Cannon - 300D or 10D?

[Greebe]

I have yet to see most any integrated lens that achieves the quality of a seperate lens/body combo.

Kinda like comparing the wifes $60 Pentax IQzoom 38-70mm point and shoot 35mm to my Nikon setup and it's many lenses (f2.8 24-70mm, f1.2 50mm, f2.8 100-300mm, seperate motor drive, and tank like construction)

edit... I can also see that Jeff might already have a nice Canon 35mm setup so the choice of DSLR might reflect he can use lenses on both, cutting overall costs

[VJ]

Oops, I didn't know... Well, if he does have lenses for Canon, I'd suggest the 10D over the 300D.

(unless the limitations are no issue to him, but having used SLR before, I think they might... best to know beforehand what limitations there are, the manuals for the 300D and 10D are available on the Canon website)


Jörg

[spadnos]

You could always just get yourself a nice scanner. Canon has some good flatbeds that have film adapters. Also, Nikon's CoolScan series is quite good.

I think there's a Canon for around $400 that basically has higher resolution than film. (the Canoscan 9900F is $340, and is 3200x6400 dpi)

Of course, this has all the disadvantages of film (processing time, lack of immediate feedback, etc.) and digital (you have to take the time to scan and retouch, print, etc.), but what the heck.

- Steve

edit: typo and price

[HedsSpaz]

We have the SLR side covered; we're trying to cover the digital side now.

If it is safe to assume (as the others are doing), that by this statement you mean you already have a film SLR and lenses, then I would definately say go with the 10D (again, making the assumption that your current equipment is Canon). The 300D would be a reasonable choice if you didn't already have and investment in equipment and were trying to minimize the cost of the initial investment. Given that you already have lenses though, spend the little bit extra and get the 10D. You never know when you may discover that some of those features are neccesary.

As for the DCS14N, stay far far away. It has pretty widely been lambasted for having very high noise levels, and no amount of MP is going to make up for that.

/agree Greebe
There is no way you are going to get an integrated system (given current options) that will match and SLR + lenses. I won't say that there won't be integrated systems in the future that more closely approach that level, but currently, there's just no comparison.

Having said all that, since your decision has been pushed off till this summer, a word of advice. There are always rumors running around the web on when Canon will release it's next big things. At the begining of the year they announced that they were going to announce something like 17 new digital camera's this year. To date, they've announced a little over half of them. There are a great many people who expect to see the successor to the 10D sometime second half of this year. I'm not holding my breath personally, and I'd not be interested anyway, but you can take that for what it's worth.

Ian

[Duty]

Originally posted by az
Just out of curiosity: What do you need interchangeable lenses for, Duty?

AZ

Well, mostly because our needs change so much from job to job. I can't see spending that much money and locking myself into a single lens, even if is a really good lens for most purposes. Rarely do we get jobs with odd requirements. I guess I want the expandability.

Jeff

[Duty]

Originally posted by Greebe
I have yet to see most any integrated lens that achieves the quality of a seperate lens/body combo.

Kinda like comparing the wifes $60 Pentax IQzoom 38-70mm point and shoot 35mm to my Nikon setup and it's many lenses (f2.8 24-70mm, f1.2 50mm, f2.8 100-300mm, seperate motor drive, and tank like construction)

edit... I can also see that Jeff might already have a nice Canon 35mm setup so the choice of DSLR might reflect he can use lenses on both, cutting overall costs

Actually I have an older Nikon and my Partner has a Canon. I am not the photographer in the group; I just like to play with cool toys. The camera will be used mostly by an employee or the partner.

My Nikon is a Nikomat from the 60s, an FT I think. Now, you might scoff at it for its age but, it takes beautiful pictures and is rock solid. It was my grandfathers and it is in perfect shape. It also came with a few lenses, flash and other bits. Remember I am not the photographer so mine is a back up more then anything

The partner’s SLR is a modern Cannon of some sort, so we use his most of the time.

We do have a few older digital cameras (2 and 4 megapixels) as well, its just time to upgrade the main camera.

Jeff

[Duty]

Originally posted by HedsSpaz
If it is safe to assume (as the others are doing), that by this statement you mean you already have a film SLR and lenses, then I would definately say go with the 10D (again, making the assumption that your current equipment is Canon). The 300D would be a reasonable choice if you didn't already have and investment in equipment and were trying to minimize the cost of the initial investment. Given that you already have lenses though, spend the little bit extra and get the 10D. You never know when you may discover that some of those features are neccesary.

As for the DCS14N, stay far far away. It has pretty widely been lambasted for having very high noise levels, and no amount of MP is going to make up for that.

/agree Greebe
There is no way you are going to get an integrated system (given current options) that will match and SLR + lenses. I won't say that there won't be integrated systems in the future that more closely approach that level, but currently, there's just no comparison.

Having said all that, since your decision has been pushed off till this summer, a word of advice. There are always rumors running around the web on when Canon will release it's next big things. At the begining of the year they announced that they were going to announce something like 17 new digital camera's this year. To date, they've announced a little over half of them. There are a great many people who expect to see the successor to the 10D sometime second half of this year. I'm not holding my breath personally, and I'd not be interested anyway, but you can take that for what it's worth.

Ian

Thanks for the info. Although we do have Cannon equipment it is not a factor. It would be a bonus but I am not factoring it in to the equation. We are looking at the Cannons because of price to quality ratio and my partner is fond of Cannon. If we found a better camera for a similar price I would consider it. And now that we are not in a rush to get the camera, I am going to do more research. The more I look the more I realize a $1000 camera is actually going to cost $1500 after basic bits are purchased to go with the camera. I have never purchased a SLR so this is new to me. I've had a few SLRs but they were hand-me-downs (Pentax K1000 and the Nikomat).

To be honest if the partner had his way I think we would be looking at a 1DS - ouch...


Jeff

[Duty]

Originally posted by spadnos
You could always just get yourself a nice scanner. Canon has some good flatbeds that have film adapters. Also, Nikon's CoolScan series is quite good.

I think there's a Canon for around $400 that basically has higher resolution than film. (the Canoscan 9900F is $340, and is 3200x6400 dpi)

Of course, this has all the disadvantages of film (processing time, lack of immediate feedback, etc.) and digital (you have to take the time to scan and retouch, print, etc.), but what the heck.

- Steve

edit: typo and price

Have that covered too. But we don't want the cost of developing the film or the cost of re shooting because of problems that don't show until developing the film. Some of our pictures come from remote locations (Colorado, Hawaii, Mexico, ...) and would not be cost effective to re take the bad photos.

Jeff

[az]

You CANNOT ignore what lenses you have if you are going to purchase an SLR. You will spend AT LEAST as much on lenses (if you want good quality glass and a little versatility) as you will spend on the DSLR body. So the only economical option for you really is Canon. Luckily, their 10D is an excellent camera with a good price/performance ratio. And even IF Canon released a successor to it this year (which will surely not be available in summer), this wouldn't make the "old" 10D any worse. If you want/need a DSLR and you have Canon glass, and you want a little ruggedness, get the 10D, there's no other choice.

AZ

[az]

Oh BTW, get Sandisk Ultra II flash cards, they're very fast. NEVER, EVER get any of the older Sandisk cards (including Ultra), they're VERY slow.

AZ

[spadnos]

Regarding the Kodak 14/n reputation:

The initial reviews of the camera were pretty harsh - they were also reviewing preproduction and early production cameras. The issues were with theuse of the sensor, not the sensor hardware itself. I spoke with a Kodak tech, and he basically said "it's a great sensor, but it is VERY hard to use - the camera guys didn't know how to use if at first." The noise issues were fixed in a software update - I don't remember the exact timeframe, but it was at least 6 months ago.

This brings up another point - it's really easy to get updated software from Kodak (I did, and I don't even have one of their cameras) - apparently,it's not so easy with some other companies (Nikon, for example, has you send in the camera for an update.)

The Kodak is also upgradable - it's very modular inside, so they can upgrade the sensor (I believe you can get the new sensor from the Pro SLR/n as an upgrade to the Pro 14/n), you can upgrade the memory (it uses a fairly standard SO-DIMM, so the original cameras that had 256M can be upgraded to 512M, etc.

This modularity (depending on how long it lasts) might mean the difference between buying a new camera, or just upgrading the one you have next year.

(not that I'm advocating Duty buying one, I just wanted to set the record straight [or at least to my slant] )

- Steve

[HedsSpaz]

If the issues with the 14N have been remedied thats outstanding. It definately has/had potential. I'll have to look for some updated reviews on it.

I don't know about Nikon, but updating the firmware on the 10D is extremely easy. You just drop the .bin file into the canon folder on your CF card, put the card back in the camera, turn the camera on, and boom, it takes care of the rest.

As az points out, lenses are a serious investment. My most recent purchase was a Canon 100-400 L 4.5-5.6. It was approximately 200$ less than the 10D itself. My other two primary lenses are a 28-135 and a 100 macro. Both good lenses, both midrange price. (430 and 400 respectively). So, the next thing I would think about if I were you is what lenses do you currently have available to you? If you have good reasonable quality lenses, then there is no reason to switch to another system. If the lenses are consumer grade glass and if you are going to turn around and invest in higher quality lenses anyway, then by all means check out all available options. If you'd like some specific advice on your currently available lenses I'd be happy to offer some input on them.

The more I look the more I realize a $1000 camera is actually going to cost $1500 after basic bits are purchased to go with the camera.

Even 1500 is wishful thinking I'm afraid. I'm up to approximately $4,000 invested since I got my 10D last Thanksgiving. Thats not including the flash and bag I already had, both of which I will be replacing eventually (the bag as soon as my local shop gets the bag I have on order back in stock). I also plan on picking up a battery grip in about a month. The 100-400 eats my two batteries like they're candy, so I'm also going to be getting 2 more spare batteries. Then, this summer I want to get a proper wide angle lens (probably a fish-eye actually) plus a new flash. Anyway, by the time I'm done, I expect to be in the 6-7k$ range for total investment.

So, depending on your needs, you may be able to get by with the body and a single lens. If I were to recommend a lineup based on your stated uses, and going on the assumption that you will generally be shooting in good light, it would be the following.
10D body, 1500$
17-40 f4L, 700$
70-200 f4L, 550$
50 f1.8, 70$

If you know you are going to have low light conditions then you can either through in a speedlight 500E or something if the flash look is acceptable, or you need to look at faster lenses (lower f-stop). Although thats also partly why I recomend tossing the 50 1.8 in there.

Anyway, thats probably WAY more info than you really wanted right now, but just in case you (or anyone else) might find it useful, there it is.

Ian

BTW, having rambled through all of that, check out the Canon Pro1 all in one. It's getting good reviews and might do everything you need.

[az]

The Dimage A2 is WAY ahead of the Pro1, but he didn't even want that

AZ

[spadnos]

Interesting to note that the more "everything else" costs, the less of an effect the actual camera body has on the cost. (a $1k camera + $3k in accessories = $4k, a $3k camera with the same accessories is only $6k, a mere 50% increase - not a 200% increase )

@HedsSpaz - excellent info, but I'd change the 50mm lens to the f1.4 version - it's higher quality (with glass elements). The 1.8 is a consumer lens with plastic elements (hence the 0.29 pounds weight vs. 0.69 for the 1.4).

- Steve

[HedsSpaz]

Interesting to note that the more "everything else" costs, the less of an effect the actual camera body has on the cost.

Funny how that works isn't it.

The 50 1.4 is definately better, but you also pay 4x more for it. The 50 1.8 is still a good fast lens, and if it breaks, well, heck, it costs less than the filter I bought for my 100-400. (actually, thats not true, although it does cost less than the filter I had intended to get had it been in stock.)

Ian