Canon 10D

[69 Sound]

Hi Everyone,

I'm wondering if the 10D is still a viable option today given all the new DSLR's that are now available (ie: 20D, RebelXT, Nikon N70, etc)

The reason I ask is I have an opportunity to purchase a new 10D kit at what seems to be a great price. $850 at a local camera shop, it's their last unit and they just want to blow it out.

Primarily I shoot 35mm film which includes alot of B/W. My primary focus is on older historical landmarks, cemetery's, some landscape, etc. Typically 98% of everything I shoot are stationary objects so extra buffers or frames per second are really not an issue for me.

Up until this point I have used Nikon film bodies and only have a small collection of lenses, a 28-200mm, 28-105mm, 28mm, 50mm so I'm not too concerned with the idea of having to purchase new lenses if I go with another system. Also, because of the terrible used market for film bodies I will probably keep my Nikons and continue to use them for certain things.

I guess what I am concerned with is buying into older digital technology. Seeing as how technology is advancing so quickly on the digital front and essentially DSLR's are disposable and outdated within 6 months to a year no matter which system you choose. Does the 10D vs the newer selections still hold a viable position for someone wanting to get into digital.

Also, what if anything will I be giving up if I make the switch?

Regards,

Chris

PS - Sorry for the long post...

[dsze]

The 10D is a great camera. It has proven itself over time and can produce images as good as any other camera. Your right, its lacking 2MP and some buffer and some noise-reduction in comparison to the newer models. But, its still a great camera. Personally, I will keep mine until I have reason to purchase a 1DMkII. The gains of the XT or the 20D do not justify upgrading for my purposes. $850 for a new 10D kit seems pretty good to me. You might even get them to drop it to $800 or so. You'll hear alot of people with the XT or the 20D praise those cameras as well. You'll never (or very rarely) hear someone say that they didn't/don't like their 10D.

Good luck!

[cmM]

I think even my Digital Rebel is still a capable camera, so there's no doubt that the 10D is still up there.
One drawback for you, since you shoot landscapes and architecture would be the sensor size. The 10D (as well as 20D, Digital Rebel (XT), etc...) have a smaller sensor (1.6 crop factor), compared to your full frame film SLRs, so you might notice a different when shooting at the wide end. So you could either look at wider lense (24 TS-e) or a full frame DSLR like a 1Ds

[nitsch]

The way I look at it is this. The 10D was considered a great camera when it came out, it's still a great camera now. Yes, newer models featuring the latest improvements are now available but does that mean the 10D is any less of a camera than it was a year or so ago? No it doesn't.

I think for the photography you are going to be doing it will be a brilliant piece of kit. Go for it!

[robertwgross]

The Digital Rebel 300D kit is sold for $799, so a 10D kit at $850 is not crazy.

---Bob Gross---

[ssim]

Even though I have moved up past the 10D I have kept mine and my son is using it. It still produces very good images and certainly wouldn't have any hesitation in recommending this camera to anyone. The price seems reasonable so I would go for it.

[Mills]

When I got my 1D Mark II, I kept my 10D as a backup. While I shoot 98% with the MK II, I am still very pleased with the images that come from my old 10D.

[rdenney]

Also, what if anything will I be giving up if I make the switch?


You will give up some buffer speed, and faster boot-up time. Neither of these is important, in my opinion.

Noise, schmoise. I get hardly any noise in my 10D images, and then only at insanely high ISO settings. And I can fix that to large extent with Neatimage, though I've never had to. (Removing scanner noise from medium-format film scans is another matter.)

What may be important, however, is that you give up the opportunity to use EF-S lenses. I would not have considered that a detriment until Canon introduced the EF-2 10-22. I'm using a Sigma EX 12-24 on my 10D, and I get excellent results with it. But it might have been nice to have the 10-22 as an option.

Is that option worth $800? Not even close.

Rick "who likes the 20D improvements but who has not been tempted to upgrade" Denney

[69 Sound]

Thanks to everyone for the suggestions and comments. It sounds like the 10D will probably do everything that I will want/need it to do. I guess my only real hesitation with investing in an older technology comes from a resale standpoint.

For example, with the 10D... If I find myself wanting to upgrade in a year or so, will I essentially be in the same position I am now with my film slr's (very low resale value) verses investing a bit more $$ now in newer technology. I understand that with any digital technology, devaluation is a given, but I also don't want to invest now into what will perhaps be considered an obsolete system in a years time.

Those of you who have or have used the 10D have the advantage of already having gotten a year or two's use out of the system, but given the options today would you still choose the 10D over the other alternatives under 2K.

[rdenney]

Those of you who have or have used the 10D have the advantage of already having gotten a year or two's use out of the system, but given the options today would you still choose the 10D over the other alternatives under 2K.

You make a good point, but I tend to use cameras until they are used up. (I still have my Canon F-1, bought in 1972.)

I'm currently waiting for the 1Ds to be enough generations old that used ones will be down in the humanoid range. What do I care if newer models do more if I can't afford them?

Your 10D's resale value will fall, but you are paying less for it in the first place. I paid $1500 for mine, so you have a $700 advantage over me in any case, despite that I've used mine for two years. If we both had to sell in three months, yours would be in newer condition and would likely fetch more.

The only issue is software and interface standards. But the 10D uses the same memory card interface as the latest models, so you are giving up nothing there. And you don't even need Canon's software to get full use out of it. New versions of Breezebrowser and Photoshop support the CRW raw files directly, without Canon's software even coming out of the shrinkwrap. I just process a whole batch of 10D images using the latest software, so there's no problem with interface standards. (You do see that problem in older scanners--I had to work hard to get the old SCSI interface on my Minolta Multi-II scanner to work on a new computer).

Rick "who thinks worrying about resale value on digital-anything will create a lot of stress" Denney

[69 Sound]

You make a good point, but I tend to use cameras until they are used up. (I still have my Canon F-1, bought in 1972.)

I'm currently waiting for the 1Ds to be enough generations old that used ones will be down in the humanoid range. What do I care if newer models do more if I can't afford them?

You too make a good point, but your F-1 or my N-80 will still be taking great pictures 10 years from now (assuming that some form of film and developing is still avail)

On the other side of the coin, once the 1Ds come down enough in price to be affordable for most, technology will have more then likely far surpassed what the 1D is capable of and the prices on the newest technology will have become just as affordable as a used 1D.

So at that point which do you invest your money in? The newer technology and advances or what may soon be an obsolete system.

I'm sure they are all capable of producing great images, but given the choice would the 10D still be as viable as any of the other choices. ie: Canon Rebel XT, 20D, Nikon D70 or any others that would fall into this price range.

The 10D seems like it would be a great camera for a very fair price I just don't know if it is the right direction to go in given the newer options avail. today.

Regards,

Chris

[Jon]

Well, at least some tests have found that the 1DsMk II can out-resolve current film, and it's arguable that film resolution is reaching its limit. A 6.3 MP camera's perfectly capable of producing 8x10 prints that are every bit as good as any film camera out there today. Given those conditions, which currently exist, there's no reason to expect a 10D to be obsolete as long as it still works. Obsolescent, yes, but then so's an F-1 (read my sig).

[69 Sound]

While I have no doubt that a 6.3 MP 10D has resolution great enough to print 8x10 or 11x14's My question really is more the viability of the 2 year old 10D technology today verses a newer 20D, Rebel XT or D70.

Given the choice to make today would you still choose the 10D over the more recent options such as the Rebel XT, D70, etc. for essentially the same money.

Chris

[rdenney]

Given the choice to make today would you still choose the 10D over the more recent options such as the Rebel XT, D70, etc. for essentially the same money.

The one thing the 10D has that the Rebels don't is a more rugged body built for a higher duty cycle. The Rebel XT may (I'm guessing) have the same sensor as the 20D, but does it have the same shutter? The same metal skin? Is it built to withstand the same duty cycle? I would guess that if it was, it would not be as cheap. The Rebel must be cost-engineered somewhere.

Stated another way, let's go back in time. Let's say it's 1980. Now, do you buy a new-old-stock Canon F-1 or a factory-fresh AE-1 for the same money? The AE-1 has a few automation features than the F-1 didn't. But the F-1 was designed for 200,000 shutter cycles, and the AE-1 perhaps 20,000. This example is more extreme, of course, than the comparison between the Digital Rebel and the 10D. I don't know the answer, but I know the choice I would probably make.

As to the advantage of the 8 MP over the 6 MP, I don't think that's worth much. The pixel density of the 10D is already high enough to expose the faults of all but the very best of my lenses. I want more pixels, but I want them spread over a larger frame.

Rick "who'd rather have the tougher camera" Denney

[dsze]

The 10D seems like it would be a great camera for a very fair price I just don't know if it is the right direction to go in given the newer options avail. today.

Regards,

Chris[/QUOTE]

The newer options available today on the XT/20D hardly make the 10D obsolete technology. A 10D in the hands of a good photographer will always produce better images than a 20D or XT in the hands of a descent photographer.

-daniel

[Jon]

Given the choice to make today would you still choose the 10D over the more recent options such as the Rebel XT, D70, etc. for essentially the same money.That's a different question, really. You're being offered a 10D, new in box, for essentially the price a DR is going for today. The 10D has a larger buffer than the DRFX IIRC, so score one for the 10D. The DRFX has 8.0 MP vs 6.3, but either will do perfectly good 8x10 prints, so I'd call it a draw. USB 1.1 vs. USB 2.0? Most people use a separate card reader. No advantage. 10D has the selector wheel while the DR family have 4 buttons. I'd take the wheel. DRFX probably has better low-noise and faster response than the 10D - score for the DRFX. But overall, if price were the concern, I'd choose a 10D over either of the DR family (or anythingg else in that price range). I'd choose a 20D over the 10D if the price gap ($400-$500) didn't matter, but I'd choose a 1D Mk II if the price gap didn't matter, or a 1Ds MkII, if the price gap didn't matter. In the $600-$1100 range, I'd take the 10D over anything else on offer. Above that range, I'd take the 20D, 1D MkII or 1Ds MkII as appropriate for the budget (also note that those three have less direct competition on a features level).

[Mike Panic]

if you are on a budget a 10d is a great option... im seeing them used now as low as $700 w/ grips... i still own mine and dont plan on upgrading for at least another year... im going to take a huge hit when i go to sell it, but for now it does just fine, although i do hit the buffer from time to time when shooting raw in the studio

[69 Sound]

Thanks again to everyone that has replied...

It's greatly appreciated and some excellent points in favor of the 10D have been raised. Taking this all into consideration I will more then likely go with the 10D.

I'm not sure if digital will ever replace my film bodies, but we'll see what the future holds.

More then anything getting into the world of DSLR's I tend to approach it the same way I did with 35mm slr's. My thinking is that I'd prefer to cover not only my current needs, but also my future needs and desires. No one wants to feel like they are constantly chasing technology and I have learned from many years of audio work that trying to compromise quality for price rarely yields the satisfaction that one hopes.

Thanks Again,

Chris

[robertwgross]

The 10D has a larger buffer than the DRFX IIRC, so score one for the 10D.

What kind of camera is DRFX IIRC?

---Bob Gross---

[picnic]

Thanks again to everyone that has replied...

It's greatly appreciated and some excellent points in favor of the 10D have been raised. Taking this all into consideration I will more then likely go with the 10D.

I'm not sure if digital will ever replace my film bodies, but we'll see what the future holds.

More then anything getting into the world of DSLR's I tend to approach it the same way I did with 35mm slr's. My thinking is that I'd prefer to cover not only my current needs, but also my future needs and desires. No one wants to feel like they are constantly chasing technology and I have learned from many years of audio work that trying to compromise quality for price rarely yields the satisfaction that one hopes.

Thanks Again,

Chris

Chris, there's really no way NOT to chase technology. All the folks that have the latest 20D, 1DMkII, etc., will have an 'older' model in about 9 months or so. I expect the upgrade to the 20D about Feb. 2006 and will upgrade my 10D at that time. I will keep the 10D as backup as I have with my D60. I will take a hit on the older camera, but I have to have a backup for my commercial work--and I still find even the D^0 to suit my style for the most part (not saying I don't prefer to shoot with the 10D most of the time). There's just no way not to be behind techonologically with digital. However, there's also no reason you can't use the body until it gives up the ghost--or even then replace a shutter, etc. if needed. For not much more than 1/2 the price of a 20D I would consider it. I personally would prefer the 10D/20D series over the Rebel series if it was my only body--if its backup, I might consider the new XT.

Diane