View Full Version : Upgrading 10D to 20D
Guppyman
03-06-2005, 5:19 PM
Greetings and Hallucinations,
I'm contemplating selling my 10D and moving up to the 20D. For the shooting that I do (Guppies and Corys only) do you feel this makes any sense or am I just wasting money? Also, what do you feel is a fair price that I could get for my 10D body that has never seen the outdoors and is in pristine condition? Ballpark.
paradise
03-06-2005, 5:26 PM
Hey Frank. I can not really tell you if it's worth it to upgrade from 10d but I just up'ed from 300d to 20d and I am so happy w/my choice.
As far as a fair price, check recent closed ebay auctions for "used" product. Should not be too hard to figure it out. Then again, you may get lucky like I did and do REALLY well. PM me if you decide to "Ebay" and I will give you some tips on how to max your amount.
Guppyman
03-06-2005, 5:54 PM
As far as a fair price, check recent closed ebay auctions for "used" product. Should not be too hard to figure it out. Then again, you may get lucky like I did and do REALLY well. PM me if you decide to "Ebay" and I will give you some tips on how to max your amount.Congrats on your upgrade. I'll PM you if I decide to "go" eBay. - Frank/Guppyman®
Andreas Werth
03-06-2005, 6:31 PM
Hi Frank,
think about how many guppies you have to sell for that upgrade...
just kidding ;-)
Go for it, you won´t regret it.
There are about 25 improvements from 10D to 20D.
I sold mine immediately after i had the chance to get a 20D (and i don´t have toooo much money for photography).
i would agree with andreas. i'd probably make the upgrade before the 10d depreciates even more. once the 350d hits the streets, your gonna have a harder time offloading your 10d.
Hi Frank,
Haven't seen you around lately! Holding out your gems on us?
Anyway, I will give you some opinions specifically related to aquatic photography.
The most immediate advantage for photographers not using flash will be the low noise levels at higher ISO. But if you are using a two flash set up and perpetually shooting at ISO 100. The difference may not be apparent, if any at all.
The start up time on the 20D is also a major plus, but for aquatic photographers, who has been trained to be patient, this does not make a difference. Most D60/10D users will just leave the camera on and let it go into sleep mode. A quick press on the shutter release reactivates the camera.
The five frame per second is an improvement over the 10D, but most of the time, you don't really need to shoot more than 1 frame second for fishes. Besides, your flash can't recycle fast enough with a full discharge. It takes 5 seconds, 2.5 seconds if you have the CP-E2 battery pack.
Digic II allows faster processing of images, be it RAW or JPEG, but for aquatic photography, you rarely have a chance to experience the speed. Again, your flash as well as your shooting style restricts the performance on this feature.
Beyond the above, there are several more improvements (like smaller size and weight, custom white balance, better built in flash, ETTL II...etc, etc.). With reference to aquatic photography, if you've done well without these in the past their addition will not make a marked improvement in the quality in the future, if any at all. Obviously upgrading the equipment gives you an excuse to play with the latest gadget in the name of working against rapid depreciation (of which I'm half just as guilty). But beyond that....is it really justified? Only the the buyer knows.
I'm sure you will agree that some of the folks with 20D, 1D MK2 or even 1Ds MK2, can't take pictures of guppies or cories that looks half as decent as those you've taken with 10D. But owing a 20D will not make your pictures look US$1000 (or whatever the depreciation) better. Most folks can't even tell, and over time, neither can you, unless you look at the EXIF data.
On the other hand, a 180mm macro will allow you to shoot from a further distance and get a closer crop. Add an extension tube and you can fill the whole frame with the eye of a corydoras. I'm sure you'll agree that cories are pretty skittish and if you're too close, they scram.
Cheers,
Andreas Werth
03-07-2005, 11:05 AM
Very good summary, benny!
I myself was in a hurry to sell my 10D because i knew prices would fall instantly after the successor would be available. I paid about 250 Euro for being "up to date".
Today the situation might be different, prices might be more stable. But as Hir0 pointed out, with arrival of Canons 350D there is another competitor on the market.
meriadoc
03-07-2005, 7:15 PM
I don't think you'll find that the 350D is going to be a competitor to the 10D, since the build quality and whatnot are actually a little better than the 350D.
look at the difference - especially in size and build quality. Heck, the D30 still fetches around $500-$600 in the used market, and thats a pretty old camera (3mp).
The size is a huge plus also - I dont think that alot of serious photographers are really going to start toting around the 350D because its so small, and there are alot of people still on the search for used 10D bodies, I've seen them go for anywhere between $600-$900 depending on how many shots taken, and what condition its in.
But in that being said - have you found any limitations of the 10D that would warrant getting the 20D - yeah, there are upgrades, but there still seem to be alot of people using 10D's as they didn't see the differences enough to justify it.
Sit down and think about it, figure out the pro's and cons of upgrading, and see if it is worth it.
Hope that helps a little.
-- L
JerseyJay
03-07-2005, 9:00 PM
I have to agree with above opinions and facts. If that was 300 to 20D move, I would say go for it. 10D to 20D I would really think twice. I would probably end up investing money into lens / tubs / flashes or other misc. gadgets.
I agree with all of the posts. Personally i might, but you have to decide if you need a 20d. If all you do is shoot fish, than only you can weigh cost vs. benefit. your photos are excellent as they are. could you borrow one and test it out?
Guppyman
03-08-2005, 9:46 PM
Well, all. This was certainly helpful. Knowing me, I'll probably make the switch. Hopefully it will be the last camera I ever buy. It seems that I can get a fair price based upon the condition and minimal use of my body. I'll think about it for a week or so, but I've pretty much made up my mind. The kicker for me is the 8 MP. I have an Olympus C8080Z and you CAN see the difference easily between the two cameras. Unfortunately the shutter lag on the Z makes it all but worthless for fish photography. Thanks for all your input. Now - why am I not getting email notifications of all these posts? - Frank/Guppyman®
The kicker for me is the 8 MP. I have an Olympus C8080Z and you CAN see the difference easily between the two cameras.
not a big difference between 6mp and 8mp from a DSLR. there will be a difference in performance @ higher iso. you would see a big difference with your olympus because of the 9mm imaging sensor. but we all support your decision either way.
JerseyJay
03-08-2005, 11:15 PM
Hopefully it will be the last camera I ever buy.
Are you sure ?
The kicker for me is the 8 MP.
Are you sure ?. If you compared 15MP camera to 6MP camera you would see some difference but between 6 and 8 you will not see anything spectacular.
Just more info to totally mess up your brain :-o
paradise
03-08-2005, 11:34 PM
Jay, you are an evil evil man :-) Messing with me is one thing (I like it) but poor Frank :-)
Frank, get it if you think it's worth spending a few $$ on. I just got one and I LOVE it. But it's not really the 2mpx difference that does it for me. Like Hiro and others have said, it's amazing at higher ISOs, as good as anything else I have used.
But I say "it's my last camera" every time, also, but it's my 4th in less than 2 years :-)
JerseyJay
03-09-2005, 5:09 PM
Jay, you are an evil evil man :-) Messing with me is one thing (I like it) but poor Frank
I would expect to get the same from others. I prefer to be questioned rather then pay and be disappointed later. Not necessarily the guess in Frank's situation but it is the same principle.
Either way, good luck Frank.
Guppyman
03-09-2005, 8:14 PM
Hmmmm.........just like every new Mac is my last computer. ISO? Rarely change it. Messing w/Frank? Not a problem - as long as those that dish it out can also take it. :-) Still think I'm going to take the plunge. It's only money and I don't believe in collecting it. I might even find something to shoot other than guppies and Corys. - Frank/Guppyman
It's only money and I don't believe in collecting it. - Frank/Guppyman
Wow! I wish I'm in a position to say that!
Cheers,
p.s. have you taken a look at the 1D MK2 at all? I highly recommend it.
Guppyman
03-11-2005, 7:34 AM
Wow! I wish I'm in a position to say that!
Cheers,
p.s. have you taken a look at the 1D MK2 at all? I highly recommend it.I'm not actually in a position to say that, but I live that way, anyway. Isn't that 1D about $5K for a body? I may be nuts, but I'm NOT crazy. Then, again . . . . . let me go check one of those puppies out. - Frank/Guppyman
The body is around $3,700, which is doubled the price of a 20D. Unless you need something that advanced, I'd go with the 20D and put the balance of the money towards something else (glass, flash, etc.).
The body is around $3,700, which is doubled the price of a 20D. Unless you need something that advanced, I'd go with the 20D and put the balance of the money towards something else (glass, flash, etc.).
That's absolutely correct . I have been drooling over buying a 1DmkII, was even in the proces of ordering it on-line, but have been able to set it out of my mind. In fact the difference in photo-quality between the 20D and 1DmkII is minor, the advantages of the 1DmkII are :
- rainproof
- bigger viewfinder
- faster (but I don't need that)
- spotmetering
- smaller crop-factor.
The dealbreaker for me is the fact that the cropfactor keeps messing up my focal lengths, so it's either FF or no other camera...
I also have been thinking on buying a second hand 1DS, but I think a 20D is the better camera for my photography (noise is a problem on the 1Ds, and I take > 50% of pictures @ ISO 800 - 1600 - 3200)
I'm probably going to spend some additional cash on my glass now (180L and 24 L) and buy myself a 1DsmkII 'one day'
And for all the people who say that the 20D is no real upgrade to the 10D, I would give a short list
- better high ISO performance
- speed of camera (instant on, CF-read performance,...)
- ergonomy (joystick for AF-point selection for one)
- E-TTL II
- 8 MP instead of 6MP (but that is not the major advantage)
- EF-s mount (you can use the excellent EF-s 10-22 mm)
So you could say that the 20D is a big step up for shooting sports/action and low light photography (better high ISO performance & better flash performance). The 2MP come in handy for landscape photography, but you still miss pixels here...
sugar
paradise
03-12-2005, 2:24 PM
The body is around $3,700, which is doubled the price of a 20D.
Not really, just got my 20D for $1,300 SHIPPED, so double would be $2,600 :-) This is almost tripple :-)
Hehe...I took those prices off B&H, so it was more along the lines of $1,600+ for the 20D.
meriadoc
03-12-2005, 2:54 PM
i got mine shipped for $1350 from buydig, but i also got the A510 for Mike, so I spent all up a little over $1500, but I upgraded the shipping also to three day (I think)