| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/17/2005 04:18:11 AM · #26 |
|
|
|
09/17/2005 04:52:43 AM · #27 |
Hi-ho...
I've got both, a 20D I got new, and a well worn 10D I use as my 'backup' body. The 10D is borrowed from a friend, he got a 2nd 1DII for his backup. (He's a real pro, I just pretend. :-) ).
For general shooting in OK light the only thing that I find annoying about the 10D is the startup time and layout of the focus points. (7 vs 9 in the 20D). The focusing system is also better with the same lens on the 20D, but not a big deal. I only notice it for poor light or fast action.
In low light / fast action the 20D frame rate, low noise and focus system is far better. (And the 1DII I used a while ago is 10x better than the 20d, you gets what you pays for!)
Handling wise, the two cameras are very similar, although I prefer the 20D as I have the BG-E2 grip for it, and I've got big hands. :-). Also with larger glass both cameras feel 'front heavy' without a grip. (larger=70-200 F/2.8 or 24-70/2.8 in my case)
As for the resolution. The difference in 8.2 vs 6.3Mp isn't as big as it sounds, it only gives you 14% more 'size' to play with when cropping etc, which is where it counts. If I shoot an event with both cameras I don't notice the difference in image quality or size all that much if the light is good. If I've had to go up to 1600 I tend to put the 10D away and swap lenses on the 20.
I also notice that the auto white balance is sometimes different. It's not bad on either camera, just subtly different. I'll typically have the 70-200 on the 20, and the 24-70 on the 10, and I'll notice that similar scenes at the same event are slightly different colours, although I know when shooting those two lenses on the same body you get identical colour. Some of the reviews on both cameras said the whitebalance was not that good on either, so I dunno...
As for robustness. The 10 I've got has been through the ropes, it's got nicks and chips out of it, a major ding in the screen, and quite a few fine scratches. It's up over 80k shutter clicks.. Still going fine. My 20 has been through a bit, but not as much.. I've been hit with rugby balls a couple of times, run into by a referee, dropped the camera on grass once, and ashpalt after the strap broke when I was hit with a ball. I also scratched the screen changing lenses when I didn't realise the camera had turned, and shoved my 70-200 mount into the screen. 19,000 clicks so far, and going strong.
The only gear carnage I've had since using EOS gear was badly scratching the rear element of my 24-70 (Which sits sightly proud of the mount) when I forgot it was like that and stuffed it in my gear bag without the caps like I do with the other lenses. Cost $300 to replace the element, and get the lens re-calibrated. Ouchy. This is what lead me to borrowing the 10D for events when I want two bodies! To aviod lens-swap carnage.
So..
To answer your question. If you're not into sports photography, and don't envisage shooting lots of low light stuff without a flash (Get an external one, both the 10 and 20d internals suck..) the 10D second hand is a great option. If you wanna do sports or low light, the 20D.
As always, just my 2c worth. :-).
|
|
|
|
09/17/2005 07:21:33 AM · #28 |
If it is a choice betwen 10D and L glass or 20D and not as good glass... i think you would get the best images from the 10D with L glass and be happier in the long run. you can get a 10D pretty reasonable and i think buying used is quite safe and you save a bundle. In a few years or a year, it wouldn't be so expensive to upgrade to a 20D...
The 20D or 5D WILL come down in price considerably in the next 2 years. The 70-200L won't... therefore buying the L glass now and a 10D would be the way to go.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2005 10:18:28 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by leaf:
If it is a choice betwen 10D and L glass or 20D and not as good glass... i think you would get the best images from the 10D with L glass and be happier in the long run. you can get a 10D pretty reasonable and i think buying used is quite safe and you save a bundle. In a few years or a year, it wouldn't be so expensive to upgrade to a 20D...
The 20D or 5D WILL come down in price considerably in the next 2 years. The 70-200L won't... therefore buying the L glass now and a 10D would be the way to go. |
Yep, that's the way I would go as well. As a current 10D owner, I can tell you that it can do stunning work. Sure, it's not the latest thing, but I agree that a newer/better body with lesser glass is a less desirable direction. I will prolly not part with my 10D after my 5D comes in, at least in the near term. That says something about just what a nice job it does, and how well it's built.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2005 11:03:35 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by Philos31:
Originally posted by deapee:
This person obviously wants a pro grade camera body so why are we all still recommending the plastic 350/300? |
:(
All of a sudden I feel like such an amateur :( |
You shouldn't. I have you listed as a favorite photographer. You have some of the best portraiture I've ever seen, and with one of the "plastics."
:) |
|
|
|
09/17/2005 11:12:05 AM · #31 |
My advice:
Get the 20D, Tamron 28-75mm, 50mm 1.8 70-200 2.8 IS. You don't need "all L" to get the best pictures - that Tamron is fantastic. I have two!
The 20D is a LOT better at ISO 1600 than the 10D. It's a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT better at 3200. ;) It's faster. If it's a $650 question (600 10D vs 1250 20D) get the Tamron instead of the 24-70L and you'll have it all.
M
|
|
|
|
09/17/2005 11:25:33 AM · #32 |
Here's why I up graded from 300D to 20D. Shot taken at 3200iso, sigma 70-200zoom. This shot is straight out of the camera, no processing, very little noise.
edit; this guy looks like he's a little upset at me.
Message edited by author 2005-09-17 12:12:06. |
|
|
|
09/17/2005 04:55:22 PM · #33 |
I found a good condition 1D Mark II with a decent tripod and mediocre lens for $3400, but alas it had already sold. The tripod, head, and lens were probably worth $300-$400 dollars altogether in their used state.
I got beat on a 10D body on ebay that ended up going for $620.
In the mean time I think I've decided to buy the lens I want w/o any body. My brother owns a 10d and my best friend has a 20d. I can borrow both and I think then I'll just know what I want to do.
I most likely will give the Tamron a try too since it's so reasonable priced. Can't really go wrong there...if nothing else it makes for a lens I'm willing to take to the beach or on the boat. :) Another reason to get a 10d or 20d before going into 1d territory. Nice to have a setup you can lose and have a minor tragedy as oppossed to a major one.
Message edited by author 2005-09-17 16:57:02. |
|
|
|
09/17/2005 05:05:56 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by ttreit:
...I can borrow both and I think then I'll just know what I want to do. |
Good path. Using the cams is definitely going to provide you with a lot more confidence in the decision than all the reading you could ever do.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2005 07:31:40 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by alixmiles:
How many of you who shoot action shots use a teleconverter? I am also making my shopping list right now. Was just wondering if getting the 70-200 and a converter makes more sense than say the 100-400? Any thoughts? |
Ha, you're joking. There's no comparison in quality.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2005 08:41:18 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by riot:
Originally posted by alixmiles:
How many of you who shoot action shots use a teleconverter? I am also making my shopping list right now. Was just wondering if getting the 70-200 and a converter makes more sense than say the 100-400? Any thoughts? |
Ha, you're joking. There's no comparison in quality. |
That pretty much squares with my experience with the 70-200IS + 2.0xII combination. Gotta stop down two stops to get max sharpness, and that makes it a solution for very good light only.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2005 10:09:53 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by alixmiles:
How many of you who shoot action shots use a teleconverter? I am also making my shopping list right now. Was just wondering if getting the 70-200 and a converter makes more sense than say the 100-400? Any thoughts? |
I have a teleconvertor and regret the purchase now. When I shot sports I don't use it at all, I was so dissapointed with the results.
You live and learn, at least I didn't buy it new. Now I will try and sell it and get some money back. |
texttext
This shot was taken with a 2x converter on 70-200 sigma. Severe back focus, hunts to lock on, and this was great lighting. I never used it again. Waste of money.....
 |
|
|
|
09/17/2005 10:14:45 PM · #38 |
| Thanks riot....guess i will have to spend more money.. |
|
|
|
09/18/2005 10:28:25 AM · #39 |
I had heard that the 2x teleconverter is a waste of time. I have heard that most people who are happy with the TC use the 1.4x.
For whatever that's worth.
PS. This is the sort of thing that can go in your own thread alixmiles. In fact, I think I made a thread about this before. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/21/2025 09:39:28 AM EDT.
