Black bodied Rebel 300D?

[railphotog]

<p>In an ad on a local online site there is a Canon Digital Rebel 300D in an all black body. I had one of the originals when they first came out, it had a mostly silver colored body. Curious about the black body, thinking at first it might be an import, but the "Rebel" name is clearly on the bottom of the front. From what I understand, the Rebel name was only used in North America. Anyone have any info on this?</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p> </p>

[phule]

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4603313371/canon-rebelblackus</p>

 

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>"The new black body will appeal to even more people with a more professional and fresh new look and easy-to-use advanced functions at an affordable price point."</blockquote>

 

<p>Did that work out for them? I still have my 300D (UK, so without the "Rebel" branding), but I suspect it would take more than different paint to persuade people of the "professional" thing. But maybe I'm still bitter about Canon removing too much 10D functionality (some of which I have back through a BIOS hack). I hasten to add "have" does not mean "use", but I figure my 300D is now worth so little that I'd rather have it as a back-up than sell it.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<blockquote>

<p>Did that work out for them? I still have my 300D (UK, so without the "Rebel" branding), but I suspect it would take more than different paint to persuade people of the "professional" thing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nowadays, small DSLRs are ubiquitous, but back in the 2005-7 range they certainly were not. I recall on numerous occasions people literally stopped me on the street to ask me if I was a professional photographer while out and about with my XTi (400D) w/ a battery grip (yes, it was the black one ;) ) and <em>any</em> hefty lens (or small one with a large front element). Carrying the gripped 5D could practically stop traffic. In my experience, the crowds are <em>often</em> swayed by nearly meaningless things like the color of a body.</p>

<p>While that is certainly anecdotal evidence, it seems most if not ALL the models have been offered nearly exclusively in black since ~ the 450Ds... One might reasonably conclude that, indeed, that DID work out for them... ;)</p>

[henryp]

<p>Many years ago a life magazine photographer named Leonard McCombe covered the chrome on his cameras with black tape so he could work with less visibility and intrude less on whatever he was covering. When 35mm slrs first became popular the black "pro" body often sold for $15 more than the same camera in chrome.</p>

<p>When I first started I shot with a trio of Nikon FTn bodies and having one black and one chrome made it easy to tell, at a glance, which I was using. The cameras were identical under the skin, of course.</p>

<p>Henry Posner<br /><strong>B&H Photo-Video</strong></p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Belatedly, I realised I was being a bit cantankerous. I do think the silver-sprayed bodies look a bit cheap and dated, but I was really criticising the build of the 300D rather than silver cameras in general (later cameras are much less prone to creaking). I agree that black seems to be the accepted "pro colour" - at least it's unobtrusive, if a little prone to getting toasty in the sun. But I've never really seen the point of having a camera as something to look at, rather than through. I boggle far more that some companies (recently, Pentax and - with the 1 J series - Nikon) seem to think producing lots of SKUs in different colours is a good idea.</p>

[geoff_doane]

<p>My first ( well, actually my wife's first) DSLR was a black original Rebel, bought at a local store here in Halifax, so they certainly were not just imports. Somewhat ironically, she bought it without a lens, and used the silver 24-85 zoom that had been part of the kit with her previous camera, a Canon IX APS.</p>