Discussion in 'Beyond the Basics' started by danalec99, Mar 17, 2004.
Which one is best? And why? Be it for an amateur and/or a newbie.
10D or 300D?
As with many things, there is no "best". The 10D has more features, but the 300D is less expensive. You have to look at how things balance out and decide what is best for you. That "for you" should never be left out of the equation. If you need all those features, then the 10D is better for you; if you don't, then the 300D is better for you. In general, if you don't understand what the exra features will do for you, you probably won't use them and can go with the cheaper version without losing anything.
Here's what Popular Photography had to say about the 300D (Digital Rebel):
And the 10D :
Amazingly, in their tests, the 300D actually outperformed several more expensive DSLR's in autofocus times, etc.
Sort of agree with you but remember everyone grows so those extra unused features now may soon become a necessity.
Your main point of deciding for yourself what you're likely to need is the bottom line.
Very true, but I think that's more important with film cameras than digital. By the time you need the extra features on a digital, a newer/better/cheaper camera is likely to be out and the old one has depreciated massively.
Sorry but I still disagree on that point, remember that we're not talking about point n' shoots so those extra features are similar to what you'd find on a film camera and therefore will probably become required at some point and probably fairly soon assuming an average learning curve.
I do agree that digitals have the potential for massive depreciation as better models are introduced but that comes back to deciding what you really need in my opinion.
I also believe that barring some breakthrough in digital technology the higher end cameras (not counting the 1Ds and other stratospheric price types) will stay around that magic $1,000 mark and that means there's only going to be some incremental feature improvements for some time so something like the 10D or the Rebel (also the D100 and D70 for that matter) should have a fairly lengthy usable life span before truly being obsolete.
As an example look what happened with film cameras, sure there were lots of improvements in features (autofocus, autoexposure etc.) but the older models still work just fine.
I guess that's the crux of the difference. I've been involved with the general high-tech arena for quite a while. I look at the D60 and see a big enough tech and price difference between that when it came out and the 10D. With the tech being even more computer-driven rather than mechanical, we're getting into the arena of Moore's Law now. Sure, film cameras used computers, but it wasn't the center of the camera. The sensor and the systems that handle it are now the focus. I see this kind of tech skyrocketing. The Fovean X3 chip is just scratching the surface.
I guess I just don't see a beginner using the extra features of the 10D over the 300D to any great extent (or good use) until they get a lot of basics under their belt. I still think a basic camera with manual overrides is the best thing to start out with. I'm glad I started with a used Elan instead of something like the EOS-1v.
I hope this doesn't seem argumentative. I just like debate.
For reference, I've been involved with high-tech for some time as well (42 years) including semiconductor fabrication and production and again I agree that the sensor will improve and there'll probably be more megapixels for less cost and probably data faster transfer rates etc.
However, I think that the main features are now embodied in the higher end cameras so we're only looking at incremental improvements for some time, unless there's the unforeseen breakthrough previously mentioned.
I think the crux of this discussion centers around how fast do people learn at.
My opinion is that they'll learn a darn sight faster than the camera will become obsolete but that's only my opinion.
Thank you for the debate and there's nothing wrong with alternative views, heck it might even help someone decide what they need!
I have been following the debate. Thanks guys.
markc said its good to start with a 300D, but if I tend to pick up things as fast as mrsid99 puts it, dont I have to invest in a 10D a year down the lane? Instead of that, isn't it better if I start off with 10D and not worry about anything for a couple of years?? What do you think?
I meant, investment.
Our main point of contention is that mrsid99 thinks that by the time a person gets better and wants those extra features, a new camera will not be out that will be enough different from the old to make a difference. I think that the average person will still not have advanced enough to take advantage of those features before a new camera comes out that will make the person wish they had invested in something cheaper to start with.
The only way to see who's "right" is to wait and see. And even then it depends on who we look at as "average".
If you have the money and you consider yourself a fast learner, go ahead and get the 10D. We both agree in that respect.
I hope you don't mind me saying this, but it seems like you want us on the board here to make you decission for you. We can't do that. We can give some advice, but you are the one that needs to decide what you want and how the information we give applies to you. This is something that doesn't have an easy answer.
Separate names with a comma.