Comments on: Shoot to kill with the Canon Digital Rebel XT digital SLR, $382

It's the body only, but $382 is still an incredible deal for this top-rated dSLR camera. Just be prepared to wait: shipping time is 3-5 weeks.

[triplejumper18]

Product page says it usually ships in 1-2 weeks.

[rickbroida]

Weird... it wasn't like that this morning. I'll update the post. Thanks!

[ejrattner]

Okay, but the Canon Rebel XT still just feels like an amateur SLR. Every time you pick it up, you think it's something made by Mattel. I know the price makes it seem like its a bargain, but then the Nikon D70, which is housed in a much stronger polycarbonate frame is only couple hundred dollars more and has loads more features. I've shot with both the Rebel and the D70 and the winner in my quick-shoot bag every time is the D70. I just don't have to worry about it getting dinged up or damaged. In addition, Nikon's unparalleled service commitment is just one more reason to go with the mighty Nikon series.

[casademike]

So you compare two cameras not even in the same category?

Rebel XT entry level - which is comparable to the Nikon D40 (not the 70 as you suggest). It just so happens the Rebel XT happens to out-spec the D40 by the way.

You say the D70 is "only a couple hundred dollars more" Really - I can buy it for $582? Not likely.

Compare to the EOS 40D - which is in the same mid-tier category as the D70/80 you will get your weather-proofing and stronger frame.

Both are great cameras and most "experts" will tell you Nikon and Canon are both fine choices. It's a matter of personal preference and one is not better than the other - just different.

Compare apple's to apple's otherwise you are just making ridiculous comments.

[whynotdesign]

Rick, I know this is purely coincidence, but the posting in my RSS feed reader directly above yours is titled "Gunman at an Omaha Mall Kills 8 and Himself." Caution: Do you really feel it necessary to claim a camera so good it can kill by 'shooting' it? I'm just saying that rather than catchy phrases and enticing headlines just for the mere traffic it will get maybe writers should dedicate some thought to what they are ACTUALLY saying, not what they are intending to say. I'm sure the families (or they friends) of the 8 DEAD victims would not be enticed to buy because of your article title. And, no I'm not a bleeding heart, (I am actually in advertising and marketing) it is just that there are plenty enough bad things in the world WITHOUT attaching destructive vibes to a consumer product just to get readers!!!

[rickbroida]

You're right: really bad timing on my part. I apologize if the headline came across as offensive; in my mind it was simply a play on "shooting photos" that are "killer." My goal was to write something more interesting than "Get a deal on a camera." But I do apologize for the poor taste this exhibits given the tragic events that occurred yesterday.

[whynotdesign]

No worries mate! Like I said, just bad timing and POSSIBLY unnecessary wording because you actually can't 'shoot to kill' with a camera unless your james bond? Not that I'm right or anything. And I can definitely understand the goal of writing creatively. No offense taken, just sad for the families that must now grieve as a result of these senseless killings.