Why all the 10D's for sale?

[turbotony]

Is that camera really that bad to desert so fast...lots of sales like..."bought new in early 2004, paid 1600.00" and "only 800 shots taken"....my question....is the 20D that much better for the average joe blow?? or is the 10D good, just underated?

[mr.photoguy]

there is nothing wrong with the 10D.. Some people are not upgrading and some people are just wanting to try out the 20D ..
Some members have them both, + more.

[Jon]

Why all the 10D's for sale?

Why so many 2-3 year old cars on the used-car lots? Same reason - some (relatively few) people have run theirs into the ground or found changing needs impel them into a new model with different features; others just have to have "the latest and greatest" even though the old model was perfectly adequate for their needs. Of course everyone here is in the former group ;{)#

[JZaun]

I thought my 10D was a great camera. It was just too slow to turn on and wake up. The 20D seems to have a better AF also. The 10 didn't have everything I wanted and the 20 did so I sold the 10 and got a 20. the 10 was and is still a great cam but its not a 20, like a 20 is not a 1dMII :?

Just my thoughts

JZ

[turbotony]

again...my question....is the 20D that much better for the average joe blow?? or is the 10D good...just underated?.....Jon, I do understand the 3 year old thing...when multiple people are getting rid of a camera they bought some 8-10 months ago....not 3 years ago....I need to hear from those people on why the switch...if you..Jon..switched from the 10D to the 20D then why...thank you.....and FYI, I am sure not knocking the 10 or 20...just very curious

[mr.photoguy]

you can go on www.depreview.com and check the comparisons.

[Jon]

I didn't drop my (D60) older camera when the 20D came out - it's fulfilling my need for a second body. When the 10D, and later the DR, came out (3 and 10 months after I got the D60), I stayed with the D60. When I upgraded, like Jerry, I wanted the faster start-up. I also need the larger buffer at times, and really need the increased (9 vs. 3) focussing points. 8.2 rather than 6.3 MP is nice, but wasn't really a determinant. Like a number of other people here, if I'd had the 10D, I probably would have stayed and bought another lens instead.

I'm observing what I see out there. And I think 8-10 months in the digital camera world is roughly comparable to 3 years in the automotive. Things change much faster in digital photography, and we're also talking a much smaller investment of discretionary income.

[Toogy]

The 20D is just so much faster. The 10D was great, unitl my friend bought a 20D and I used it a few times.
My 10D just felt so slow compared to it.
Here are the pros that made me upgrade.

1. Speed (not only the time it takes to wake up, but also preview time and CF writing time and frames per second)
2. Less ISO noise, in my side by side comparisons, the noise at 1600 on the 20D is almost the same as ISO 400 on the 10D, and 3200 is acceptable.
3. Huge buffer, not that 9 frames isn't ok for the 10D, but there is nothing more frustrating than a full buffer
4. Little things like the mini joystick, makes previewing pictures so much more usuable, especially zooming around the picture.
5. Other little things, like ETTL-II, improved Auto WB, improved AF, low light AF.

To me, all of those things are important, so it was worth it to me.

[Andy_T]

if you..Jon..switched from the 10D to the 20D then why...thank you


It was just too slow to turn on and wake up.
The 20D seems to have a better AF also.
The 10 didn't have everything I wanted

Nothing more to add here :roll:

Best regards,
Andy

PS: Welcome to the forum :wink:

[turbotony]

Wow...is there really such a differance in the ISO noise between the 10 and 20?...same CMOS sensor size, same ISO settings...but the 20 noise at 1600 is the same as the 10 at 400....I can see the start-up and buffer issue... I did say for the average...but the ISO noise is that far off between the two?

[Toogy]

It is very close, it would probably be more close to ISO 600 or so if you could choose that on the 10D. It is noticeably better than ISO 800 that is for sure. And slightly grainer than ISO 400 on the 10D.

[Jon]

Wow...is there really such a differance in the ISO noise between the 10 and 20?...same CMOS sensor size, same ISO settings...but the 20 noise at 1600 is the same as the 10 at 400....I can see the start-up and buffer issue... I did say for the average...but the ISO noise is that far off between the two?

Physical sensor size doesn't really make any difference. The individual receptor size will, and in this case the bigger the better, which makes the 20D's performance all the more impressive. It's due to improved design in both the new sensor and the DiGiC II chip in the 20D.

[SDK^]

Here is a comparison of ISO noise between the 10D and 20D, shot by myself.

ISO 3200

10D
http://www.ph-digitalphotography-motorsports.com/images/ISO/10D/3200-3.jpg

20D
http://www.ph-digitalphotography-motorsports.com/images/ISO/20D/3200-3.jpg


100% crops - Images taken straight from the Camera (no post processing)
Lens : Canon 28-135mm IS (IS turned off), Aperture Priority (F10), Auto White Balance
Lens set at 28mm, centre focus, JPEG Large / Fine - Noise reduction systems off.
Both taken on a tripod

[NJDrew]

Here is a comparison of ISO noise between the 10D and 20D, shot by myself.

ISO 3200


How did you get 3200 ISO on your 10d? The highest I can seem to go is 1600 or is this lens dependent?

[johneo]

Is that camera really that bad to desert so fast...lots of sales like..."bought new in early 2004, paid 1600.00" and "only 800 shots taken"....my question....is the 20D that much better for the average joe blow?? or is the 10D good, just underated?

LOL ... the 10D is an EXCELLENT digital camera and the raves that were going around before the 20D was announced were everybit as good as what they are NOW for the 20D.

It's human nature in the age we live in ... everyone has to have the latest and greatest. Hey, I've still got my Sony Mavica 2.1mp FD-97 and it still takes as good a photo that it did new in 2001. It doesn't compare to my 10D and I would never say it did but it still is an excellent camer for what it is.

So, many people need the extra of the 20D compared to the 10D but don't really want to spend the extra for a 1D MarkII ... it's a resonable upgrade if you can and want to upgrade.

As others have said their reasons to upgrade, I don't see those reasons as a priority for me so I will hold off until a) I have a need to replace my 10D (be it broken or stolen) b) decide to invest in a 1D MarkII or wait for something further down the never ending upgrade line. I know, as soon as I buy the latest, greatest it'll be replaced with and even better latest, greatest.

For myself, I love my 10D and am now upgrading my lenses.

Also, it's the latest and greatest that gets the headlines while us with the lowly 10D suffer along with that lost look on our faces wondering why our top of the line digital camera is now nothing more than a nice looking paperweight to many. :lol:

BTW, I'm still learning the 10D ... havn't even got to chapter 2 in the instruction manual ... imagine how lost I'd be with a NEW 20D manual? :roll: ... :lol:

[Jon]

Here is a comparison of ISO noise between the 10D and 20D, shot by myself.

ISO 3200


How did you get 3200 ISO on your 10d? The highest I can seem to go is 1600 or is this lens dependent?
Set ISO Expansion to [On] (manual pages 49, 141) and ISO to "H".

[NJDrew]

Set ISO Expansion to [On] (manual pages 49, 141) and ISO to "H".

ahh, ty I will try this tonight. :D

On Topic: I love 10d, but I could see trading it up for the 5 fps, as this feature would benefit me the most.

[gillyworld]

Here is a comparison of ISO noise between the 10D and 20D, shot by myself.

ISO 3200


How did you get 3200 ISO on your 10d? The highest I can seem to go is 1600 or is this lens dependent?

One of the Menu Options is ISO expansion which enables 3200 ISO to be used (P141 in the manual)

Alan

[turbotony]

I agree Johnyo...lenses are more important to me at this point than more features...I hope I did not start a war of models, the 10D see's what I see in a picture and really, at ISO1600 in RAW it just blows my mind...and had me start this thread. For all you seeking a camera at a good used price like the 10D is going for now days...well, it does what it suppose to do at a very nice price....I hope Canon just floods the market with the mark ll's so my next purchased Canon will be a cool investment.....and no piggy bank broke in my puchase......Thanks to this forum. Tony.

[Jon]

BTW, I'm still learning the 10D ... havn't even got to chapter 2 in the instruction manual ... imagine how lost I'd be with a NEW 20D manual? :roll: ... :lol:

Probably about the same place you are now . . . p. 49 on both the 10D and 20D is where they tell you how to set ISO; the specific menu option to enable ISO 3200 moved all the way from p. 141 (10D) to 143 (20D, where it's a Custom Function rather than a regular menu item).

[GPR1]

Not only have I kept me 10D and not upgraded, but I bought a second 10D. The speed of the 20D was attractive, but not attractive enough to make the switch.

Greg

[Seveneer]

I've not upgraded my 10D. It does everything it did before the 20D came along. I would like to have the ability to clear the buffer faster but I haven't seen anything yet to convince me that spending the extra money is worth it. Having said that, when I've paid for my wedding and honeymoon in January my next outlay will be for the 1D Mk II. I feel that's a real step up :D

/Phil.

[BigRed450]

Here is a comparison of ISO noise between the 10D and 20D, shot by myself.

ISO 3200

10D
http://www.ph-digitalphotography-motorsports.com/images/ISO/10D/3200-3.jpg

20D
http://www.ph-digitalphotography-motorsports.com/images/ISO/20D/3200-3.jpg


100% crops - Images taken straight from the Camera (no post processing)
Lens : Canon 28-135mm IS (IS turned off), Aperture Priority (F10), Auto White Balance
Lens set at 28mm, centre focus, JPEG Large / Fine - Noise reduction systems off.
Both taken on a tripod


Now take a real close look at these two images... The 20D image appears to be less noisy, however, it is also softer, especially for a higher res cam. Nice trick by Canon IMO. I can see the color noise in the 20D image as well, which leads me to believe that if you were to sharpen the 20D image to match the 10D image there may not be as great if any difference. What were the parameters on the 10D set to. Color space should have been set to AdobeRGB...

There is no doubt that the 20D is an upgrade for the 10D, but for most folks the differences are not that great to warrant a trade up. Remember also that the 10D is the most widely used DSLR out there and has been on the market for over 2 years. There are a lot of working units out there so it is understandable that there will be an influx of sales for used units.

[dsze]

This is a ridiculous question. What do you really expect to get when you post a question like this????? The people who've chosen to stay with their 10D's are going to tell you the upgrade is not worth the money....the people with 20D's are surely going to defend their $1600 purchase.... Seriously, do you think that anyone who just dropped $1600 on a camera is going to say, "yeah, its nice but I probably could have been alright with keeping my 10D?" NO way. Look up the specs on the 2 cameras and decide what they mean to you based on the way you shoot.

The specs on both cameras are available on dpreview.com...as was already stated... The technical differences between the two cameras are right there for you to compare. Whether or not the upgrade is worth the extra $$ completely depends on YOU. They are both great cameras... Personally, I feel that the 20D is marketed to rival the D70....the D70 is a step below the 10D..... So, my personal opinion is that the 20 is not as well built, it is full of gimicky stuff...like the noise-reduction issue and the added speed is not worth the extra $800 over the 10D. Having said that, the 20D still has some very nice features....but nothing that makes me want to trade my 10D in. I'll wait for a 1-series. Even if I were buying my first DSLR today, I would try to find a new or even a used 10D and spend the money saved on a good lens or 2.

Ok, so there you go. I contributed to what you already knew I was going to say right! :) The 10D is a great camera. If you're unsure of what the differences really mean between the 2, get yourself a descent used 10D and spend the rest on other goodies.

-daniel

[jalafer]

[...

There is no doubt that the 20D is an upgrade for the 10D, but for most folks the differences are not that great to warrant a trade up. Remember also that the 10D is the most widely used DSLR out there and has been on the market for over 2 years. There are a lot of working units out there so it is understandable that there will be an influx of sales for used units.

I second this, I won't trade in my 10D loosing so much moneey. Instead I'll keep it with me until something really better arrives. I mean a full size prosumer or a new sensor with improved dinamic range.

[turbotony]

I though all questions were good questions....and this was a forum to ask questions....not to be told they are rediculous. DSZE....I really was searching for the problem related switch..if an..from HONEST people...not have a lecture....ok?

[Persian-Rice]

I think the 20D is worth the upgrade, I think there is a group of people who were thinking, like myself, that the 20D would be a little better then it is. I was hoping it would be closer to a 1d II but not as good and around $2500-$3000.
Unfortunatly, Canon decided not to build a mid range camera and stayed with a consumer level SLR. For me, I have ended up having to save more money to jump right to a 1D II. As the 20D is still not what I want.

For me, they are both comparable in terms of performance and thus I will skip it and just go for the pro bodies.

[photography By Evangelos]

Simple really. 10D good but 20D is way better. So sold off my 2-10D's and am now 20D all the way. This is why there are so many for sale. I just got my 580 EX and love it. Now I will sell off the rest of my 550's it is a year of upgrading. I for one like to have the latest and greatest gear. But for every one who wants a good deal there are very good 10D's for sale :wink: so take advantage of the cost savings.


Angelo 8)

[mr.photoguy]

Well, when I was looking to purchase my DSLR I was going to go with the 10D because I felt the 20D was just to expensive.

However after speaking to some photographers that are contracted out at my job to take the photo's of the participants, they told me to go for the better of the two, especially if the difference is a minimal amount.

The 10D new would have run me about 1200 or 1300 was the cheapest I could find it for, then I checked out the price of the 20D and it was running for 1400 for the body alone, that was the cheapest I could find it at ...

I figured, why not spend the extra ~200 dollars and purchase the 20D, I wanted the camera brand new, I had enough used camera's already.. Time for me to be the first to click off the first photo.

So for some new comers that want this as there first new DSLR (not SLR), I don't see why they shouldn't just go for the 20D.

However, if a person wanted a used camera, that would be different. In that situation I could understand getting a perfectly good used 10D.

[dsze]

Take it easy Turbo.... no one's lecturing you. This topic has been here discussed many times already, before and after the 20D actually hit the shelves..do a search & look up the specs. Why would you expect anyone who's upgraded to the 20D to ever say that it wasn't worth the $$$. Thats not going to happen. If what you want to know are the specific differences between the 2 cameras, look at the reviews on dp. ....And maybe use a more definitive term than "...your average Joe Blow." Whos that? I've never met your average Joe Blow so I wouldn't possibly know how to tell them whether or not one camera would be better for them than another! :wink: I'd say your average joe blow should probably have a nice simple point-&-shoot. You're right, all questions are good questions, but when the answer has already been stated and all you have to do is look for it, but decide not to...it is a little ridiculous to ask it again.

-daniel

[turbotony]

I did a search....and 1000's of stuff comes up without an answer....and AGAIN you state Rediculous.....WHY reply if you cant say anything nice...how about going back to the MANY discussions and put in your silly 2cents worth on how rediculous it was to post it....and get a life....I was jut asking a question......DA!!!

[chops]

Yes, the 20D is fast, has all the goodies the 10D doesn't, etc, etc... But what good is all of that going to do you when you get stuck with a $1500 brick in your hand at a wedding or photo shoot?

The 20D still has way too many problems with it. In fact, my manager has gone through three 20D's in the last month! The first one just locked up and died, the second one stopped down the lens to F11 and wouldn't let you change it, even with different lenses, and the CF card compartment in the third one was loose.

For these problems with the 20D, that's why I decided to go with the 10D.

[turbotony]

Thanks Chops...that is why I posted...for sincere honest replies. That is all I was looking for.

[dsze]

Ok. I'll try to get a life. In the meantime, you might try reading the sticky posts at the top of the forum. I believe there is one sticky post that is specific to questions about the 20D.

Oh yeah, and doing a simple search yields these threads that directly relate to 20D vs. 10D features and opinions:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43510&highlight=20d+10d+features

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=41505&highlight=20d+10d+features

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=41404&highlight=20d+10d+features

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=42534&highlight=20d+10d+features

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=42698&highlight=20d+10d+features


These were just the first 5 that I came up with, there are LOTS more....not that hard to do a search. Typically, if a topic is made into a sticky, its probably because there are TONS of posts on the same subject.

-daniel

[Molydood]

I'm still learning, and a better camera is not going to make me a better photographer, but practice with my current equipment will.

Regarding pure quality of photographs, a rebel with a high quality lens can take images that can impress even the best. Now that I have quality glass, the only thing stopping me from walking home with an award winning picture is me.

Don't get me wrong, I would really like a 20D, but all its going to do is increase the probability of me taking quality photographs.

That's my justification for not upgrading
Martin

[22littlereasons]

I just purchased my 10D in the beginning of October. I researched the 20D and felt I was better off using the difference in money to buy lenses. I got a used, mint condition - only about 500 shots taken - 10D for 1/2 the cost of a 20D (plus no tax!) The difference enabled me to purchase an additional lens. I'm thinking I'll hold onto my 10D until the next generation that replace the 20D comes out... then maybe I'll get a 20D! *s* Oh, and by the way... I don't buy new cars off the lot either! *s*

[Steven M. Anthony]

I bought my 10D in April. I liked the idea of quick start-up and re-start-up offered by the 20D and considered upgrading. Then I realized that with 3 batteries, I could shoot all day with my 10D with the sleep function turned off. Now I have zero start-up time for a $100 upgrade! :D

[dsze]

....good point. I feel the same way. If I'm in a situation where I can't afford the slower wake-up time, like a wedding or a portrait shoot....I set the camera to stay on!!! :shock:

-daniel

[Roy NN7DX]

I bought my 10D in April... (snip) with 3 batteries, I could shoot all day with my 10D with the sleep function turned off. Now I have zero start-up time for a $100 upgrade! :D

Great! Simple is good... I just passed this on to two wildlife shooting friends with 300D and 10D's... I'll bet they get better shots more often... So many things happen in the blink of an eye...

[Steven M. Anthony]

Yeah--I was frustrated with the wake-up lag on a trip to Yellowstone. Two male bison were about to butt heads... I raised my camera to my eye... they crahsed together... my camera didn't wake up in time. :(

[Anders Östberg]

After getting my 1D Mark II, and shooting a lot of sports lately, it's quite evident that the 10D is lacking in the AF and speed department. I'm very frustrated with it compared to the 1D. Having said that, I'm still keeping it as it's a great camera for everything else, and a great companion/second body with the Mark II. I'm also looking foward to the next spring when the 10D will be great on a long tele for sitting targets while the 1D handles moving/flying targets with a shorter lens.

[Groundworxs]

I have not waded through all of the posts so forgive me if i am repeating what has already been said. If you consider digital cameras as computers not cameras you maybe able to to understand why the price drops so quickly. Once a new computer is released the old one drops in price dramatically. The 10D (just sold) which I had was a great camera which produced wonderful images. It remains a great camera no matter what else I buy. When you consider how many millions of units are out there of the 10D it is quite small compared to those which you see listed for sale.

IMHO
Cheers

[hickory]

I'm just enjoying the "trickle down" economics of people upgrading :lol: I have a D30 which is over 2 years old, couldn't afford a 10D until the 20D came out. Now I'm a happy camper with a less than one year old 10D with less than 2000 actuations on it. When the replacement for the 20D comes out I will probably upgrade again.

[ilya]

again...my question....is the 20D that much better for the average joe blow??

No. and "it depends".

This is just my opinion, not tainted by the fact that I own the 10D. I've used the 20D for a while on loan, and I could have easily switched inexpensively- but I didn't.

The noise is nice, but I don't shoot in dimly lit situations. the extra pixels are nice, but the fact is light (and all the other ingredients) are way more important.

the 20D is very incremental (i.e. not revolutionary) versus the 10D

but whatever floats the boat. I'm kind of itching for a 1 series body. We'll see.

[pcasciola]

Tony,

I wasn't going to get involved in this thread because it just seemed to turn into an "I love my 10D" thread, but I feel like you may be missing out. Don't get me wrong, the 10D is a great camera, and some owners may not be able to justify the upgrade, but buying new, the $350 extra was a no brainer for me. I am not looking to turn this into a 10d vs 20d argument thread either, just trying to make sure you don't get steered wrong. I am also not the type to defend my purchases. If I had the money for a 1D Mk II, that would be my camera.

I'm not sure what you are looking to do with the camera, but I am into shooting sports, and the 10D is NOT a sports camera, period. You can get lucky and get a good sports shot, but you'll be missing a lot of plays waiting for the camera, and might miss the best shot with the slow frame rate. The 10D is only 3 fps and a 9 shot buffer that takes 30 seconds to clear, compared with the 20D's 5 fps and a 40 shot buffer that can clear completely in 9 seconds, but I find it's almost impossible to hit the buffer limit. Other upgrades as you probably know include 8MP vs 6MP, instant start up time, less focus problems, less high ISO noise. Those are a little more than incremental upgrades if you ask me. If anything is incremental, it's the small price difference between the 10D and 20D.

All that said, if you are shooting portraits and landscapes and you are looking to save money, and have no need for the high frame rate and fast buffer, then you could maybe make an argument for getting a used 10D off ebay for $800, but if you are buying new and plan on taking any action photos, you'll regret not getting the 20D. Also, if your ultimate goal is saving money, get the Digital Rebel and buy a couple of lens which will give you the body for only $450 brand new after the $300 rebate.

You asked why you see all these 10Ds for sale, well that pretty much answers your question, doesn't it?

[forrest64]

Here is a comparison of ISO noise between the 10D and 20D, shot by myself


I think the 10D picture has more detail and better color. Thanks for convincing me to keep my 10D.

Mark

[Anders Östberg]

To generalize; noise in a picture is often mistaken for detail, and gives a subjective and false impression of sharpness. Sometimes I don't remove noise in parts of a picture (like bird feathers) because it makes the picture look less detailed.

There are several aspects to this though... fill the frame with a 10D and crop a 20D picture and you'll have a better picture from the 10D. On the other hand the 20D is more likely to focus correctly and quickly enough to get a picture where the 10D fails.

A well framed and exposed picture from my 10D beats a badly done picture from my 1D Mark II. For sitting targets the higher crop factor comes into play and I sometimes get better pictures from the 10D as it fills the frame a little more. Moving targets - the 20D and 1D Mark II will beat the 10D in many, no most, situations.

[forrest64]

To generalize; noise in a picture is often mistaken for detail, and gives a subjective and false impression of sharpness. Sometimes I don't remove noise in parts of a picture (like bird feathers) because it makes the picture look less detailed.

What matters is how it looks not the explaination as to why it looks the way it does. Have the originator post RAW photos for a side by side comparison. If the 20D's "softness" is caused by in camera post picture processing then I can do that in Photoshop with pictures from my 10D.


Mark

[Anders Östberg]

The why is important, to generalize again you can sharpen a softer looking picture, but it's harder to sharpen a noisy one. I think the in-camera processing parameters must also be taken into account for a comparison, it may be that the 20D is less agressive in terms of sharpening than the 10D is.

[mwinog2777]

I though all questions were good questions....and this was a forum to ask questions....not to be told they are rediculous. DSZE....I really was searching for the problem related switch..if an..from HONEST people...not have a lecture....ok?

There is no thing as a ridiculous question. It was an excellent question. Kep active on the board, please.

There are ridulous people, however, who have to get every update and are never satisfied with an old model. People have to buy new cars every new model. Others have to buy new computers every 8 months. Same thing in the dig photo scene. New printers coming out every 8 months. New models of cameras coming out >1/year. The new model just barely tweaks the one before, leading the ridiculous consumer to ever buy up. That's why there are so many D10's on the market.

[mwinog2777]

Yeah--I was frustrated with the wake-up lag on a trip to Yellowstone. Two male bison were about to butt heads... I raised my camera to my eye... they crahsed together... my camera didn't wake up in time. :(

Keep your camera ready. That wouldn't have happened to Ansel Adams.

I never heard Adams complain of lag in his cameras.

[pcasciola]

[quote=turbotony]The new model just barely tweaks the one before, leading the ridiculous consumer to ever buy up. That's why there are so many D10's on the market.

Again, how can you possibly call 5 fps for 40 shots vs 3 fps for 9 shots, and the buffer clearing in 9 seconds (for 40 8MP shots) vs 30 seconds (for just 9 6MP shots) tweaks? If that's the case, I'd love to hear what would be a big improvement to you?

[Cadwell]

I'm not sure what you are looking to do with the camera, but I am into shooting sports, and the 10D is NOT a sports camera, period.

:roll: Drivel.

It wasn't that long ago that people on this forum were recommending the 10D as the prosumer budget sports camera of choice.

Go and look at my motorpsort gallery 99.9% of which was shot with a 10D and then come back and tell me that the 10D is not capable of shooting sports. Go and ask KennyG or RFMSports amongst many other members of this forum who've had sports work published with 10Ds...

Sure there are better sports cameras out there, but a competent photographer can produce good sports shots with a 10D. A good photographer can produce stunning output.

Just because something new and better comes out, it does not suddenly make the previous generation useless. Even with the MarkII in my bag I still use the 10D to take occasional sports shots and will continue to do so for some time. And when I point it at a race car to take the shot I am confident that I will get it.

[pcasciola]

I'm not sure what you are looking to do with the camera, but I am into shooting sports, and the 10D is NOT a sports camera, period.

:roll: Drivel.

It wasn't that long ago that people on this forum were recommending the 10D as the prosumer budget sports camera of choice.



That's because the 10D was the best available at the time. It also depends on what sports you are shooting, and for individual shots of a car that always follows the same path at the same speed, that's great, that's more like a portrait than an action sports shot. But when trying to shoot an action sequence, like in football where you don't know where the play is going to be and how many shots you need to take, the 20D is light years ahead of a 10D, not just a tweak away. In pure speed (and speed alone), it is much closer to the 1d Mk II than it is to the 10D, that's just a plain fact that cannot be argued.

Oh, and I never said the 10D was useless. In fact, in my other post I said the upgrade is not justified for a lot of people, but when choosing between the two, I think the $350 price difference buys you a lot.

[Cadwell]

It also depends on what sports you are shooting, and for individual shots of a car that always follows the same path at the same speed, that's great, that's more like a portrait than an action sports shot.

You haven't shot much motorsport have you? The notion that is in any way like portrait photography is utterly ludicrous as is the notion that they always follow the same path or that nothing unexpected ever happens.


Oh, and I never said the 10D was useless.

Yes you did... you said "and the 10D is NOT a sports camera, period." with a capital "NOT" and everything...

[Denbydog]

I'm considering adding a Canon DSLR to my current EOS 5 system. My only experience with digital has ben with 5 megapixel pointandshoot Olympus. The one thing that has stopped me going digital has been the time delay between pressing the shutter release and the picture being recorded, especially as many of my photographs require considerable patience during the 'hunt' and often only one frame (perhaps two) can be taken at that critial time, often in lowish light with a fast lens. Having said that, there are times when a fast motorwind is important for preditor-prey shots. I can't justify either an EOS 1(for film) or 1D and I'm not sure I want to change from a film system, but it would be nice to try a relatively inexpensive digital camera with my existing EF-USM lenses. At the moment I'm considering perhaps a (used) 30D but worried about the image resolution when blown up to 10x8. I've also looked at the 10D on sites like eBay going for £500-£700 (UK used prices!!). Would the 20D be so much better. The various comments in this forum of a long lagtime to wake-up and another 30 seconds wait to take more than 9 frames worries me.

Sorry if all this has been gone over previously. If so, I'd be grateful for direction to the appropriate threads.

Thanks

[pcasciola]

It also depends on what sports you are shooting, and for individual shots of a car that always follows the same path at the same speed, that's great, that's more like a portrait than an action sports shot.

You haven't shot much motorsport have you? The notion that is in any way like portrait photography is utterly ludicrous as is the notion that they always follow the same path or that nothing unexpected ever happens.


I'm a huge motorsports fan, and have been going to Indycar races since I was 12 years old, and have driven in track events for many years. If my path on the track varied, it was by no more than 8 feet when I was making a pass, and my direction was always the same unless I was spinning out. Sorry, but most of the shots I see from many galleries are different cars at the same corner on the track, and the occasional action shot. Don't get me wrong, they are great shots, and I really enjoy viewing them, but that is nowhere near the same as shooting a football, soccer or rugby game.


Oh, and I never said the 10D was useless.

Yes you did... you said "and the 10D is NOT a sports camera, period." with a capital "NOT" and everything...

Ok, not a great team sport camera, basketball, football, soccer. That better? If the 10D is such a great sports camera, why do we bother coming out with newer, higher performance cameras like the 20D and 1D Mk II? It sounds like the 10D is all we will ever need.

Also, by your logic a Digital Rebel can also produce great sports shot, so does that make the Digital Rebel a great sports camera?

[Cadwell]

Ok, not a great team sport camera, basketball, football, soccer. That better? If the 10D is such a great sports camera, why do we bother coming out with newer, higher performance cameras like the 20D and 1D Mk II? It sounds like the 10D is all we will ever need.

When did I ever say the 20D or the 1D Mk II (or indeed the original 1D) wasn't better? I didn't. If I did it would be a very strange thing for me to say since I have a 1D MkII sitting in my camera bag along with the 10D.

What I'm disputing is your sweeping and innacurate statement that the 10D is "NOT a sports camera period." It simply isn't true, as people on this forum have proven time and time again with the images they produce - from all kinds of sports.

As to why Canon came out with the 20D... two reasons, 1) they were suffering market share loss to the Nik*n D70 and needed to move the game along (which they've done quite succesfully) and 2) The same reason they always come out with new cameras for... to make money.

[pcasciola]

Ok, so what camera is not a sports camera, a Digital Rebel? And if so, why not? It's much closer in performance to a 10D than the 10D is to the 20D, especially with the firmware hacks that make the differences negligible.

The reason Canon came out with the 20D is the same reason they came out with the 1D Mk II, improvements. Substantial improvements.

[Cadwell]

Ok, so what camera is not a sports camera, a Digital Rebel? And if so, why not? It's much closer in performance to a 10D than the 10D is to the 20D, especially with the firmware hacks that make the differences negligible.

The reason Canon came out with the 20D is the same reason they came out with the 1D Mk II, improvements. Substantial improvements.

I don't see anyone disputing the fact that the 20D is a better sports camera than the 10D... I'm certainly not. I said that in my last post and indeed it was implied in my first :? All I'm disputing is your statement about the 10Ds inability to be used as a sports camera "period".

I've certainly no intention of widening the scope of this debate to the 300D :roll:

[mwinog2777]

[quote=turbotony]The new model just barely tweaks the one before, leading the ridiculous consumer to ever buy up. That's why there are so many D10's on the market.

Again, how can you possibly call 5 fps for 40 shots vs 3 fps for 9 shots, and the buffer clearing in 9 seconds (for 40 8MP shots) vs 30 seconds (for just 9 6MP shots) tweaks? If that's the case, I'd love to hear what would be a big improvement to you?

Yes, this is a tweak.

I just took 9 (large JPG) shots at 3 fps. I waited 10 seconds, and then took 8 more at 3 fps.

Do all the shots have to be RAW? This has been beaten to death on other boards, so I will refer you there.

Sports action is discontinuous by its nature. Marathon running is continuous. I can undertand the need for 40 shots if you were photographing a marathon; it just goes on and on, and you never know what's going to happen. When will the leader suddenly fall over and die?

For action shots of football you need just short bursts of pictures. Line the picture up, take a few few pics, then line the next & do the same. No need for more than 17 pictures in 16 seconds. No need for a luxury car, either, but some people must have them.

[pcasciola]

Ok, so what camera is not a sports camera, a Digital Rebel? And if so, why not? It's much closer in performance to a 10D than the 10D is to the 20D, especially with the firmware hacks that make the differences negligible.

The reason Canon came out with the 20D is the same reason they came out with the 1D Mk II, improvements. Substantial improvements.

I don't see anyone disputing the fact that the 20D is a better sports camera than the 10D... I'm certainly not. I said that in my last post and indeed it was implied in my first :? All I'm disputing is your statement about the 10Ds inability to be used as a sports camera "period".

I've certainly no intention of widening the scope of this debate to the 300D :roll:

Ok, I will stand corrected and say the 10D is "not as good" of a sports camera as the 20D. However, in my opinion, any camera that takes 30 seconds to clear a modest 9 shot buffer cannot be considered a performance camera.

And, I think you don't want to expand this to the 300D because you know the statement about it not being a sports camera (or any other camera for that matter) cannot be made if you use the logic of any camera has the ability to produce a good sports shots. I'm sure there are Digital Rebel sports photos out there that can stand tall or surpass your best shots, but that doesn't make it a good sports camera. :wink:

Great shots in your gallery btw. I'm a big Lotus fan, and I was surpsied to see an Exige in the rally race. That track looks a little rough for an Exige.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Can you guys go and argue about who has a better camera in DPreview forums please? :roll: :lol:

Really.. this thread is about nothing at this point....

All Cameras have there uses and merits. And yes.. new models will allways come out.

Some will get the newer model,. some will keep there old faithfull.

What more needs to be said?

This thread looks more like a Dpreview thread than anything we have seen here in quite some time. :(

[pcasciola]

[quote=turbotony]The new model just barely tweaks the one before, leading the ridiculous consumer to ever buy up. That's why there are so many D10's on the market.

Again, how can you possibly call 5 fps for 40 shots vs 3 fps for 9 shots, and the buffer clearing in 9 seconds (for 40 8MP shots) vs 30 seconds (for just 9 6MP shots) tweaks? If that's the case, I'd love to hear what would be a big improvement to you?

Yes, this is a tweak.

For action shots of football you need just short bursts of pictures. Line the picture up, take a few few pics, then line the next & do the same. No need for more than 17 pictures in 16 seconds. No need for a luxury car, either, but some people must have them.

Ok, so a 66% improvement in frames per second, 300% speed increase writing to CF (5MB/sec vs 1.5Mb/sec), and 300-400% the buffer size (due to the fast CF speed) are tweaks?!?!?!

Tweak means to improve slightly, and the smallest improvement listed is 66%. I'd love to see your definition of more than a tweak then. Do you consider a car going from 300hp to 500hp a tweak? Because that's "only" a 66% improvement too, and all that horsepower is rarely needed anyway, right?

I have taken 20+ shots during football action sequences on many occassions. Here's a cast in point. A running back broke of a couple of tackles and ran all the way for a touchdown, coming toward me the whole time. If I was stuck waiting 10 seconds after 9 shots, I would have missed a lot of great action shots.

[Cadwell]

Ok, I will stand corrected and say the 10D is "not as good" of a sports camera as the 20D. However, in my opinion, any camera that takes 30 seconds to clear a modest 9 shot buffer cannot be considered a performance camera.

See, now we agree :D The 9 shot buffer issue could be a concern for some people I agree, but it wasn't often one for me. Burst mode was not/is not my style of shooting although I tend to leave the cameras in burst just in case. It did sometimes cause a problem on the Indy circuit at Brands Hatch with EuroBOSS running. The front runners were managing 38s laps so it didn't give the 10D much time... certainly no time for chimping ;) *cough* not that I do that of course *cough* :oops:


Great shots in your gallery btw. I'm a big Lotus fan, and I was surpsied to see an Exige in the rally race. That track looks a little rough for an Exige.

Thank you. It never ceases to amaze me what some people will race and on what surface. The Exige didn't do that well, but I believe this was one of it's first rallycross outings... theyre hoping for better next year.

[pcasciola]

Can you guys go and argue about who has a better camera in DPreview forums please? :roll: :lol:

Really.. this thread is about nothing at this point....

All Cameras have there uses and merits. And yes.. new models will allways come out.

Some will get the newer model,. some will keep there old faithfull.

What more needs to be said?

This thread looks more like a Dpreview thread than anything we have seen here in quite some time. :(

Ok, my fault. I just can't believe anyone could call these huge performance gains tweaks or incremental upgrades when many 10D owners consider their cameras to be so much better than a Digital Rebel, that's all.

[SDK^]

Here is a comparison of ISO noise between the 10D and 20D, shot by myself


I think the 10D picture has more detail and better color. Thanks for convincing me to keep my 10D.

Mark

These are from the same two images fom each camera, you might want to reconsider ;)

10D

http://www.ph-digitalphotography-motorsports.com/images/ISO/10D/3200-2.jpg

20D

http://www.ph-digitalphotography-motorsports.com/images/ISO/20D/3200-2.jpg

[mwinog2777]

:roll: :lol:

Can you guys go and argue about who has a better camera in DPreview forums please? Really.. this thread is about nothing....:(

Seinfield was about nothing, but everybody loved it. Even threads about nil seem to get a lot of action.

I don't agree. I think this forum is the correct one for discussing this issue. Its called the forum for discussing "everything" about Canon dig EOS cameras.

[pcasciola]

Ok, I will stand corrected and say the 10D is "not as good" of a sports camera as the 20D. However, in my opinion, any camera that takes 30 seconds to clear a modest 9 shot buffer cannot be considered a performance camera.

See, now we agree :D The 9 shot buffer issue could be a concern for some people I agree, but it wasn't often one for me. Burst mode was not/is not my style of shooting although I tend to leave the cameras in burst just in case. It did sometimes cause a problem on the Indy circuit at Brands Hatch with EuroBOSS running. The front runners were managing 38s laps so it didn't give the 10D much time... certainly no time for chimping ;) *cough* not that I do that of course *cough* :oops:


I agree, too, that the 9 shot buffer is not always an issue. But in that case where it is an issue is probably the case where you would need it most, because something big is probably happening. Since I've owned my 20D, I've probably only exceeded that a handful of times, but those are some of my best action shots.

You chimp? I, ummmm, never do that (when anyone is looking anyway). :wink:

[forrest64]

The why is important, to generalize again you can sharpen a softer looking picture, but it's harder to sharpen a noisy one. I think the in-camera processing parameters must also be taken into account for a comparison, it may be that the 20D is less agressive in terms of sharpening than the 10D is.


Sorry I disagree. The outcome is what counts and the 20D's outcome does not please me as much as the 10D's does. I'm not into having the latest and greatest nor do I self justify the cost.

Mark

[Anders Östberg]

Sorry I disagree. The outcome is what counts and the 20D's outcome does not please me as much as the 10D's does. I'm not into having the latest and greatest nor do I self justify the cost.
Mark
Well, I'm certainly not going to fight over a comparison of one single image. :) Both the 10D and 20D are great cameras in their own right, but with different characteristics that may suit different people. I could trade in my 10D for a 20D, but have chosen not to as I'm also relatively happy with what can be done with the 10D. I still consider the 20D better in most respects, I have for instance seen high-ISO images that could not be done with a 10D. Overall it's not enough of a step to lose money in a trade though, for me. If I were to buy a new camera it would most certainly be the 20D.

Anyway, it's good you like the 10D, you should definitely keep it and get the most out of it, I intend to do so with mine!

[Steven M. Anthony]

Yeah--I was frustrated with the wake-up lag on a trip to Yellowstone. Two male bison were about to butt heads... I raised my camera to my eye... they crahsed together... my camera didn't wake up in time. :(

Keep your camera ready. That wouldn't have happened to Ansel Adams.

I never heard Adams complain of lag in his cameras.

I did have my camera ready--but it had gone to sleep on me! But you are right, a fully manual camera never needs to sleep...

[Steven M. Anthony]

And if you don't shoot sports, then the 5 fps/40 burst is an unnecessary tweak.

I've had my 10D since April and have only twice filled the 9 shot buffer (and once was today!).

But someone above said it nicely. There are those who just need to have the next best thing. Others are content to make due with what they have. When I look back to what I had been using (a Sony 707), the 10D is light years ahead. But even the Sony served me well over the years. I do like the quality of the raw images I get and the ability to change lenses.

But don't kid yourself that the reason Canon brings out a new camera is anything but making money, at its root.

[CyberDyneSystems]

:roll: :lol:

Can you guys go and argue about who has a better camera in DPreview forums please? Really.. this thread is about nothing....:(

Seinfield was about nothing, but everybody loved it. Even threads about nil seem to get a lot of action.

I don't agree. I think this forum is the correct one for discussing this issue. Its called the forum for discussing "everything" about Canon did EOS cameras.

I was mistaken,.. this thread is not about nothing,.. it is about typing the words "I disagree" as many times as possible before starting a post about nothing...

Were up to three pages! Well Done! :lol:

[malla1962]

Is that camera really that bad to desert so fast...lots of sales like..."bought new in early 2004, paid 1600.00" and "only 800 shots taken"....my question....is the 20D that much better for the average joe blow?? or is the 10D good, just underated?i have a 20d,but seeing the second hand prices for the 10d i might get one as a second body :D