The Rebel G II a sad state at Canon?

Since when does Canon resort to pulling up older Camera guts and

putting a new face on them and saying, "hey, here's a new camera,

that bears the name of what HAS been out entry level camera." I

guess that day has come, the Rebel G 2 featured in the new Pop Photo

I have here seems to be quite a move for the company. I thought the

Rebel 2000 was a great success and the Ti is nice but why go back?

Why not just rename the Rebel 2000, because if price is the issue

you can get a new Rebel 2000 for about the same price as one of

these new Rebel G 2's. It all seems confusing to me, I know if they

had brought this out back when I was getting my Canon equipment I

would have never considered the "Rebel" Now the name Rebel seems to

refer to a whole line of cameras. While Canon is at it why don't

they bring out a reissue of the AE-1 Program in Black finish, now I

would go for a new one of those!

It's abit difficult to understand exactly what you're on about(bad punctuation),but i guess the crux of it is;'why didn't they keep the rebel 2000 as the base model instead of something even more basic'<BR>Probably alot to do with profits,the G2 it likely based on the EOS 500/3000

All are USA USD prices from B&H:<br>

Rebel Ti QD = $260<br>

Rebel Ti = $240<br>

Rebel 2000QD = $230<br>

Rebel 2000 = $200<br>

Rebel G II = $170<br>

Rebel G = $160<p>

 

<i>While Canon is at it why don't they bring out a reissue of the AE-1 Program in Black finish, <br>now I would go for a new one of those!

</i> <br>

They did, you can see it <a href=http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/EOS10D/>here</a> ;) <p>

 

--

>Now the name Rebel seems to refer to a whole line of cameras.

 

What are you whining about? The name Rebel has referred to a whole line of cameras

sold by Canon USA for many many years.

 

There were the original Rebel and Rebel S (1990) bodies, which were followed by the

Rebel II, Rebel S II, Rebel XS, Rebel X, Rebel G, Rebel 2000, Rebel XS N and Rebel Ti.

 

Yes, the new Rebel G II is pretty uninteresting and just a repackaged body - probably

an EOS 3000N. But so what? It's all marketing - Canon USA just want a range of

consumer-level products all under the name "Rebel." If that bothers you for some

reason don't buy it.

According to this month's issue of American Photo, one SLR in three sold in the US is

a Rebel. I guess Canon had to make a specially low-priced model for the likes of

Circuit City or Best Buy, who will not normally carry a SLR otherwise.

 

The GII with a 35-80 lens is $240. It certainly is no match for the rest of the Canon

line, including the

Rebel Ti even Costco carries, but it is certainly much better than the Point and shoot

camera with a ridiculously slow zoom its target audience would have bought

otherwise.

What's wrong with giving the consumer a range of choices, even amongst the Rebel bodies? On Canon's USA website (http://www.canoneos.com/), Canon clearly shows their lineup of SLRs as being comprised of 3 digital models (1Ds, 1D, 10D), and 6 film models (1V, 3, Elan 7/7e, then the three Rebels: Ti, 2000, and GII). For someone on a tight budget and just getting into SLR photography, $30 or so can make a difference.

The technology of film cameras doesn't change much. For example, the EOS 5/A2--a 12-year old design--is still competitive with newer EOS cameras. Canon is smart to rehash a good "classic" design and position it as entry level in the Rebel series. Money challenged folk can now experience a SLR for the price of a good point 'n shoot. When they grow up and get a job they'll remember their first SLR love and upgrade to an EOS 3 or 10D.

 

I wouldn't buy an AE-1 Program but I dug the Nikon FM3A so much I bought one. It's retro but can use current Nikkor optics (except G lenses of course) and feels like a real camera, not a plastic hunk. It has the biggest and brightest viewfinder I have ever used (but the worse eye relief).

Gosh, it all almost makes sense. If you want real confusion, just take a look at the digital P&S cameras!

Actually i think most people only ever need one of those basic models.Even the most basic canon for the last 7'ish years has had just about every feature worth having.I use an old eos500 and only ever felt the 'need' to upgrade when i wanted to do high speed sports photography

It's just that Canon hasn't offered many of the lowest-positioned models in the lineup on the North American market. The Rebel G has been available elsewhere for more than one year as EOS 3000, and its successor EOS 3000n has now made it North America as Rebel GII. And before you complain about re-introducing "older Camera guts and putting a new face on them", bear in mind that today's state of the art is tomorrow's entry model stage. The Canon A-1 was a technological leader in the early 1980s--without multiple metering modes, so shouldn't we place it below the Rebel 2000, which offers evaluative and partial metering?

Plus, a really low end body, the EOS 666 (devil's EOS), has been available in Asian for several years.

You want "true" retro look at a Leica MP a remake of the M3 and M6 all mechanical rangefinder without TTL flash. Oh and BTW it costs about $1000 more than an M6 with TTL flash.