Used 10D or new 20D? - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

09/16/2005 07:38:46 AM · #1

I'm ready to move to a DSLR...I had a film SLR back in the day and I'm looking forward to having an SLR again.

So I was all ready to buy a 20D but ended up postponing for a couple weeks (long story) in that time I've started toying with the idea of buying only L series lenses after picking up an EF 50/1.8 which would be my initial lens.

The problem is shelling out $1300ish dollars for the 20D body and then trying to buy the L lenses is a bit daunting.

In case anyone is wondering, my theory on starting with the L series is that they are great, sturdy, long lasting lenses and I keep asking myself why I should spend hundreds of dollars on mid-grade lenses that I'll want to replace someday anyhow. Seems more economical in the long run to get the nice ones and skip the middle. Plus, who wouldn't rather get to shoot with them in the mean time? :)

I'd probably start with the 70-200 2.8L IS and then get the 24-70 2.8L. I'm guessing there'd be a year or so in between lenses...or no christmas presents for anyone this year, heh.

So my dilemma is should I go with a used 10D and nice lenses and then upgrade the body to a 5D or 1Ds somewhere in the future? Or should I go with a new 20D? I know a lot of people are getting 20Ds but if I could get a good 10D for $600ish that seems like a smart way to go.

Thoughts?

Message edited by author 2005-09-16 07:42:38.

Didymus

Canon EOS-20D

09/16/2005 08:23:41 AM · #2

Why not get a 350D for the $600?

deapee

Kodak V803

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

09/16/2005 08:26:23 AM · #3

Probably wants something more durable and in the pro-line. Something that can take a beating.

Anyway, I think there has been enough advancements over the years to merit the extra money for the 20d over the 10d. They're both great cameras, but I'd say definately get the 20d...in a couple years when you get the 5d or 1ds, the 20d will still be a great backup...or heck, you may just decide that all you need is another 20d for a backup.

strangeghost

Canon EOS-7D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

09/16/2005 08:28:31 AM · #4

If you're that committed to investing in quality glass right away, I'd definitely go for a less expensive body now, and look to upgrade the body later. A used 10D would be fine, but as pointed out already, there's a lot to be said for the 350XT or even the 300D.

BobsterLobster

Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

09/16/2005 08:30:39 AM · #5

According to extensive and rigorous testing by Amateur Photographer magazine in UK, the 10D's image quality is noticeably superior to the 350D, despite the lower resolution.

deapee

Kodak V803

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

09/16/2005 08:31:37 AM · #6

Why can't people answer the question? This person obviously wants a pro grade camera body so why are we all still recommending the plastic 350/300?

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

09/16/2005 09:00:55 AM · #7

I faced a similar decision back in March, and went with the 10D because I got a brand new one for an extremely good price and have not regretted it one second. :)

Telehubbie

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

09/16/2005 09:14:54 AM · #8

One thought, no matter how good the quality of the glass, it's only good if you actually have it. Think of all the shots that you might miss if you're waiting for that perfect lens and stuck without a particular focal length. There are many lenses that are nice, not quite as nice as the L glass, but that are considerably cheaper and give great results. Take a look at the images taken with theCanon 70-200 f4, about 3 times cheaper than the 70-200 IS, yet gives great results (and still "L" glass). And for the wider end, everybody raves about the Tamron 28-75 2.8.

As far as the camera, I would opt for a new 20d and get some less expensive lenses until you have the means to trade them in for the good stuff. Resale value on used lenses is pretty good, and on Ebay you could probably get close to what you paid for it. In my opinion, getting a used camera is asking for a letdown, and you might have to upgrade to that 5d or 1ds sooner than expected. Cameras are very complicated, and a number of things could go wrong after some time and make it useless, then you're stuck with a $600 paperweight. At least with a new one, you're covered under warranty during the first year.

Good luck in your new camera ventures.

Philos

Canon EOS-30D

09/16/2005 09:34:43 AM · #9

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 :(

Corwyn

09/16/2005 09:39:39 AM · #10

I think one thing you have to look at with the 20D vs 10D is 5 frames per second upto 32 frames in a row (I get 32 all the time when using a sandisk extreme card).

If you don't need the frames per second get the 10D and save some money for good glass. Good glass will do way more for you then the upgrade 10D to 20D. Shitty glass on the 10D looks just as bad on the 20D.

And I agree with other that the 10D take better pics then the 350D, but keep in mind the use mark 1 takes better pics then the 20D

Just my 2 cents.

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

09/16/2005 10:49:12 AM · #11

Tammy, Camera bodies come and go, good lenses will stay with you for a loooong time. The 10D is still a VERY good camera, well built with lots of pro features. In an ideal world you'd get the newes and the latest but I'd say save your money get the 10D and the L-lenses and upgrade the body later when you have the money.

gaurawa

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

09/16/2005 10:56:35 AM · #12

If you don't plan to shoot in really low light and at high ISO, 10D should work. 20D works much better than 10D at ISO800. If you are not going to use that high ISO, you are good with 10D.
edited to add...
if you are using 2.8 IS glass I don't think you will need to go upto ISO800 in any normal conditions

Message edited by author 2005-09-16 10:57:17.

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

09/16/2005 12:19:30 PM · #13

Thanks for all the input so far. Not to knock the 350, but it's just not quite what I'm after. The 10D or 20D would make a better backup body and last longer.

Telehubbie. I think there's probably a lot of playing around I can do with the EF 50. Plenty to keep me busy as I learn the camera, it's menus, etc. And if I get the 10D I can get one of the more spendy lenses immediately.

The higher ISO and frames per second are compelling marks on the 20D's side....couple that with getting a warrenty and 8 megapixels...hmmm maybe I should just get the L lens AND the 20D and eat Top Ramen by the case for a few months. :)

Dang it, now I'm more in the middle than ever, lol.

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

09/16/2005 12:23:55 PM · #14

Originally posted by ttreit:

The difference between 8 Mp and 6 Mp is VERY difficult to discern in prints, let alone at 640 pixels in DPC. Of more interest to you is the better lowlight performance at higher ISOs. If you were making your decision based on Mp alone, the 10D is a lot more cost-effective for you.

R.

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

09/16/2005 01:05:51 PM · #15

I have also been playing around with these same decisions (and will continue to do so until feb or march 2006 when the market will likely shift for new 20d type releases).

Your decision on the other hand is based on the now.

Considering that the 300D is being offered in many places for around 500 dollars second hand, if you COULD get a 10D in good condition for around 600 dollars, I'd say you would be in a pretty happy place for a while. In six months, your body will probably lose around 100 dollars US in resale value. (this is a totally loose and arbitrary number based on my gut feeling and that is based on market trends in Taiwan, which is VERY not second-hand oriented) A new 20D will lose a fair bit more than that, but will be much more of a camera for the next year (note that ISO and FPS are not that important to everyone)

Have you considered going for the 20D and grabbing a 70-200L f2.8 without the IS? IS is kinda nice, but is really only effective on the user side of the camera. It is useless in shots of moving targets. A little ISO change can bring your shutter speed up a good stop or two and in many cases to correct a lot of motion blur on BOTH sides of the lens. There is around 600 dollars difference from the Non IS to the IS. That right there is a big chunk of the 20D price. Additionally, there is the 28-75 F2.8 by tamron that is widely praised as an excellent alternative to the Canon 24-70. It is 800 dollars less (359 compared to 1159 at B+H). Here is your price breakdown:

10D (at the assumed 600 dollars) + 70-200 f2.8L IS + 24-70 f2.8L = 3460
20D (B+H 1300 body only) + 70-200 f2.8L + Tam 28-75 f2.8 = 2800

That allows you to get the 20D and save 660 dollars. That is enough to get you either a decent tripod, BG, wireless remote, some filters, data cards and a bag OR a 580EX Speedlite plus some cheap goodies, OR a 10-22mm Canon OR 12-24 f4 Tokina OR a Canon 100mm f2.8 macro OR.......

Hope this is useful information. DO read up on that Tamron lens.

Edit: Changed some strange "posting too late at night" grammar.

Message edited by author 2005-09-16 13:08:29.

thatcloudthere

Canon EOS-1D

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

09/16/2005 01:07:39 PM · #16

Originally posted by ttreit:

In case anyone is wondering, my theory on starting with the L series is that they are great, sturdy, long lasting lenses and I keep asking myself why I should spend hundreds of dollars on mid-grade lenses that I'll want to replace someday anyhow. Seems more economical in the long run to get the nice ones and skip the middle. Plus, who wouldn't rather get to shoot with them in the mean time? :)

Well, you got that right! I've still got a 300d but I've got some beeeaautiful lenses on the end that are making it well worth the wait to upgrade my camera!

Message edited by author 2005-09-16 13:08:04.

Bud

Canon EOS-550D Rebel T2i

Sigma 18-250 f/3.5 - 6.3 DC OS HSM

09/16/2005 01:12:47 PM · #17

Get the 20D. Any thing else we can help you with:)

09/16/2005 01:22:02 PM · #18

I did read up on the Tamron lens and got mixed messages. Some people swore by them, but then I read some negatives as well. But for a $400ish lens you almost can't go wrong if it's good enough to be compared to the Canon.

Someone (I'm going to kill you) mentioned moving to a used 1d Mark II in the future so of course I started looking at those too. lol

Well I'll keep weighing my options and going over my bank account and we'll see what happens. I'll probably have more questions though. All the input is really helpful. Thanks!

riot

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Helios 40-1 85mm f/1.5

09/16/2005 01:31:25 PM · #19

Well for a start let me say i wouldn't waste your time with the rebels if i were you. Anyway, i faced the same dilemma as you at the beginning this year - but after reading the full 20D review on dpreview.com i just couldn't justify the saving i'd make for the 10D, especially considering the improvements in the sensor. If you're going to spend that sort of money anyway, may as well spend 30% more and have a sensor worthy of your L lenses.