Photography: Canon EOS 10D or 350D

[VladTepes]

Ok the photo nuts will know what I'm talking about.

The 350D is a top-spec "amateur" camera, many features of which are based on the Canon 20D professional camera. Only thing is that the 20D is known to have numerous problems in long-term professional usage - issues addressed in the upcoming 5D range. But I digress. Despite the problems of the 20D, the 350D has a good reputation as a current model quality digital SLR.

The 10D is one of Canon's 'professional' range of cameras - 'superseded' by more recent releases but with a reputation for being bulletproof. Its particularly known for is excellent dust proofing - something very handy up at Mt Mee these days. (Bugger this drought!)

Sure the 10D is ~6MP while the 350D is 8MP but I really can't see where the extra "quality' would come in useful.

The thing is, I had my heart set on a 350D BUT a photographer mate of mine has his 10D coming off lease soon. Considering he'll include one lens (about a 30-70 I think) it will work out to about the same price as a new 250D.

So I would appreciate any feedback and advice from any of you "in the know" with this kind of thing, especially those with direct experience of either of both of these cameras.

What would YOU do given this situation :?:

[Phoenix]

I don't know which way I would go myself, but it might be worth sending DionM a PM if he doesn't see this, he's well in the know on digital SLR's :wink:

[DionM]

G'day Vlad,

Here I yam 8)

Firstly, the comments about the 20D are strange. I haven't heard of any of these problems that would make one avoid them ? There were some real stuff ups by Canon early on in the piece with rubbish firmware that ****ed a lot of people off - they won't do that again (rushed the firmware out to release, plus they forgot that these cameras would be bought and firmware flashed by non-techs who wouldn't read the firmware flashing instructions to the letter).

Anyway, I digress.

The 20D is Canons flagship 'prosumer' camera - better than the entry level. At 8fps, 8.3MP resolution and a host of other pro features (1/250 flash sync, Mirro lockup, etc) it leaves nothing wanting for serious amateurs.

At the hands of pros it can be abused - it is not made for rough handling like the big tank cameras (1Ds etc). It is not a pro camera - but having said that many pros keep one as their backup camera.

I have had mine for almost a year now and love it. Have taken over 5000 trouble free photos, in all kinds of places (including Mt Mee - well actually it was Kenilworth). Have a look at my gallery (http://fotos-files-forums.net/gallery/) for samples. I've taken mine 4WDing, to Sweden in the snow, lots of places 8)

The 20D was the replacement for the 10D - I don't think the 10D had anything special wrt dust and moisture sealing. Unless you are thinking of the 1Ds (which definately is a pro body)?

Personally, my suggested order of purchase would be 20D, 350D then 10D. The 10D, while good for its time, is easily outclassed by the 20D. The 350D is a little less rugged than the 20D and doesn't have the high frame rate and a few other features, but it is not a bare bones model like the old 300D was.

If money is tight, get the 350D. Else get the 20D.

And don't forget lenses. I was sorely disappointed at the quality of the 'free' 18-55 lens Canon gives out.

Also, if you are concerned about dust ingress, most of the dust comes from lenses gaps etc. My lenses are dust and moisture sealed, but they are the more expensive Canon L lenses (RRP around $2k to $3k each).

[VladTepes]

The comments came from a pro photographer mate and yes they mainly revolved around the firmware but he also mentioned a couple of other issues (which apparently Canon are well aware of, and which have been fixed in the upcoming 5D).

The 20D is well beyond my price range I'm afraid given its expensive in "body only" with Lenses extra. And those L-series lenses are the ducks guts, but again beyond my budget.

I have doubts as to whether the improvements betwen the 10D and 20D would make it worth the expense anyway, for an amateur like myself.

It's purely that this 10D is on offer at a similar price to a new 350D (possibly even a bit cheaper) that I am considering it.

Why do you list the 350D ahead of the 10D I am interested to know. I am aware the 10D is 'older' (technology really is a two edged sword - the 20D will be 'older' soon :roll: ) but I thought there must be some advantages the 10D has over the 350D ?

[DionM]

Originally posted by VladTepes
The comments came from a pro photographer mate and yes they mainly revolved around the firmware but he also mentioned a couple of other issues (which apparently Canon are well aware of, and which have been fixed in the upcoming 5D).


Hrm. Maybe he knows more than me. On all the forums I frequent I've not seen anything like that. Firmware was the initial release firmware - nothing has happened since.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
Why do you list the 350D ahead of the 10D I am interested to know. I am aware the 10D is 'older' (technology really is a two edged sword - the 20D will be 'older' soon :roll: ) but I thought there must be some advantages the 10D has over the 350D ?[/b][/quote]

How many actuations does this 10D have?

To me I always buy the latest when it comes to electronics. The 350D would have a better sensor, which means better high-ISO performance. The 350D probably has a few functions implemented better too. Perhaps you should do a comparison of features and just check? I guess my opinion is the 350D is newer and offers more bang for your buck. S/hand gear can sometimes be a problem (if its an ex-pro unit, what condition is the sensor in in terms of dust and scratches, how many actuations are on the shutter, etc).

[VladTepes]

Is shutter actuations an issue :?: How :?: Why :?:

[abaddonxi]

Hey Vlad

Check out this website.
http://www.dansdata.com/20d_intro.htm
This guy does great reviews of all kinds of weird stuff. He covers a lot of the ground that you are looking at.

Cheers

Simon.

[DionM]

Originally posted by VladTepes
Is shutter actuations an issue :?: How :?: Why :?:

Yes. They are only rated for a certain number of shots, then need to be replaced. They wear out and lose their timing (remember these things have to be precise down to thousandsths of a second, else your exposure will be out).

If its been used commercially, there are bound to be a heap of actuations on it.

[VladTepes]

Interesting site Simon, thanks.

[VladTepes]

Oh and re the shutter activations thing - turns out the shutter on this particular camera was replaced 6 months ago so that should be kicking along nicely for a long time yet.

[Captain_Rightfoot]

Funny thing is I've never heard of a nikon shutter being "lifed". My f100 has a titanium shutter that supports up to 1/8000th of a sec, and as far as I am aware they are good for the life of the camera (Don't forget it's film so it's life is 20+ years) lol. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

[DionM]

Originally posted by Captain_Rightfoot
Funny thing is I've never heard of a nikon shutter being "lifed". My f100 has a titanium shutter that supports up to 1/8000th of a sec, and as far as I am aware they are good for the life of the camera (Don't forget it's film so it's life is 20+ years) lol. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

Nikon's entry level D-SLRs (D50, D70) have a shorter lifespan than Canons. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif

20D is good for about 60,000 actuations I think, the 1D etc (pro bodies) are guaranteed for 100,000+, I think.

[noddy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Nikon's entry level D-SLRs (D50, D70) have a shorter lifespan than Canons[/b][/quote]

Grrrrr...... :evil:

Don't go starting a Nikon (Land Rover) vs Canon (Toyota) war :wink:

[VladTepes]

No, for godsakes don't.

[Outlaw]

Originally posted by Noddy
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Nikon's entry level D-SLRs (D50, D70) have a shorter lifespan than Canons

Grrrrr...... :evil:

Don't go starting a Nikon (Land Rover) vs Canon (Toyota) war :wink:[/b][/quote]

hehe i agree style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif

[loanrangie]

Originally posted by Noddy
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Nikon's entry level D-SLRs (D50, D70) have a shorter lifespan than Canons

Grrrrr...... :evil:

Don't go starting a Nikon (Land Rover) vs Canon (Toyota) war :wink:[/b][/quote]

Sorry, but you got it the wrong way around ! Canon (landy) Nikon (Toymota) https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

[Captain_Rightfoot]

I just don't understand these discussions... to get the equivalent of what I have now for film.. it's $2100 for a body + another say $1000 for lenses... let's just round it down to $3000... well at $20 for film and processing, that's 150 rolls I can use in my film camera. Say I do 15 rolls a year... which is probably about right... then in 10 years my digital camera has paid for itself.

Now this is presuming I don't get any prints from my digital shots. And, it doesn't account for the inferior quality. Good quality print film is about 15 megapixel, and slide is around 30. Then there is the issue of built in obsolesence... the anticipated life of a digital camera seems to be 3/5 years at best. When I go on holidays I don't have to worry about storing or losing my photos, I just grab the film out of the engel and put it back when it's used. And, people don't steal film cameras https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

So, unless you're taking a lot of photos, I just can't see that digital is cheap? Can someone explain it too me ? :?: :?: :?: 8O 8O

I'm going to stick with my film camera until this equation adds up https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

[Grizzly_Adams]

Originally posted by Captain_Rightfoot
So, unless you're taking a lot of photos, I just can't see that digital is cheap? Can someone explain it too me ? :?: :?: :?: 8O 8O

because it's easy to make a mistake and fix it "straight away" - instead of finding out when you get your film developed 2000km's later 8O

[Captain_Rightfoot]

Originally posted by Grizzly_Adams+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Grizzly_Adams)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Captain_Rightfoot
So, unless you're taking a lot of photos, I just can't see that digital is cheap? Can someone explain it too me ? :?: :?: :?: 8O 8O

because it's easy to make a mistake and fix it "straight away" - instead of finding out when you get your film developed 2000km's later 8O[/b][/quote]
It's interesting you say that. We went to the Simpson last year. As to be expected, we're the only one with a film camera there. Anyway, everyone else went snapping away, thinking they had them in the bag. https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

However it wasn't until they got home that the realised that vivid red, and bright blue wasn't in the Japanese programming model for their white balances. So, there were some whacky colours. :roll: :roll:

Guess who was the only one with colours that look like it actually was https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

[Grizzly_Adams]

Ah but that's what Adobe Photoshop is for :-)

You're right though, that would have been more than a little disappointing for those people :?

Nothings perfect. Pro's and con's either way.

[Phoenix]

$2100 for a DSLR body is a bit pesimistic. I've seen a Canon 350D with a 17-85 IS USM Lens for $2100, not a bad deal at all. Also, I would take more photos using a digital than I would with a film camera anyway. In my mind the equasions add up.

[Bushie]

Originally posted by Captain_Rightfoot
I just don't understand these discussions... to get the equivalent of what I have now for film.. it's $2100 for a body + another say $1000 for lenses... let's just round it down to $3000... well at $20 for film and processing, that's 150 rolls I can use in my film camera. Say I do 15 rolls a year... which is probably about right... then in 10 years my digital camera has paid for itself.



Ahh but you are assuming that everybody already has a film SLR, mine is now 20+ years old and really needs replacing, can't obtain parts etc and I dont think lenses either esp now Konica-Minolta look like they are out of the game.

So for now its a Fuji S5500 ...........................................one day...........



Bushie

[Outlaw]

digitals are great too in the high-quality printing game... before with film you were looking at the price of the roll, then developing, then hi-res drum scans of the slides... looking at just the hi-res scans of say 300 photos for a magazine issue (which i do 12 of a year) was $15 each for small scans and $25 each for larger A4 ones (don't even worry about the film and developing costs, and forget about the A4 scans)... 300 minimum scans were $4,500 per issue... so that's an absolute minimum of $54,000 per years i'm saving by having a $3,000 digital camera https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

[VladTepes]

$54,000 which your Range Rover then consumes in fuel..... https://www.aulro.com/afvb/ https://www.aulro.com/afvb/ https://www.aulro.com/afvb/ 8O

[Captain_Rightfoot]

Originally posted by Outlaw
digitals are great too in the high-quality printing game... before with film you were looking at the price of the roll, then developing, then hi-res drum scans of the slides... looking at just the hi-res scans of say 300 photos for a magazine issue (which i do 12 of a year) was $15 each for small scans and $25 each for larger A4 ones (don't even worry about the film and developing costs, and forget about the A4 scans)... 300 minimum scans were $4,500 per issue... so that's an absolute minimum of $54,000 per years i'm saving by having a $3,000 digital camera https://www.aulro.com/afvb/
No question at all that for pro work digital saves big $$$$. Digital has revolutionalised pro photography https://www.aulro.com/afvb/ Pro's also typically don't care how long a image can be kept for. Once it's been printed plus a year or two it's history.

Mind you, you can buy good hi-res film scanners these days too for not very much money https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

I guess the point that I was trying to make is that I often hear the digital cameras being bought on ecconomic grounds. I personally really doubt that in most cases people have thoroughly thought it through.

Digital cameras are "sexy", and they are an aspirational product. Unfortunately, like all electronics these days they only really have a operational life of 5 years or so. The equivalent cameras to my film camera are still over $10k... I just can't splash that. No doubt in another 3/4 years the equivalent will be down to 2k.. but it hasn't happened yet.

Even if the camera survives longer you've got to hope that you will have something to plug it into. Interfaces are constantly changing. I gave away my PC from 97 the other day and noted it didn't have PS2 or firewire ports https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

It's interesting that in my local photographic shop, ALL the expert sales people will gladly sell you a digital. However if you ask them quietly what they prefer, they all recommend film. For colours and quality.

[Outlaw]

granted i don't really classify it as real photography in the sence of the word anymore... everything is basically taken care of for you with the turn of a dial... not as much skill required nowadays (kinda like the D3 and RRS :twisted:)

and for personal happy snaps i only use a $300 digital https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

[Steinzy]

I just bought a EOS 350D about 2 weeks ago from Harvey Norman on 2 years interest Free and 2 years deferred payment. It's the twin lens kit and paid $1599 with a bag and 1 gig memory card.

I'm very impressed - thumbs up :!:

[Outlaw]

Originally posted by Steinzy
I just bought a EOS 350D about 2 weeks ago from Harvey Norman on 2 years interest Free and 2 years deferred payment. It's the twin lens kit and paid $1599 with a bag and 1 gig memory card.

I'm very impressed - thumbs up :!:
Hmmm and i bet someone slept on the couch for the next few days also for buying at Harveys :twisted:

[Steinzy]

Originally posted by Outlaw+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Outlaw)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Steinzy
I just bought a EOS 350D about 2 weeks ago from Harvey Norman on 2 years interest Free and 2 years deferred payment. It's the twin lens kit and paid $1599 with a bag and 1 gig memory card.

I'm very impressed - thumbs up :!:
Hmmm and i bet someone slept on the couch for the next few days also for buying at Harveys :twisted:[/b][/quote]

Not quite - but a damn close call!!!

[VladTepes]

I don't buy the 'washed out colours' argument. Digital cameras are simply different to film ones in the way they need to be set for optimum results. Those used to film SLR cameras will take some getting used to the digitals and, of course, vice versa.

"Daddy, what's film ?"
"That's something I took pictures of my old Land Rovers on"
"Daddy, what's an old Land Rover"
"It those things I keep showing you pictures of that ran on petrol"
"Daddy, what's petrol"

well, you get the idea


Anyway, I think that Noddy used a Digital SLR for the pics he has posted on here (although I'm happy to be corrected) and nobody could say those are not TOP NOTCH pictures.

[Captain_Rightfoot]

Originally posted by VladTepes
I don't buy the 'washed out colours' argument. Digital cameras are simply different to film ones in the way they need to be set for optimum results. Those used to film SLR cameras will take some getting used to the digitals and, of course, vice versa.

"Daddy, what's film ?"
"That's something I took pictures of my old Land Rovers on"
"Daddy, what's an old Land Rover"
"It those things I keep showing you pictures of that ran on petrol"
"Daddy, what's petrol"

well, you get the idea


Anyway, I think that Noddy used a Digital SLR for the pics he has posted on here (although I'm happy to be corrected) and nobody could say those are not TOP NOTCH pictures.
Digitals don't have washed out colours.. it's just that most of the time they are simply wrong. https://www.aulro.com/afvb/ The challenge isn't getting them looking ok on a computer monitor.. it's printing them.

The problem is that digital cameras have a white balance function that helps them decide how they will render colours. Unfortunately this is variable. They take a sample of what they see each time they start up. That's why the digital cameras that we had in the desert with us had so much difficulty. The vivid red and blues really causes them headaches.

The way film does it is in the chemistry. It's like having a fixed setting for your AWB. That's why you can put them in a machine for printing, and the machine will use a setting for that type of film. As long as the machine is set up well you'll get accurate colours. You can set them up once for life.

So, if you only want to display things on a monitor.. then all is good. If you want to print them, it's ok too as long as you're prepared to accept that the colours will have varying degrees of accuracy. You can get there if you're prepared to spend serious time tweaking and re-printing. I know of pro's that will spend 3 or 4 days tweaking the colour on one image for entering in a comp or show.

I guess the problem is I'm **really** fussy, and have seen so many digital photos with ghastly colours. I'm the kind of guy that amuses myself by looking at cars in traffic and picking which panels have been re-painted... I think its a great joke.

And I don't doubt that digital is the way of the future. However it's not there yet. While in my local camera shop discussing this the other week all the guys were giving me knowing looks. The guy behind the counter had just spent 7k on a second hand medium format film camera https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

If you want to see some interesting stuff about the colour and resolution that film can give have a look at this site...

http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery.htm

[incisor]

actually it is harder to display them on a monitor to a standard than print them these days. very very few monitors are colour calibrated to a common standard, while nearly all medium to high quality printers are calibrated to the same standard as high quality digitals are. ALL Apple monitors are calibrated.

[Captain_Rightfoot]

Originally posted by incisor
actually it is harder to display them on a monitor to a standard than print them these days. very very few monitors are colour calibrated to a common standard, while nearly all medium to high quality printers are calibrated to the same standard as high quality digitals are. ALL Apple monitors are calibrated.
I had noticed that my mates 14k Cannon digital has pretty good colours on my Apple https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

EDIT: Actually what it shows is that he has probably given them the once over... and he uses Apple.. therefor they look sweet on mine. https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

Further.. I don't want to annoy anyone with my crazy old time views. I didn't want to say that digital sux... I didnt want to say that if you bought one you've made a mistake.

What I wanted to say was that film is still an excellent medium that has some really good properties if quality is your game. Basically I was trying to help by saying if you have an old SLR don't be bummed... Just go out and take some photos https://www.aulro.com/afvb/ And that a 2 and a bit k splash on a new SLR will buy you a lot of film. https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

CR over and out 8O

[smu]

I say if you can get it cheap, grab yer photographer mates 10D... it'll be a good camera. I've had a 300D for the last 2 years and it's awesome... I'm no professional, but I think it really boils down to the character behind the lens most of the time. Keep in mind too that because the technology is moving so fast no matter what you get now it'll be outdated in no time too soon anyway !

[Grizzly_Adams]

Originally posted by Captain_Rightfoot
The problem is that digital cameras have a white balance function that helps them decide how they will render colours. Unfortunately this is variable. They take a sample of what they see each time they start up. That's why the digital cameras that we had in the desert with us had so much difficulty. The vivid red and blues really causes them headaches.

Not quite true, it depends on the camera you are talking about. I know with my Digital I can set the white balance manually if I feel the need, though usually I'm happy enough with one of the automagic settings.

Each to his own.

[tombraider]

Originally posted by Noddy
Grrrrr...... :evil:

Don't go starting a Nikon (Land Rover) vs Canon (Toyota) war :wink:

Strange, I thought only amateurs went Nikon :twisted: arent they like the "Mac" of Cameras :twisted: - you know for people who cant operate PCs (LMAO - I have both :!: )

But truth be told we have several Landrovers and CANON cameras...

A 10D, 20D and an IXUS...

And I certainly wouldn't have Toyota s#t :twisted: https://www.aulro.com/afvb/ 8)

Cheers
Mike

[cewilson]

I personally went for the 350D. Cost me just under 3k for the twins lens kit - but so be it.

I've had a lot of people recommend them to me, and as a very much ameteur, I figure this is a good upgrade for me.

Whilst I understand the arguments between film and digital - I personally think for the average person that digital makes it all so much easier to be able to give it a go.

Digital is technically a one off expense unless you are printing your pics as well - which to me is a big positive in it's favour.

I guess at the end of the day, it's down to what you want as to which way you go. :wink:

[Steinzy]

Originally posted by tombraider
And I certainly wouldn't have Toyota s#t :twisted: https://www.aulro.com/afvb/ 8)

Cheers
Mike

That's a Pentax isn't it???

:twisted: