DSLR upgrade to last 3 year minimum?

[jukas]

As you can see in my sig, I currently have a 10D which I've used for the past 18 months or so. While I really like the camera it has some very specific aspects that I just don't care for, including poor AF capability.

I'd like to upgrade my dslr body within the next six months or so but the catch is I want to upgrade to a body I'll be happy with for the next three years or more.

So the question to those more experienced with the upper end bodies than I, is based on currently available models, and past model/market trends. Is there a body currently available that you could see yourself being happy with for the next three years? In my preliminary research it seems that the 20D just isn't enough bang for the buck, and I'd probably be wanting to upgrade again less than a year after getting it. It seems I'll be looking at a 1dMKII at minimum so if I'm going to plunk down $3k+ I'd like it to do the job for a while. My photography style is widly varied including landscape, people/candids, nature, etc.

Any input is appreciated.

[Deckyon]

1D MkII, 1Ds MkII and 20D will all last at least 3 years. I do not have personal experience with the new 350D, cannot speak to that one. Consider how little the 1D and 1Ds dropped in price when the new MarkII versions came out gives a very good benchmark as to the value of the 1 series cameras.

I cannot imagine not having my 1D Mk II. I use it all the time. there is more camera there than most people will ever use, much less, push to the limits. I have had mine for less than 6 months now and have taken well over 6000 shots.

You will not go wrong with either of the 1 series cameras...

[ScottE]

You're the only one who can answer questions about what you need.

What do you need that is not on the 10D? What of those features is not answered by the 20D or D1Mk2?

Three years ago when I bought my D60 I knew that it was a temporary camera because there were so many things that it did poorly. The 10D answered some of those shortfalls, but not enough to make an upgrade worthwhile. The 20D answered most of the shortfalls, so I bought in. Being a former film shooter, I regard the 20D to be about the equivalent of an Elan 7, not quite up to the standard of the EOS 3 film camera that is gathering dust in my closet.

The 1DMk2 appears to be close to or better than the EOS 3, but it is expensive. I decided not to pay the price at this time because DSLRs are developing so fast I don't want to tie up any more money that necessary in a current model. I don't intend to buy into a D1 level camera until the market matures and the rate of development slows down.

If I was or wanted to be a professional photographer I would have a very different decision process because my needs would be different. YOu have to decide what your needs are.

Scott

[Jon]

Right now the 1D Mk II costs over twice what a 20D does. Does it make more fiscal sense to buy one 1D Mk II over 3 years or to get a 20D (assuming it meets your current needs) now and its successor model in 18 months, for another 18 months? That's even assuming you don't choose to sell your "old" 20D. If you keep it, you've got two bodies for the price of one. If the 20D lacks something that you need and the 1D Mk II has, that's a different issue, but if either one looks capable of what you need for the near-term, then why not save money now (if you want to spend it, you can always get L) and plan a mid-life update, as it were.

[eosster]

Canon 1Ds MarkII should last at least that long. I would only hope....

[DocFrankenstein]

Canon 1Ds MarkII should last at least that long. I would only hope....
There would be 1Ds MkIV by that time.

[cyclone]

I agree with ScottE. I have both the Elan 7 and the 20D, and they are similar. As a matter of fact, the 20D has better focusing and higher frames/second. The main things that I would like to see in the 20D that I might regret not having would be some sort of ultrasonic wave action to keep the sensor clean (ala Olympus) or built-in image stabilization (ala Minolta).

Cyclone

[FlyingPete]

I will make this foolish comment again, I hope to get 5 years out of my 20D!

I have got that out of a film camera before, so why not a digital, it has all the resolution I will ever need, and it is fast enough for my needs. All my wants relate to glass at the moment, and I can do plenty of upgrading there :cool:

Two things will make me want to upgrade, first extreme ISO with low noise, thing 3200/6400 with 100 level noise, second greater dymanic range, say closer to the human eye!

[eosster]

There would be 1Ds MkIV by that time.

One can dream, LOL.:lol::lol::lol:

[DocFrankenstein]

One can dream, LOL.:lol::lol::lol:
That's what Noink fans do.

Canon releases their cameras every 18 months

[Andy_T]

You mainly cited bad focus as your main problem on your 10D, when exactly do you have that problem? Low light? Fast action? Tracking small birds in flight?
What lens(es) are you using?

Bad focus is not always caused by the camera, the lens plays an important role.

I remember from Scottes' excellent review of the 100-400 vs. the 400 zoom that he mentioned 'the 400 on the 10D blows away the 100-400 on the 1DII as far as focus speed is concerned'.

So maybe another option would be to think about upgrading your glass and see if this helps. Of course, if you already are using 24-70/2.8 and long L primes, then the pro body might be the only way to go.

Edit: OK, I just saw your gear list :o

While the 50/1.8 supposedly is not the fastest lens to focus :wink: , the 70-200/2.8 IS should do great. Do you have a problem with this lens as well?

Maybe try to get your hands on some fast primes like the 85/1.8 or 135/2.0 L or 200/2.8 L and see if there is an improvement.

Another option always would be to consider a used 1D as second camera.

Best regards,
Andy

[Jon]

I will make this foolish comment again, I hope to get 5 years out of my 20D!

I have got that out of a film camera before, so why not a digital, it has all the resolution I will ever need, and it is fast enough for my needs. All my wants relate to glass at the moment, and I can do plenty of upgrading there :cool:

Two things will make me want to upgrade, first extreme ISO with low noise, thing 3200/6400 with 100 level noise, second greater dymanic range, say closer to the human eye!

No-one's disputing that, for you, now, a 5-year plan is appropriate. Jukas has determined that he needs to upgrade, and wants to know the optimal approach. And the answer to that boils down to: what camera meets his needs now, with enough margin to last for three years, or is that even the right way to ask the question?

[Jim_T]

I've got a 10D.. I got it when they first came out. I'm skipping the 20D/350X and will most likely upgrade when the 20D is replaced. With Canon's DSLR life, that's about 3 years :)

There will always be something bigger and better.. It ALL depends on what you're willing to spend.

[jukas]

Thanks for all the replies. I have a feeling I didn't word my question in the best way. I fully expect my 10D would function properly for the next 3 years, as would a new 20d, 1dmkII etc. It wasn't really a question of Durability more of functionality and what will provide me the best bang for the buck and least likely to have me wanting to upgrade again in the next 3 years.

You mainly cited bad focus as your main problem on your 10D, when exactly do you have that problem? Low light? Fast action? Tracking small birds in flight?
What lens(es) are you using?


I have several issues with the AF, first is does perform poorly in low light even on my 70 - 200 f/2.8 IS L . I also have an issue with how the 10D choses between the AF points it never seems to pick the focus point over what I would consider the primary focal point. I've ended up setting the center point as the only AF point My understanding is the newer 20D and 1D series handle AF much better across the points.

I would also like at least 8mp to play with, and wouldn't mind going down to a 1.3 or full frame sensor with much better high ISO performance. Mainly I want a camera that can handle my needs now, that I won't outgrow in the next three years unless I *want* to.

Maybe a better question would be, could someone list the primary differences between the 20D and the 1dMKII?

[karusel]

poor AF capability.

a 1dMKII at minimum

I'm looking at the same thing, I'm not extatically overjoyed by the 10D's AF, I've been wanting less noise at higher ISO's and lesser crop, the 1D series is therefore pretty logical answer for me. However, I think I won't be buying for about another year... need some L first.

I suppose the 1DMKII might last more than 3 years, perhaps even 5. I look at it this way; I don't often print large size prints, when I do, they don't lack resolution. With 1DMKII they will lack even less resolution, and considering that I don't really crop my pictures, I would not have a problem using 1DMKII for more than 5 years. But yeah, who knows what's coming next... I'm sure one day cameras, computers, phones and microwaves are going to merge. I hate that day already.

[xdjoynerx]

i would go with the 1d mkII for its resolution, shutter life, and speed.

the camera should suit you well for 3 more years easliy.

[Black Ricco]

Well, keep this in mind. Seven years ago the Kodak 620 DCS, a 2 megapixel camera, was $30,000.

Three years from now that 1dMKII will probably be $600.00 and the new 1ds2MKIII 31 megapixel camera will be around $2,500.

That might be pushing it a bit, but not by much.

[xdjoynerx]

in the past 3 years, camers have made about a 5mp over all jump (most cameras in general). the d30 was 2800 when it came out 5 years ago, the 20d is 1600$, thats a 5mp increase, over a 5 year span, and only a 1,200 price drop.

we will see 31mp cameras, but not any time soon (certainly not at that price, or any where near that time frame.)

technology does get cheaper, but R&D does not. its takes real time, by real people, to devlop new technology, that costs lots of $$$.

[brad.swanson]

I'd wait another 18 months. I think there's nothing wrong with the 10D. And, you're asking people to predict the future. Let's say you buy a new camera in October. And within 6-12 months, something new develops. Are you going to stick with what you've got for 2 more years?
Why 3 years? Why not 4? Or 2? In this day and age, we're in a period of rapid growth. Technology is bringing out new products, much like the Personal Computer market from 1995 to 2003. Within 6 months, your computer was out of date. But if you weren't playing the latest games, or using the Autocad, did it really matter until 2 years went by? In most cases, no. In fact, I know that at work, I was using a computer that was closer to 4 years old.

No one can predict the future. You need to figure out what you can live with. This forum is an equipment forum. These people (on average) are looking to buy the latest camera whenever they are announced.

[radar-eclipse]

The 20d is leaps and bounds an improvement over the 10D; wake up from sleep, to noise, to improved everything. How about buying one now, waiting about a year for the replacement 12mp to hit, and sell the 20D for $600 or so. I sold my 10D, bought a 20 and a 1DSMII. The Mark II is overkill for sure for most applications. But gosh, it feels SO GOOD! 12mp will probably work best for your app in the long run.

Best regards and good luck on your decision.