Do you think the D10 is really worth it?

[steve coburn]

This question isn't aimed at professionals who make a living from

their cameras, but at amateur photographers who don't make money.

 

If I've read the specs correctly then the D10 is nothing more than

an Eos 30 / Elan 7 with a digital 'back'. Do others think that the

option to shoot digital film is really worth $1000? How much film

could you buy and develop for that money? Also what is the life span

of this camera likely to be (before obselence) and what will its

percentage resale value be after approx two years?

 

Thanks

Steve Coburn

[bobatkins]

Is a Honda Accord worth $20,000 when you could get a Ford Escort for $12,000? Or is a BMW SUV worth it when you could get a Toyota SUV for $10,000 less which would do much the same thing? What will they be worth in 2 years?

 

If you want it and you can afford it, it's worth it.

 

If you're just interested in producing an image, you can get a perfectly usable used Nikon or Canon MF body for under $100, or a Canonette GIII rangefinder with an excellent lens for $50 - and they'll be worth just the same next year and the year after. On that basis you could equally ask if an Elan 7 is "worth it" and how much value you will lose in 2 years.

 

Hobbies are supposed to cost money, whether your hobby is sailing, golf or photography. If they made money they'd be a profession!

[steevens_alconcel]

Regardless of decrease in resale value, I would still buy this

camera. I was thinking of buying D60 kit last year for 2300$, but I

am glad I waited because the estimated street value for this

baby is going to be under 1700$.

 

Having a 1v myself,, this camera gives me a less financially

draining option to try out digital. I loved the D60, some of my

friends have them, and this camera will be even better for a

lower price.

[gslefeb]

I take 18-24 rolls a year. I figure it would take almost 5-6 years for this camera to pay for itself.

 

At $1000 + $250 (memory cards) + $540 (4x6 digital prints); that equals almost 100 rolls of film plus processing. 100 rolls at $18 = $1800.

 

The "old way" will give you 3600 4x6 prints that you don't have if using digital. Even if only 50% are "keepers" (remember amatuer) at 30 cents apeice that is an additional $540 plus computer equipment plus time...So it will take me 5-6 years to break even.

 

A side Note: How does a cameral become obselete? A computer does, because it can't run the current programs, a record player does because there are no records to play...But the camera will still take the same quality of pictures it does from day one. A NEW digital camera may come out that takes better pictures, but the d10 still will work.

[bob_hum]

I'd say that you can't just look at it from a financial point of view - otherwise, as Bob A. says, you could just buy an inexpensive manual focus camera to take your pictures. I think a lot of whether or not the 10D is "worth it", will depend on whether you enjoy dealing with the digital medium.

[frank_page]

I am not sure I quite understand Gregs calculations. It is late here and I am too tired to go through them, so I will go with his numbers. I shot between 18 and 24 roles in January alone; so that means, if I keep at this pace, the camea will break even in 5 to 6 months. This is something to consider, hmm...

 

He also makes a good point, if all you want is 4x6 prints for an album, unless there is a processer that will take your memory cards near by, digital makes no sense given the time necessary to make the prints.

 

However, if you want to make quality enlargements, have direct control over your output, and avoid the time it takes to do good scans, high quality digital cameras start to make a lot of sense.

[pc1]

i think if you really like it(without needing it)you should buy it if you can afford it,then it will be worth it if you get to use it a lot and have fun, more than your film camera.well i guess it really depends on the individual.if you're buying this just to impress your friends, then thats a different story altogether.

but again if you think it will help you take better or more(quality or quantity)pictures with the D10 and you have enough/lots of $$,i think you should get it.anything that doesn't do the job would be considered useless(garbage) even tho you just bought it yesterday.i have very old canon and contax cameras , a few lenses for each of the bodies that i have,still have an old pentax KM, they all work fine and do the job well,tho i cant carry or use them always,they're not considered obsolete,at least i dont.

good luck with your plans of getting this new D10,at least it will probably save you a lot of money on film and processing,hope you dont get tired of sitting in front of your computer,tweaking photos you've taken... IT REALLY DEPENDS ON AN INDIVIDUALS STYLE OF PHOTOGRAPHY,you might get to enjoy your new venture into digital.. good luck....pc

[jay_.]

I bought a D30 used, then sold it for what I paid for it when the D60 was announced. Like everyone else I had no clue how long I;d have to wait for a D60, plus I refused to get on a store waiting list, so finally I bought a used D60 for several hundred less than new price, and if the 10D is in as short supply as the D60 was, I could probably sell the D60 in the next few months for what I paid for it also. So unless one is overcome by impatience, it isn't necessarily a given that you have to lose a lot to upgrade from one digital camera to the next. However, after checking out the 10D's specs I think it's a great thing for those who don't already have a D60, but I don't see much incentive to upgrade. I don't have a quarrel with the D60's autofocus. I rarely use autofocus, and its 3 AF points are spread out father across the smaller frame than in a 35mm body. I don't know how they're going to shoehorn 7 AF point into the 10D, but frankly I have a Rebel 2000 as a backup camera and I don't use its 7-point AF either, other than occasionally just the center one. The 45-point AF in the 1V/1D/1Ds is a whole 'nother ballgame. Had the 10D had either double the megapixels, or a full-frame sensor, I might be thinking about it. As is, it's of no interest to me. I continue to use my Leicas and Hasselblads and Nikon F's for the bulk of my photography other than wildlife. When the time comes that film is no longer viable (and I'm one who expects that day is coming soon)I will use my D60 for essential photography, but the day I have to put my classic cameras into a display case is the day I give up photography as a hobby.

[bhyde]

Well Steve, I'm gonna jump on that bandwagon and get the 10D. I have a Elan 7E and for my uses a digital version is all I need. I have my i950 to make my prints and my PS 6 for editing and I am a happy camper.

 

A digital camera will allow me to shoot more without worrying about wasting film and development cost, plus adjustments can be made right then and there. Heck, I might actually get good enough to make some money from this hobby :-))

 

So from that perspective it is worth it for me! This is my first venture into digital and I think it will be a good one. I almost purchased a D60 until I got word that something else was coming, so a 10D is where I will start. I'm down to my last 20 roles of Kodak extra color elite chrome and Provia 100F and after that it will be a Viking 512MB CF card from then on :-)

 

my .02 on it

 

Brian

[peter_maragelis]

Well had a slr for a 15 years and bought myself a small digi Olympus

4040, with the slr I would shoot round about 2 rolls a month. When I got the digi I shot 1500 pics in 3 months that�s about 13 36expo rolls a month. Now for everyday Pics I only use the digi and the slr is used only on very important occasions. So like you I am really thinking on getting the D10 and use all my lenses from my EOS SLR. (digi expands your picture taking you really get trigger happy because you can see exactly what you have done wrong or right just after the picture has been taken.)

[steve coburn]

Thanks for the answers so far, but I think I've made a lot of enemies :-) by even suggesting that the camera may not be worth the money. This wasn't about digital cameras as such, which I think are cool, but about the wisdom of spending $1500 on a non-pro body. To clarify two of my questions. By 'obsolete' I mean would you buy one of these in two or three years time or will the technology be so dated (not the optics) that the camera will be virtually useless? No one would buy a 500Mhz computer these days even though three years ago they were considered high powered. Secondly by "worth it" I'm just wondering if Canon are trying to cash in on our desires for a decent non-professional DSLR. An extra $1000 for the electronics just seems excessive.

 

Finally I'd just like to say I'm glad no one knows where I live...

 

Steve Coburn

[brambor]

I'm getting ready to switch to digital. Here are my reasons:

 

I'm sick of all the photo albums piling up and collecting dust. After I switch to Digital I will burn images to CD's and catalog them this way. It will also allow me to make a quick copy and send a possible year worth of pictures to my distant family members.

 

I will print some photos but only those I want, need or desire for a given application. Lately I haven't had a lot of reasons for prints. I scanned all the important photographs anyway and used them on my family web site or to burn to a CD. (I haven't bought a photo album in 2 years)

 

I have 6 EOS lenses and accessories. I have been waiting for a EOS compatible camera that is affordable. While I don't consider $1500 very affordable I might be able to do some woodoo tricks and buy it or perhaps buy D30 for much less.

 

I'm very excited about having a preview mode. Waiting for prints and then discarding 15% of them isn't fun. With Digital I'll be able to retake a picture if needed or discard bad photographs.

[aaron_lam]

Anybody know what the shutter lag time on this puppy is?

[NK Guy]

>Anybody know what the shutter lag time on this puppy is?

<P>

Supposedly 190 ms.

<P>

<A HREF="http://photonotes.org/reviews/D30-D60-1D-1Ds/">http://photonotes.org/reviews/D30-D60-1D-1Ds/</A>

[patrickconnolly]

The reason I'm saving my quarters for a D60 / D10 is very simple.

 

(1)Digital allows me to shoot a lot more photos. In the 18 months that I've had my Olympus digital camera I've shot more photos/images than I had in the previous 10 years. No more decisions about 'is this worth a shot?' - take it and delete it if it didn't work.

 

(2)Instant feedback ... I can see the results immediately - even if it is on a tiny LCD screen. But I can see whether my composition effort failed, or if someone blinked, etc. - and then reshoot if necessary.

 

Trying to calculate how long the payback period is? Then you have to take these factors into consideration as well.

 

Want to see this theory in action? Look at ads for wedding photographers - compare 'We will shoot one roll of color and two rolls of b&w' to 'We will shoot between 600 - 800 color images'

[bobatkins]

The question has no answer. Is it worth $1500?

 

Well, some people spend $400 on a pair of shoes, quite a few people spend $2000 on a vacation, lots of people spend $15000 on a car. None of them will be able to "get their money back" and in each case they could chose a cheaper option if they wanted to.

 

It's such a subjective question, based partly on whether you are Bill Gates or living homeless on the streets.

 

If you're an amateur, not making any money from photography, then every cent you spend on your photography is "lost". You'll never get that money back. Is it worth it?

 

You'll get a much better deal if you wait. On the other hand, if you'd had that attitude with computers in 1980, you'd probably have bought your first PC last month. What's your $2000 Apple II worth now, or your $3000 PC? Was it worth it?

 

Was it worth buying your $500 VCR 10 years ago, or your $400 21" color TV? If you'd waited until this week to get them you could have got a VCR for $100 and a TV for $150. Would it have been "worth it" to wait 10 years?

[bob_hum]

"<i>...I think I've made a lot of enemies :-) by even suggesting that the camera may not be worth the money....</i>"

<p>

Hey Steve, don't worry about it. For what it's worth, I can honestly say that the D10 is NOT worth it (to me)! ...but that's only because I actually enjoy living with my wife. :)

[bruce johnson]

Steven, I think we're at the point where the newest digital SLRs will not become obsolete anymore. Sure, every year they'll come out with improved feature sets and so on, but it will be incremental changes rather than large improvements. More like the auto industry with a new model with minor changes every year than like the computer industry. Why do I say this? Well 6MP digital SLRs are at least equal to 35 mm in all aspects except sensor size (wide angle photography). At higher ISOs, I'd even say digital seems to have the advantage. Given that very few photographs by amateurs are ever enlarged beyond 8X12, there's little left to improve. Sure long exposures, high ISOs, frame rates, etc will continue to improve, but the EOS 10D's high ISO is better than film and its frame rate of 3 fps isn't far off the Elan 7's 4 fps. The pictures I take with today's EOS 10D will be every bit as good in 2013 as they are in 2003, even when the body is 10 years old. Computers become obsolete because they are no longer able to run new software, but I cannot see similar problems with the current batch of digital SLRs. I think we're at the stage where it makes sense to buy a digital camera and just use it for taking pictures and not feel the need to upgrade every year as the new model comes out. Kinda like film bodies!

[catchlight]

<i>(Caution: longish, but well-intentioned, rant).</i> <p>

 

IMO, the most important point about digital SLR's is how they LIBERATE us as photographers! <p>

 

Suddenly, we're freer to experiment, to do "what ifs", to go after "impossible" shots, and to know after viewing a frame and histogram what to change to improve the image (ISO, white balance, and the usual creative/technical elements), or whether it's time to give up on it.<p>

 

Our learning as photographers is accelerated, and we know without waiting a day or more whether we captured the images, moods and effects we wanted.<p>

 

No more bracketing and hoping for the best at $0.30-$0.50 a shot. No more wishing we had faster / slower, higher contrast / lower contrast, negative / transparency film in the camera. Just go to the DSLR's menus, and dial in whatever we want. <p>

 

With digital we're also largely freed from the tyranny, expense, and image degradation caused by those wretched, expensive filters. Just punch in the necessary corrections or desired effects later in Photoshop.<p>

 

At an amateur's shooting rate, your DSLR may not pay for itself in saved processing costs, but it will enable you to get shots under difficult lighting (theatre, clubs, gyms, streets at night, etc.), often without flash, that you could not capture as well, if at all, with film. <p>

 

Is the D10 worth $1500? Not to me, as a D30 owner, although it might be to a Canon shooter just moving into digital. You'll soon see mint D30's with extras on the market for well under $1000. That's the most cost-effective way at present to get a very capable digital SLR.<p>

 

It looks like we have to think of DSLR's not as traditional camera bodies that may be viable for up to 10 years, but as computers to which you can attach lenses, and which have a 1-year product cycle. I note, though, that my D30 worked just as well this morning as it did before the D10 was announced. It will only become "obsolete" when my photographic needs change, and even when I upgrade, the D30 will still make a great backup, become a camera for my daughter, or will help finance the new body.<p>

 

Since I bought the D30 eight months ago, just after the big price drop, as much as I love getting out in the wilderness with my EOS3 and a brick of Velvia, all the film in my fridge has passed its best-before date, because digital shooting is so much more effective and enjoyable for me. By waiting, I might have . . . what . . . saved a bit of money? got higher resolution? voice annotation, when I already have exif data? The cost of waiting would have been to miss the most enjoyable and productive eight months of my 30 years as a photographer!<p>

 

FWIW, my bottom-line suggestion is turn off the calculator, find the best deal you can on a mint used D30 or D60, and have a blast exploring its capabilities, and your own.<p>

[bob_hum]

"<i> Suddenly, we're freer to experiment, to do "what ifs", to go after "impossible" shots, and to know after viewing a frame and histogram what to change to improve the image (ISO, white balance, and the usual creative/technical elements), or whether it's time to give up on it.</i>"

<p>

In my opinion, this is the biggest reason to go digital. Particularly if you are travelling, and you have only one opportunity to get the shot that you want. As a non-pro, it's hard for me to put a financial value on this convenience. But it *is* worth something.

[canon man]

Well, for me it isn't. But then again I did not just buy my next pro body( although it is last decades model) to down grade it to a consumer body. I did that when I sold my T90 to buy my Elan7. The trade off was seeling consumer zooms to buy it...don't miss them either. I feel that I am a good enought photographer to kow how to get th eproper exposure atleast for what I shoot, that film gives me the quality I like, whereas with digital I am still seeing a need to get better in that department. Except ofcourse the 1Ds...now thats a DSLR! That thing rocks, and it does give theimage quality I need. I content to stick with film and get sharp results until I can either afford, or find the need to buy the 1Ds. Who knows, that might be next months if I get the images that a magazine needs and am asked for more and to provide them quick then the DSLR would be an asset that I could not live without. Until then, I can wait.

[ted_marcus1]

<i>Is the D10 worth $1500?</i>

 

<p>Good question. The price is indeed starting to fall from ridiculous levels to merely expensive. But consider that the Elan 7 costs $340 (USA version from B&H on 28 Feb. 2003). To use the D10, you'd need a bunch of memory cards, plus either a laptop computer or a "digital wallet" if you use it to travel for several weeks and shoot the equivalent of 20 rolls of film. If you like wide-angle lenses, you'd have to spend quite a bit for a costly ultra-wide on the D10.

 

<p>If you're a professional who shoots lots of film, the D10 and associated hardware will surely pay for itself by avoiding film and processing costs. If you're not a professional, the D10 will definitely cost a lot more than a comparable 35mm camera. But factor in the cost of a decent film scanner ($800 for the Canon FS40000, which will provide larger files than the D10) and a computer if you haven't already got one, and the cost may approach that of the D10.

 

<p>It begins to look like initial outlay price may not be the deciding factor. Rather, it depends on a combination of how much film you shoot, what you do with the film once you've shot it, what equipment you've already got, and whether the many advantages of digital are appealing. There is no single answer.

 

<p>In my case, I've got the computer and scanner (although the scanner is getting old and may need replacement soon), as well as an Elan II. For the time being, I really can't see spending the money for the D10, an ultra-wide lens, and the external storage for travel. But that may change as digital prices drop, and my Elan II inevitably develops the gummed-up shutter that led me to buy it (as a replacement for an EOS 650.

[rajoo]

I have used a Rebel 2000 since 1999 and had been seriously considering an Elan 7 or 7e for some time. To me, as an amateur, the Elan 7 had all (well, most) of the features I wanted in an SLR. But I held back buying this, hoping for a new DSLR which was "an Elan 7 with a digital back". The D60 fell short in comparison. Every new lens I bought I considered its use with my future digital SLR (sadly I had to factor in the 1.6 focal length multiplier, since there was no way I could afford the professions models).

 

The D10 is what I have been waiting for, and its my future DSLR. Though I got to say I was hoping for a $1000 price tag (dream on!).

 

The freedom from film will mean I will take more pictures (at least by a factor of four), and hopefully will learn more and perhaps, just perhaps, improve my photography. Almost every knowledgeable photographer on photo.net advises newbies not to agonise over equipment, just buy film and more film and go take pictures. Well, I hope I will soon be doing a lot more of that from March/April than ever before.

[charlesshupe]

Will anybody read this after the previous 1000 posts? I don't know, but here is my take on the tangent "I'll just archive all my images on CD, the heck with a photo album" line of thinking.

 

Be patient...I originally became "seriously" interested in photography a little over a year ago. I was scrapbooking (yes, I'm a guy, and I scrapbook), but getting tired of looking at all of my awful happy snapper pictures to use in the albums. One day my son comes into the room where I was and picked up one of the scrapbooks from his first year. Man, did he get a kick out of all the pics and writings I had recorded. He loves going thru the albums. I think way back when my grandpa died. What did everyone want to do? Look at pictures! No matter what we capture our images with - digital or film - lets leave some good old fashioned pictures behind so everyone can view them - not just a bunch of cds.

[john_gill]

No, it's not worth it.