Crank From Canada, joined May 2001, 1559 posts, RR: 2 Posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2361 times:
I'm about to get a DSLR, I checked the prices for both cameras, I could get the 300D for 1300$ with the lens and the 10D for 1600$, these are the prices in canadian dollars. I've read a couple reviews, but I'm still unsure whether I should invest 300$ extra dollars for the 10D or get the 300D and better glass.
Futterman From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1301 posts, RR: 44
Reply 1, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2421 times:
tough decision. right off the bat, one would say go for the 10D. however, a few things come into play. 1)your budget, and 2)any obsessions with accessories. if you can spare the extra $300 just for the body, then fork over another +/- $500-$1000 for lenses, cases, memory, filters, so on and so forth.
Airbus Lover From Malaysia, joined Apr 2000, 3248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2255 times:
AFAIK Vistek.ca is selling them C$2199 excl tax incl shipping and C$2149 by CameraCanada.com
C$1600 I would assume it is used?
In other parts of the world it is much cheaper than Canada, I find that most electronics in Canada are more expensive when compared to Malaysia or Singapore, and more so when compared to th States. Cameras are good examples. A 10D is selling for only around C$2000 in Singapore and less than that in the US!
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 6, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2165 times:
if you go for the 300D, after a while you might wish for some functionalities that are available on...yup, the 10D
At which stage Canon may well have introduced a better camera than the 10D.
If you're saying the choice is 300D and good glass or 10D and budget lenses, then go with the 300D. The extra features of the 10D are worth having, but they won't improve image quality. Good glass will. I would suggest that the 300D is a very capable camera - you'll be wanting more glass before a new body.
Having said that, if you're coming from a full creative control SLR background, you may find the 300D a little frustrating.
Apuneger From Belgium, joined Sep 2000, 3032 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2148 times:
The extra features of the 10D are worth having, but they won't improve image quality. Good glass will.
Guess you could be right about that one, Colin. Yet, personally I'd go for the 10D but that's my choice of course. The problem is, it all depends on so much parameters. In other words, while option A might be person 1 ideal choice, option B might be better one for person 2.
Crank: Whichever camera you chose, you won't regret it, that's for sure!
RayPettit From United Kingdom, joined May 2002, 608 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2097 times:
I thought long and hard about this one.
I currently take slides but really want a DSLR first of all for creative non-av work. For that, I've decided on (but not yet ordered) the EOS-300D and may well invest in some good glass and perhaps a macro lens.
I don't think the 300D will stand up to multiple shots in quick succession too well, but I'll be carrying on with my old-fashioned EOS-100 for that and most of my aviation work.
I can see myself going for some kind of 10-D replacement, but at present I cannot justify the extra £400 for the difference involved. The faster reactions of the 10-D and its greater robustness were tempting me but I'm planning to have a few more slide evenings before I invite my friends to huddle around my PC!
Anyway, if you see the 10-D/300D as your main camera for some while ahead, I'd go for the 10D if you can afford it. Its just that my needs have influenced a different strategy.
Siggi757 From Iceland, joined Oct 2001, 123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2054 times:
I've had the opportunity to try them both and I am still saving up for a 10D.
Both are great cameras but in terms of build quality the 10D feels like it will still be going strong in 10 years+ while my feeling is that the 300D will be showing scars and bruises in about 10 weeks.
I spent all my money on a used Canon EF 70-200mm 1:2.8 L and that was money well spent. It is perhaps one of the very best zoom lenses in the world. With it I am currently using a beat up D30 my father in law occasionally lends me. I am really pleased with the results so I can say that a good glass makes all the difference.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 10, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2023 times:
the 10D feels like it will still be going strong in 10 years+
To be honest, I suspect the camera body is probably over engineered - it probably will last 10 years, but I don't have the same faith for the innards.
While we expected our old fashioned steam powered SLRs to last a lifetime, I wonder if this will hold true for DSLRs? Thinking of my various electronic devices over the years, I don't think any have lasted 10 years without problems (mind you, there's not many such devices that have a useful service of 10 years!).
Areas I think the DSLR might be inherently time expired include:
Shutter - I've read the 10D/300D shutter is tested for 50K operations. Given that most people will shoot a LOT more frames than they would with film, I don't know that this is particularly generous. Now I have heard of shutters going for 100K with no problem, but others have failed at 30K.
Rear screen - as I understand it, this technology does not have a particularly long life expectancy.
Top LCD - again these can fade in time. I recall with my old T90 the top panel LCD had an expected life expectancy of 5 years, though obviously this depended on use.
The sensor. I have no idea if this has any inherent life limiting feature, however, it is a sensitive device, it will get dirty and will need cleaning. Odds are, sooner or later, it will get damaged.
Of course all the above can be repaired/replaced at a price, however, if DSLRs follow the pattern of other consumer electronic devices, it is very unlikely that such repairs would make economic sense after, say 3 years - certainly not after 5 years. Already I don't think replacing the shutter or sensor on a D30 would make sense.
Bottom line, in my opinion a DSLR should not be thought of as a long term investment, any more than a PC should. Most organisations would write off a PC in 3 to 5 years. I see no reason not to think of a DSLR in the same way.