possibly a silly question....

i have a 10D, i actually really like this body but it is getting rather old.

i started taking some photography lessons from a pro photographer in my area not too long ago and he was lookiing

at my gear, a 10D and an old A2 film camera and some lenses, and said "you pretty much want to stay away from

that (meaning the film) and you may end up needing to upgrade that here in the very near future (meaning the 10D)."

the problem is that i do like both of my bodies... actually i like the A2 quite a bit and like most of the 10D. i like the

bigger bodies but i dont know that i can afford another one right now. especially a 40D or better.

so i guess what i am asking is...

are there really big differences in the 10D vs the 30D (the 30D being a bit more reasonable at the moment than the

40D).

and besides the control differences and the size issue would it be worth it to "upgrade" ... .to a small bodied rebel

like the xti/xsi ?

i really dont follow the technology that much so i am wondering if things have really changed enough to make a

switch to one of these three bodies reasonable.

I don't see why you'd need to upgrade the 10D if you're learning. It's a decent camera which covers the basics. I wouldn't want to be shooting the Olympics with one, but for learning about digital photography I don't see a real problem with it.

 

The 10D is a little slow to wake up and the AF isn't quite as good as the 20D, but it's still not bad. Sure the 20D is better (and the 30D better than that, and the 40D better than that, and the 50D better still), but you have to stop somewhere!

the have to stop some where is really the issue. the 10D is nice for the most part. in all honesty i dont really know why i would HAVE to upgrade. i do reallize that the newer cameras are possibly a bit better with auto focus and are a little less grainy at higher iso's. are there a whole lot of other things that i would have to worry about. my 10D isn't that bad... i have made some really nice prints with it... up to 20x30 that have hardly any grain at all... even of a night time exposure that was 30 sec long at f16. i have heard that longer exposures are really noisy (sorry about confusing terms i still think in terms of film). what would be the benefit of going higher.

If you were to upgrade I would look at a 20D unless you had to have the spot meter. Other than that you really are only gaining a larger LCD, and there is still a sizable difference between the used prices of the two cameras. And don't think that film is dead. Although I think that digital bodies offer more in convenience and control, film can still be fun. I still occasionally shoot with an A2 myself and just scan the negatives into the computer to do touchups. I think when you are really ready to move to a better (or just newer) camera your question won't be should I upgrade, but what should I upgrade to.

FWIW, my editor still has a 10D (with an "L" lens) as his "f/8 and be there" camera...

 

6 Mp is a bit low for monster blow-ups, but if you're sticking to minimally cropped 8x10 sized photos, I don't seem much wrong with the 10D. I wouldn't want to use one to shoot action (older AF and continuous frame-rate), but basically it's a pretty solid camera.

If you have the money for an XTi but would rather have a 30D, this deal may interest you http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/541162384.htm?bct=t1134 $699 for a 30D while supplies last.

 

But I would have to agree with Bob. I dont see a problem with your current cameras, the film one included. Especially if your still learning. There is just something about film thats different from digital. If it works for you then why change it? Dont get me wrong, I like my 40D as well as my old Pentax K1000. Sometimes one comes out of the bag, sometimes another.

 

Now, my interpretation of what the pro said to you is that you need gear that you can count on. Older gear doesnt normally fit that description, although there are exceptions. Film however can be a solidly built camera, but digital has its advantages. You can shoot 1000 images and you arent out the expense of developping to find out if you made the shot or not. You dont have to change rolls every 24 or 36 exposures. And some cameras are getting into some fantastic ISOs these days. All that coupled with rapid turnaround makes digital a plus. Film still has its place, but digital has its plusses. If your going to present yourself as a pro, your going to need some newer gear. But thats just my interpretation of what you said he said.

 

Dan

[[i wouldn't want to be shooting the Olympics with one]]

 

As an aside, David Burnett brought his Speed Graphic to the Olympics.

The ONLY reason I could see that upgradeing may be needed or advised, is depending on how much useage the 10D has seen. Just the possibility that it could be near its life cycle. But then again, if it quit tomorrow, its not like you are doing paying jobs right. So as Bob said, keep useing it, and in this case, use it till it quits. I do not want to sound like it will quite soon, it could last another 10 years for all I know. And if you do buy a new 30D, it could break next week. YOu just never know.

 

My real point, as Bob stated, it is fine for you to learn with. Also I resent what your friend said about the A2 and film. I just loaded as A2 with some Efke 25 ISO only a few minutes ago. Don't get rid of the A2, it is a good body, I love the way it feels. I do have the verticle grip with mine.

 

On another note. The 30D would be a great step up from the 10D is several ways, but the end results would not be really any different.

 

 

Jason

I'm with the consensus here, that the 10D is a pretty decent camera to use to learn the craft of photography. Learning

about cameras and camera operation, while essential to the process, is quite removed from the ability to visualize and

create memorable images. Photography is about photographs, and photographs are about content - subject,

composition, lighting, impact, originality, color (or not), style, emotion, moods, etc.

 

We tend to get too involved in the tools of the the trade - you can take boring, mundane shots with a Hasselblad HD3

and arresting, vibrant shots with a point and shoot. A better word processor does not make you a better writer.

 

Before I get all the predictable "the best gear can only help" type responses - yes obviously. The point is not to be

limited by your equipment, technically or creatively. However, at that point the learning process should be aesthetic,

visual and centered around images - getting too distracted with equipment does not seem to help when it comes to

creating wonderful photographs.

Sometimes my 40D / 24-70L comes out of the bag, sometimes my Pentax ME Super Film SLR comes out... But when I'm shooting for money, it's the 40D.

 

Honestly, medium is irrelevant. If you like it, and it get's the job done, then I see no reason to upgrade. Of course the 20/30/40D is going to be a better camera... but that doesn't mean you need to have the latest and greatest.

 

I think it's awesome that you don't feel the need to upgrade. For the time being, just enjoy the equipment you have. When you can afford it, There will probably be something 50 times better anyways :)

The 10D will produce great images up to 8x10 and a bit beyond. If money is tight then there is no reason to upgrade.

 

The later models have lots of added little features but they don't make a huge difference in most cases. This will obvioulsy be a different issue for someone that earns their living and works all day with a camera. But if you are in that positioon money for cameras should not be tight.

 

To the extent that my photos have improved since after I went digital, I can honestly say it had very little to do with the two dslr upgrades over the period: 300D to 350D and then to 450D.

It is not about the camera it is about the photographer,

 

...but my primary excuse for upgrading and getting new equipment is that I have reached the limitations of my existing

arsenal of gear. I do try to exhaust all creative options to achieve the same goal as the New Piece of Equipment would/

must be designed to do before dropping the loads of money to Canon via Adrorama or B+H. As I get income from my

photographs I have been able to equitably fund my equipment expenditures, and if a job mandates a certain piece I will

make the investment knowing the future benefit.

 

 

If you feel that you have reached the limitations of your equipment, try harder with what you have.

 

After at least one or two personal photographic technique achievements, breakthroughs and understandings; then

establish a goal toward your upgrade.

 

With all of the announcements of new releases, soon will be a great time to snatch up the existing product stock, take a

look at the G9.

 

BTW I have a 20D with a Battery Grip in Great condition that I would sell for $600. :P

 

Seriously, if you are looking at upgrading, look at lenses. Investing in fast lenses at the focal lengths that fit Your view

will be a good way to broaden your photographic range in a way that will be transferable to future Canon bodies (get EF-

lenses if you ever plan to go to full frame).

 

Happy Shooting!

>> (get EF- lenses if you ever plan to go to full frame) <<

 

Well, get EF lenses if you plan to keep the 10D too.

 

The 10D does NOT mate with EF-S mount lenses.

 

WW

Jason, a recent thread that you might find interesting:

http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00QW4G

 

I wouldn't give up on your film camera. Yes its easier to learn with digital, but using film makes you stop and think, and in my opinion you cant beat the wow factor of seeing a nice slide on a projector screen.

I think that I should have stopped with my second-hand Miranda with a 50 f/1.4 that I picked up for $100 as a grad student in 1977.

 

Unfortunately, someone stole it, and so then I bought the AE-1, resisted EOS until 2006, and have since spent myself into the ground.

 

Rest easy and keep shooting. Enjoy the film for as long as it is there to be enjoyed. I still take my Canon 7 rangefinder out in the middle of the night just to see what I can grab with an f/0.95 lens, which usually is not much, but it's mine.

 

--Lannie

Personally, if I was at a photography class with a EOS A2, and the guy giving the class told me to `stay away from it', I'd walk out then and there, unless the class was digital-specific.

Pros buy the equipment they need for the jobs they do. That means they don't buy the equipment they don't need (unless they are also secret collectors). I'd only consider upgrades (or adding a spare body) where there is a clear identified need because you can't do something without the upgrade. I think it is more likely that you will run into needs in the form of additional lenses or flash/lighting accessories rather than new(er) bodies.

John B. is on point. The iconic photographers from decades past all used equipment that wouldn't get a second look in a used

camera shop. State of the art equipment makes shooting more convenient, and can produce images of higher technical quality. It

does nothing for the subject matter.

Buy 30D if you can.40D will be cheaper in 3-6 months as 50D has already arrived.20D is also good.

In buying digital SLR my advice will be following the age old proverb 'Cut your coat according to your cloth'. If you

don't need large size prints or if you mostly shoot JPEG, don't spoil/spend your money on hi MP cameras.Insteed,

buy some good lens.

Just another silly question: Is your photography teacher by any chance also a camera dealer? He definitely sounds like one if he is trying to convince you to giveup the equipment that you personally like. If I were you I would learn first and then upgrade if you feel like you need it.

One more thought - something I have not missed from my 10D days is dust on the sensor. Despite being careful

when changing lenses I repeatedly found it a problem. Being a bit hamfisted, I didnt want to try cleaning the sensor

myself, so I had to send it away to be done which was very inconvenient. Since moving to a camera with a sensor

cleaner (a 400D and now a 450D) I have not found dust to be an issue at all.

Mark U says:

 

"I'd only consider upgrades (or adding a spare body) where there is a clear identified need because you can't do something

without the upgrade."

 

This is an excellent point and something that people tend to overlook when cooing about new camera specs. If you aren't ever

limited by the 3fps of your current model, they fact that a new one shoots at 5fps is irrelevant. If you never print larger than 11x14

and your camera can achieve this at your specified dpi, more megapixels will get you nowhere (except for quickly filling your

CF cards and hard drives unnecessarily). A bigger buffer is only a plus if you have ever found yourself unable to shoot as you

wait for the buffer to empty.

 

It's really like getting excited about the increase in a car model's top speed from 130mph to 150mph - if you never go over

100mph it won't affect you at all - no matter how nice it may be to read the reviews and have a few bragging rights.

 

As Mark says - Buy what you NEED.

Shutter lag and occasional focusing difficulties on the 10D drove me crazy, as well as its dust propensity . But it created some wonderful images for me. 6Meg is plenty if you compose carefully and don't need to crop. I've gone up to 11x14 with a properly exposed image.

I have a 6.3 MP Canon D60 bought for 2300 dollars in 2002 and that is of the D10 era and now have owned an XTi

for a couple of years. Ergonomically, the D60 is better than the XTi. Easier to hold, a thumbwheel, more

substantial. As Bob said, like me, it takes a while to wake up. My enlarged D60 pictures have won a few awards and

and from three feet at 13x19 you can't tell the difference between them and the 10MP prints even though they have

had the benefit of photokit sharpening. I have never had a viewer or a potential buyer tell me "I don't like that picture

because it does not have enough Megapixels". When I went to the XTi things speeded up. I got 10MP(which really is

only more effective in critical uses like big enlargements etc.) and a faster, bigger and better display. I made a

decision when I went to the XTi that I would throw most of my money into lenses because they have much greater

effect on image quality (IMHO) than bodies. As with the D60 bodies get obsolete very rapidly. I waited almost six

years to change out the D60. I have done a lot of sports with film and understand how the D60 might be frustrating

but it will work just like the D10 will. You certainly can't tell the difference between MPs in most newspaper photos. I

used a Canon A2 until I drowned it in a rainstorm shooting a soccer game. I then broke down and bought an EOS 1n

which for pure simplicity, weather sealing, ruggedness and portability for shooting newspaper sports was ideal. Man,

have things gotten complicated. Anyway, I you sent me out today with the older, slower D60 to do an assignment, in

most cases, it would be hard to tell what camera I shot it with unless, of course, like some people on this site you

examined the pictures from three inches with a loop. I would be perfectly happy to shoot film with an A2 as long as I

could use my 12 year old 70-200 2.8L lens. It's good camera and it's the lens that counts. I would like to have mine

back but after it got wet I gave it to a camera repair guy for parts. What I mainly would buy a new body for would be

better high ISO performance than I have now. However, having owned at least fifteen bodies in the past twenty years,

I know that my bad pictures are because of me, not the equipment. Upgrade your skills, then your lenses, and then

your cameras. That's my opinion and those are my priorities.

well thank you to every one that replied on this. it is something that has been bugging me a bit. i really dont have the money at the moment to get a different camera and for the most part i really like my 10D. i do love my A2 though. other than the film cost its my favorite of the two and would rather be shooting with it. i also sort of like not being able to look at the nifty little lcd and see what i have done. makes me think more about what it is that i am doing. i also find that i take less frivolous shots with the A2 and generally come away happier with the images i get. the 10D is a great camera though. and i have made enlargements up to 20x30 that i really dont see a whole lot wrong with. the only couple of things that i do have to complain about are the noise on iso's 400+ and it doesn't have a spot meter. i generally dont do sports or anything, the closest i get i photographing birds. that does get a bit tricky and the other day i was definitely noticing that the sand pipers were getting a bit ahead of me. but i am working on tricks to keep that up. i dont really shoot with terrrible lenses so, i have a 24mm 2.8, a 50mm 1.8, and a 70-200 f4L. (really want a wide to normal zoom though, the 24 doesn't cut it on the digital.) so i get fairly sharp stuff when my focus is on. i do find that it tends to hunt a bit with the 70-200 though.

and lastly no my friend is not a dealer and the class is a digital centered class. he used to shoot film but got away from it.

any way thank you again for all your advice.

jason