Hi all,
Is it a waste of time and money to purchase a 10D anymore? I used one about a year ago and loved the results with a really nice lens. Now, I think I'm finally ready to purchase a DSLR, and was wondering whether I should go with an XT or 20D instead? I like the metal feel of the 10D, but is it outdated technology wise?

Thanks.

If you were considering the 10D, then I'd think you could be disappointed with the XT.
Unless size and weight matters, the XT body is smaller and lighter than the 10D.
XT doesn't have the same controls, or the same rugged build, and it's missing features you might want from the 10D.
The 10D doesn't use the EF-S lenses that fit the 20D and XT, but I don't think that is a serious drawback - there are equivalent EF lenses.
The noise characteristics of the sensor are pretty much the same between the 10D and 20D, despite the smaller photosites on the 20D because of the 8MP resolution.

Does the technology matter, if the functions are right?

Hi all,
Is it a waste of time and money to purchase a 10D anymore? I used one about a year ago and loved the results with a really nice lens. Now, I think I'm finally ready to purchase a DSLR, and was wondering whether I should go with an XT or 20D instead? I like the metal feel of the 10D, but is it outdated technology wise?

Thanks.

Nikon D70 user here, but I tried out a friend's XT last night. It was nice but felt a bit small to put pro lenses on.

Yes the 10D is outdated technology (noise reduction at high ISO), but if you liked it then it comes down more to what price you want to pay for it. I advise you to wait till after PMA in February. Rumours say that the 20D is due for replacement so you may soon find more second-hand 10D's available and even discounts on the 20D.

Charles

The 10D and the DRebel, or 300D are the same camera, different body, same guts. The 10D simply has updated firmware. The XT has newer innards but basically built off the 300D, still retains the plastic body but apparently some enhancements such as rubber grip. Personally if I had to choose I'd go with the 10D simply because it's body can take a lot more abuse than a plastic one.....but I'm hard on gear.

JS

If it will do the job for you, and you can get a fair price, it's not a waste of money. There will always be something newer and better. But that doesn't mean something older and cheaper won't do the job for you. I'm still making money with a 10D. I just can't seem to come up with good enough reasons to spend the money on a new camera when the 10D generally does the job.

There are three areas where I think the 20D would be better. Only you can decide whether those are important to you.

1) ISO performance. Despite what Paul said about the ISO performance of the 10D and 20D being the same, I don't think they are. I believe the ISO performance of the 20D is far better - especially at ISO 400 and higher.

2) Battery life. Battery life on all cameras that came out after the 10D and 300D is way better. Not that the 10D is terrible. But I always carry extra batteries.

3) Auto focus. The one area where I've been really frustrated with the 10D is the AF. Frankly, I think it's terrible. Mind you, I shoot sports and my style is probaby about as demanding as it gets. When I do portraits or product photography I have no problems with the 10D. But for landscapes and mountain bike photos with shallow depth-of-field, it's let me down many times.

So the bottom line is whether the camera will serve your needs. In spite of its flaws, and newer, better models, the 10D is a very capable camera. The 20D is better and if you can afford it, buy it. But if you want to save some money, I think the 10D is probably great.