Canon EOS 300D and the Canon EOS 10D

[ethan_finkelstein]

I am about to purchase my first Canon and DSlr. I am looking at two

in my price range: the Canon EOS 300D and the Canon EOS 10D I have

read up alot on each of them and see good qualities in both. They

have about both the same amount of megapixels and the rebel is newer

than the 10d. The rebel takes ef lens and 10d doesn't. I am

wondering on personal experiences that would make use for crits on

each of these cameras. I am leaning for the 10d but i still don't

know, any help would be greatly appreciated!

 

Ethan

[christopher_bibbs]

Looks like you need to relook at your research. Both cameras take use Canon's EF mount lenses. The Rebel also can take the EF-S, but there is only one lens like this (18-55mm) and it is generally considered to be less than stellar.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>The 300D is the digital brother to the Rebel family of entry-level cameras. The 10D is the digital brother to the Elan family of advanced amateur cameras. As such, the 10D gives you more opportunities to take manual control over things like the focus and exposure systems. IIRC, it also has limits on its file formats - doesn't it lack the ability to record simultaneous JPEG and RAW images?</p>

 

<p>Personally, I've owned two Elan-family film bodies and I use features on them that the Rebel-family bodies lack. Were I to buy one of these two digital bodies, it would definitely be the 10D. But if you're currently using an entry-level SLR or other camera that does everything automatically and allows you only limited manual control, and if you're happy with this, then the 300D might be a good choice, as it does what you need at a lower price.</p>

[ethan_finkelstein]

yeah i made a mistake, i ment the 10d doesn't take the efs lens, but if there is only one what does that matter much?

[jay_.]

I would definitely buy the 300D. That way in a couple years you will have only lost $900 vs $1500.

[bobatkins]

Using that logic, buy neither - then you won't lose anything...

[dave_nitsche]

As far as image quality goes the 300 and 10 use the same chip and processor. Shooting in raw mode will give you all the options the 10D has as far as white balance goes. The 10D has the 300 beat in buffer and a bunch of options. The 10D is a mag chassy versus the 300D's plastic.

 

I had the 10D and traded it in for a 1D. I needed the focusing abilities that the 1D has but loved the 10D.

 

It really depends on your needs and shooting style. If I had to choose between the 2 for a first time DSLR owner I would go with the 300 and use the saving towards glass. You can always upgrade bodies later. Good glass is forever... my 2 cents...

[nick roberts]

I was faced with the same decision, and bought the 10D. Not because of features - I carry an EOS 300 sometimes to back up my 3,5 etc because it's so light and so I know how to get what I want from the camera. Much has been made of the so-called "crippling" of functions of the 300D, almost all of it by people who simply don't understand that there are very few limitations inherent in the camera. In fact the ease of access of the Partial metering mode is much better than with the 10D.

No, the reason why I got the 10D is simply that I'm quite heavy on cameras - the 10D has a much better chance of still working in three years than the 300D in my hands. Oh, and it feels like it's worth the money! But if that's not the case for you, and you don't need the enhanced frame rate of the 10D or the very precise white balance control (the two major spec differences), then get the 300D and don't think twice about it - it's a great camera.

[jim_larson1]

Jay - in all his pessimism - makes a legitimate point.

 

dSLRs have a limited "effective" life. Cheaper, more functional models will continue to be produced. Surrrre. Some will keep their camera for 10 years. Others will upgrade in 3. Therefore, how much you are willing to ante up to get into the hobby is a factor.

 

I think the choice between 300D and 10D is a tough one. The 10D is a nicer camera. The cost difference between the cameras is a 70-200/4L. The incremental 67% cost begs credibility.

 

No matter which camera you choose, I would avoid the EF-S lens. There is nothing to indicate that any of the cost savings of this cheaper lens have been passed onto the consumer. This $100 lens appears to be the same quality of the other full size Canon EF $100 lenses. If anything, the camera is a bit of a loss leader and some of the profit is being recouped with the lens.

 

My advice would be to look for high quality EF lenses on any 300D.

[kit_chong]

The 10D is a better tool if you use it's extra functions or controls that the 300D lacks. Otherwise, go for the 300D and with the money left over better or more lenses. Do compare the functional differences between the two and decide if you will be using them.

[river side]

depends on your budget..

 

For a fixed amount of money 300D and better glass combo would allow one to take better pictures than would be possible with the 10D and glass bought with the money remaining.

[andrew robertson]

I don't want to say the 10D is built like a tank, because I also have a 1nHS. It is very

solid, quite heavy, and you can squeeze the hell out of it and no deflection occurs. It

also mounts lenses pretty tightly, so using it with bigger telephoto lenses on a tripod

is actually pretty nice. The 300D deflects with even moderate pressure.

 

Aside from that the custom functions (like moving AF to the * button) are really

superb, as everyone can make their camera work fastest for themselves.

 

The consensus is that the 300D and the 10D are the same at ISO 100, 200, 400 and

800 but the Rebel's ISO 1600 is just as noisy as the 10D's 3200. The 300D does not

offer ISO 3200.

 

If you are new to photography and DSLRs the 300D might be a better choice. It'll cost

you $999 to get everything you need to start shooting. With the 10D you still need a

lens! Either way buy a Canon 50mm f/1.8 II for $65 because that lens is truly a

keeper.

[jespdj]

I just got my 10D a week ago and I've been playing with the 300D a bit in a shop. Both cameras have similar features, the same 6.3 MP sensor etc., you already know that...

<p>A big difference is that the 10D is really a big, fat, heavy camera (OK, it depends what you're used to, but it's bigger and heavier than my EOS 30 (= Elan 7E)). In the shop I was surprised how light the 300D was. Maybe it's a good idea to go to a local shop and have a look at both cameras and see which one you like better.

[vandit]

With all due respect, the main difference goes far beyond the 10D being fatter/heavier.

 

Custom functions, MLU, ability to separately select focus mode and exposure mode, 2 dials -- these are all some additional benefits of the 10D.

 

The logic for buying the 10D over the 300D is the same as the logic in buying an Elan 30 over a Rebel. If you need the manual controls and the additional functions, you should get the better body.

 

And yes, I am aware that you can do a lot of corrections in Photoshop, but IMO, it is best to get it right to begin with.

 

Vandit

[axel_farr]

Hello Ethan,

 

what you should consider in your decision is: Do I need the extra functionality of an EOS 10D or can I live with the limited functions of an EOS 300D?

 

The main advantage of the 300D over the 10D is the newer lens mount: The EF-S 18-55mm lens is not an L-class lens, but it is good enough to take photos with it, and you have the possibility to upgrade if a better EF-S lens occurs. With the 10D you have to remember that there is only one usable solution for an every-day lens, that is the EF 17-40mm L USM lens. Thought it is nearly 10 times as expensive as the EF-S lens, it covers only a (comparable) focal range of 27-68mm. The EF-S lens gives you 29-88mm, which is enough for, let's say 90% of all images I take.

 

The main problem of using a normal or wide angle EF lens on a D-SLR with an APS-C sized sensor is the extra image angle the lens delivers. I do not want a lens which can capture 100° image angle if I only can use 65° with my camera, because the extra 35° can do harm to the image if I get the sun into it, while it is still out of my imag frame. The EF-S lens blocks the extra light by a fixed aperture inside the lens, an EF 17-40mm would let the light into the camera, and the reflections inside the lens can spoil your image with flare. I know what I am writing about, as with an EF 24-85mm lens mounted on my EOS 300D I have some 10 photos made useless by light entering the lens when I expected the sun to be far enough out of my image. And a lens hood can not solve this problem, as Canon's lens hoods are designed for 35mm format film.

 

If you think you need the features of an EOS 10D, then I would wait for the successor, which probably will also have an EF-S lens mount, and when it will be released, there will be better EF-S lenses such as an EF-S 18-65mm USM lens with opening f/2.8-4 or at least f/3.5-4.5. I suppose that spring 2004 will be the end of the production time of the EOS 10D, since its predecessor, the EOS D60 was in production for nearly one year.

 

Greetings, Axel<div></div>

[jim_larson1]

Axel;

 

I respectfully disagree with a few of your statements.

 

The 17-40/4L is NOT the only usable solution for for an everyday lens on a 10D. I personally shoot with a combination of 24/2.8 and 50/1.8 primes. I know many people who use the 24-85/3.5-4.5 or the 28-135/IS as their walkabout lens. While many recommend the 17-40/4L as THE lens for the 10D, it is far from the only choice.

 

From what I have read, the optical quality (including flare resistance) of the 18-55EF-s is what you expect from any Canon $100 kit lens. The 17-40/4L, on the other hand, has compared favorably to the more expensive 16-35/2.8L. I also have seen comparison of these lenses to the Canon fast primes (some favorable, some not). I have not seen anyone suggest that the 18-55EF-S is comparable to primes.

 

With respect to the "excess light getting into the camera", you make a legitimate point. However, in general I have not heard others having flare problems with full size EF lenses. Your milage is obviously different. I shoot a 10D with multiple EF lenses, including sunsets and sunrises. I have not experienced flare problems. Theoretically, if the lens is good the light should fall straight through the lens and stray light should not affect the sensor. Flare is caused by light reflecting in "odd" directions within the lens.

 

Having a 10D, I do NOT lust after a EF-S mount. The fact that the 10D was released concurrently with the 17-40/4L and the 300D was released with a 18-55/EF-S tells me that the EF-S lenses are intended for the Rebel market. If the 18-55/EF-S were more than a kit lens, approaching the quality of the 20-35/3.5-4.5 or was "L" quality I might be more excited about the EF-S mount. It is interesting to note that the 55-200 lens released with the 18-55/EF-S is standard EF mount.

 

It would be interesting to see if Canon is planning on better EF-S lenses, but I am not holding my breath. (kind of like holding out for the never announced but long aniticipated 24-70/4.0L)

[digitmstr]

Buy the 10D and you'll be very, VERY happy you did! Put some good lenses on it and I guarantee you'll never look back :)

[jim_larson1]

Well, as a followup: While I tend to scorn the 18-55/EF-S lens, I do not scorn the 300D camera. For 60% of the price of a 10D, you are getting an awful lot of camera!

 

There is a *very* strong case to be made for buying a 300D with $800 worth of lenses vs buying a 10D with $200 worth of lenses.

 

Basically, althought the 300D is newer than the 10D, it uses the same sensor and autofocus technology. The 300D is *clearly* aimed at a lower priced market and therefore Canon has essentially produced a 10D in a cheaper body and removed some 10D functionality. The 300D is to a 10D what a rebel is to an Elan-7 film body.

 

Ability to use EF-S lenses does not excite me, unless canon makes will produce better EF-S lenses. The 300D is also much lighter than the 10D. Some like that feature, some do not.

 

Main features that the 300D lacks:

 

1) Ability to select focus modes (AI servo, AI focus, one shot)

 

2) Ability to program Flash exposure compensation from the body (this forces you to buy the top end 550Ex flash to get this capability)

 

3) ISO 3200 setting.

 

4) Lack of "custom functions" which enhance your shooting flexibility (removing this feature also eliminated the mirror lockup functionality).

 

5) Ergonomically, the 300D lacks a backwheel for camera settings.

[mormegil]

I've got a 300D and am very happy with it. I'm just an amateur, and don't need lots of these extra features.

 

I just want to mention that the 4 image frame buffer limit on the 300D may be a problem when you need to take fast shots, especially when used in conjunction with Automatic Exposure Bracketing. IE, sporting events, wedding processions, etc.

 

My other gripes about the camera is, lack of Flash Exposure Compensation on the body and lack of a rear dial (which have already been mentioned).

[rob de la selva]

Axel writes:

 

"I know what I am writing about, as with an EF 24-85mm lens mounted on my EOS 300D I have some 10 photos made useless by light entering the lens when I expected the sun to be far enough out of my image."

 

Axel, it's a bit harsh to write off the EF lens series based on 10 dud photos! Your published photo is actually ruined by trying to shoot a forest interior on a sunny day; the dynamic range will always be too high, and these photos always look disappointing, flare or no flare. You need a soft overcast day for that photo. Personally I've found flare not be a great problem on the 10D used with a variety of lenses.

 

I think that for most purchasers the 300D would be the best buy in late 2003. Despite what Bob Atkins suggests, depreciation on DSLR camera bodies is a real issue. The technology is now pretty good, but it is not yet mature technology. In five years time it is likely that you will think it is crazy that anyone ever considered shooting with a 1.6 FOV crop factor. So the camera you buy now is not forever.

 

There's a big difference between saying that and saying that you don't want to be in the market at all. A DSLR is a great thing to have, and in late 2003 it makes a lot of sense to have one. For me personally, the D30 and D60 were not atractive enough in terms of cost/features. The 10D was, and if I hadn't bought that I'd definitely buy a 300D now - the price is outstanding for the features you get.

 

Others above have noted the features that the 300D is missing. FWIW, I would really miss the mirror lockup, and the large control dial on the back is great for quick exposure compensation. Exposure mode controls are not as big an issue as I find myself shooting evaluative almost all the time now, and watching the histogram (with film EOS bodies, I used to consider this control vital). ISO 3200 is interesting in theory, but in practice I use it <0.1% of the time and the shots have never been keepers to date.

 

Everyone shoots differently, so I think the decision rests on how many of the missing features on the 300D you personally will use (in practice, not in theory - you will shoot somewhat differently with a digital camera compared to film).

[wildpicture]

Here is a comparison by Canon themselves. It can be found on Canon's CPS website:

http://www.cps.canon-europe.com/articles/article.jsp?article.articleId=60003

 

Regards,

Hans

[ti_lex]

Hi,

 

I have been looking at both bodies (and the *istD too), and I agree with the strong case for a 300D + "L" glass vs the 10D for the same amount of money. I haven't bought anything yet, my budget is still being worked on. I am thinking about these different options:

 

300D+ 50 1.8 II plus the additions of:

 

option 1: Sigma 20-35HSM + 28-135IS USM + 100-300 F5.6 L

option 2: 28-85 USM + 70-200 F4 L USM

option 3: 28-105 F3.5 USM +100-300 F5.6L

 

Any advice on either combination, hints of other lenses?

 

Thanks.