300 and is a better choice. Most of my complaints about the EOS-300 were about the lack of control, and while this is no pro camera, it is definitely improving. The construction is weird, with the stainless steel lens mount but flimsier overall feeling. So the same conclusion as my review stands, with the EOS-300V taking the place of the EOS-300, but I would still recommend giving mid-level cameras (like the EOS-50 or EOS-30) a long look.

As before, the kit is to be avoided. Get the 50mm/f1.8 (or better, its 50mm/f1.4 USM big brother), the 24-85mm/f3.5-4.5 USM or the 28-105mm/f3.5-4.5 USM instead. While the kit lens will take pictures, of course, if you have any interest in quality pictures, you'll want a better lens (the body with the 50mm/f1.8 is approximately the same price as the kit, for a radically higher level of quality).

REBEL YELL! (or... singing the praises of a supposedly crappy bit of plastic)

2 years ago, I bought an EOS 300 with a 28mm 2.8 lens in Kathmandu for a grand total of $275 - my first ever SLR. Regardless of its alleged deficiencies in terms of optics and bending and blahblahblah (I'm sure I could understand all of the science if I actually cared but I don't), I just thought I should tell any would-be buyers that the photos I have taken with this little combo have (a) regularly sold for $200 a print, (b) regularly been mistaken by professionals who see my work enlarged to 16"x20" as the product of a medium format camera, and (c) been deemed good enough to hang on the walls of Bangkok's best art galleries. While I'm on the subject, I would also like to mention that most of my photos were taken using the P mode (point and shoot mode but without the flash coming on by itself). My point is simply to reassure any would-be buyers that a an EOS 300 or a Rebel 2000 (or whatever the damn thing is called where you live) is a fine fine camera which is perfectly capable of taking National Geographic quality images - so long as you point it at the right thing and press the button at the right moment. What's more, because the camera is built of nasty cheap plastic, it weighs virtually nothing - which means, according to all the research, that you are actualy likely to use it a lot more than one of those incredibly cumbersome professional jobs made of bullet-proof steel. And if it breaks or gets dirty or falls to pieces..? Well, in two years in dusty dirty Asia, mine has never let me down once. But if it did, I'd simply buy another one - for about the same price as a year's insurance of an EOS 1V.

Thank you, as had been said earlier, for reviewing my camera. Though I feel I must say, I'm now more discouraged than ever about my prospects in becoming an advanced or semi-pro photographer, simply because, according to the majority of you, the equipment I use is inferior to most anything else available.

It's been pointed out several times that the Rebel 200 is an entry level camera. I would imagine that most who buy or use it are entry level photographers, not pro's.

I happen to like the functionality and ease of use my Rebel 2000 offers. I don't know everything there is to know about making dramatic and properly exposed images. I don't fully understand metering and flash sync techniques; though I do find my Rebel easy enough to use that I can experiment with composition and lighting, and I don't yet need to be an expert in order to produce a pleasing photo.

I think some of the more experienced photographers or critics using this wonderful site are suffering from complacency. The Rebel 2000 is an excellent starter camera, and the initial review of its features or lack thereof, seemed well intentioned; but please don't bash the only tool some of us have at our disposal.

My photo's are an extention of my mind...When you bash my camera, you bash my photos.

I have just completed a pictorial gallery of the cameras I have owned over 60 years 1945-2005 of amateur photography. Having owned cameras from Bakelite Kodak Brownies to heavy SLRs - my current camera is a Canon FT-QL with 1.8 lens, I have concluded some of my most satisfying results have been made with cheaper cameras ranging from an Iloca rangefinder to a - oh, how could you and yuk, yuk, Canon EOS 3000. Sorry, but the later gave me some of the most sparkling and consistent results of all, whether carefully composed or quick unposed shots. In fact, my FT-QL is on the market and I have just found a new and unused EOS 330V which I am planning to buy. As for "crappy plastic" cameras; 60-year old bakelite cameras like the Purma and Baby Brownie can be found still as good as new. My Dad had a Kodak Brownie # 2 Made c.1904 and he took it to WW1 with him to the battlefields of the Western front. It still took a reasonable photo in the 1970s. It was made of CARDBOARD. I know of one disillusioned digital photographer who has been pursuaded to go for an EOS 300. On the other hand, I have just bought a plastic JVC mini digital video camera which does a superior job, but miss the feel and the robustness of a Hi8, or even my old Panasonic VHS-C format video camera. I can go back to a Pathe 9.5mm movie camera and all the 8mm formats. Gotta move with the times or we would still be using wet plate cameras. Metal cameras will never make a comeback. Gayle Potter, Greenmount, WA, Australia

The Canon Rebel series is a good starter camera to get into the useage of SLRs without spending mega bucks on a digital SLR.

The autofocus is decent. It's lightweight. Has depth-of-field preview. MANY lenses to choose from.

It doesn't have a bunch of fancy features like mirror lockup or silent rewind or custom functions and it can't make a grilled cheese sandwich for you either. The reason to get this is to learn basic SLR functions for a good price. The one I just sold went for $45 with manual and film. It can do some things automatically for you and allows for manual settings. Perfect for students.

I am a new owner of the Rebel 2000 (2nd hand). Before I got a EOS66. I found the Rebel 2000 is about 0.5 to 1 stop lower than the EOS66 in evaluative/partial/manual metering. Anybody has done the metering comparison of Rebel 2000 with the other camera before? Thanks!

I'm a little late to the party, but I did buy a "used" (factory refurbished) Rebel Ti (/300v) from KEH for about a hundred bucks recently. I bought a sigma 24mm prime to go with it, but the electronics did not 'play nice' so I had to return it to KEH. I wound up buying a used Tamron 28-80 'kit' zoom locally, just so I could some use out of the camera (and make sure it worked), while pondering lens options.

Many of the comments about how awful kit zooms are, are waaay over the top. I learned this after my wife kept bagging gorgeous shots with a sigma SA-7 kit, while I stubbornly kept plinking away with an SP and clutch of primes. Kit zooms can be perfectly usable unless you spend your time examining negatives with a loupe, which of course normal people do not. The rest of you should seek treatment.

The Tamron zoom/Rebel combo did not disappoint, provided I use it in bright sunlight, and keep it stopped down to f8 - 11, and avoided the extremes (staying within ~35-70mm range). Scans show it is slightly softer than my M42 primes, but the dead-accurate auto focus and exposure more than compensate. Simply put, I could not afford any other lens at this time for the Rebel. I suspect it is the same for many others who buy kits for exactly that reason. I only wish it had the built-in macro mode that my wife's Sigma.

I'm glad I have the SP with fast primes for all other situations, and my next purchase will probably be an M42 adaptor so I can use them on the Rebel.

The important lesson I did learn though, is to not buy any 3d-party EF lenses for a Canon sight unseen, whatever claims the seller may make regarding compatibility -- even a reputable seller like KEH (at least they did accept the return). I bought the tamron, instead of the preferred Sigma 24-80 at the local camera store (I really wanted something wider than 28 when I began this exercise), because it did not work with the body either -- to the clerk's utter surprise. He thought compatibility issues only existed with the Canon digital bodies.

Having recently, within the last few years, gotten back into photography I have bought several Canon Rebel cameras of several varitions (X, 2000, Ti, etc.) I believe the Rebel 2000 and similar models are among the most under-rated of all cameras. Of course it is not perfect, but it is perfectly adequate... more than adequate... in fact really good.

I think it would be an excellent tool for 99% of all semi-serious and serious 35mm photographers, and it will do far more than 99% of what those photographers want to do, and it will do it very well. Of the remaining 1% of serious 35mm photographers, this camera would probably fill about 80% of their needs, which is still not too bad.

In fact, I would guess that relatively few shots taken by most advanced amateur or professional 35mm photographers would be missed if the photographer had just the Rebel 2000 to work with. This is not to say that this camera would be the first choice of a pro, nor is it saying that Canon is the only good brand, but I'm just saying that the Rebel would be far more than adequate for almost any 35mm photographer.

Having said all this let me add that I still love my old Exaktas, even though I mostly use my Rebels.

I always find it interesting when I read a camera review where the opinions are so sharply divided between pro and con, like this one.

I bought a Rebel 2000 a number of years ago as a replacement camera for one that was water damaged. I'm glad I did.

Since I bought it I've used it as my primary camera for a number of weddings, nature photography, candids and any number of other events. I have taken several of the best photographs I've ever managed to capture with this body.... AND the 75-300 zoom lens. The glass on this lens is actually pretty stellar. It's good glass if you use it right. The one problem I've had with the zoom is it's inability to auto-focus in challenging environments. But normally you'd be manually focusing anyway, so this is a trivial complaint.

As one poster mentioned, this is one of the most under-rated cameras available. I highly recommend getting one. As another poster mentioned, good photographs are mostly the product of the photographer, not the camera.