markc said: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.
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.mrsid99 said:Sort of agree with you but remember everyone grows so those extra unused features now may soon become a necessity.
markc said: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.mrsid99 said:Sort of agree with you but remember everyone grows so those extra unused features now may soon become a necessity.
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.mrsid99 said: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.
markc said: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.
danalec99 said: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 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.