Why all the 10D's for sale?

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?

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.

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 ;{)#

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

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

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

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.

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.

Nothing more to add here

Best regards,
Andy

PS: Welcome to the forum

Toogy...ISO side by side

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?

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.

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.

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

ISO 3200

10D

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

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

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.

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? ...