Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 2, 2004, 9:55 AM   #1
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1

I started off a short while ago thinking it would be fun to get into photography a little more seriously. I have always had an interest, but to be honest I didnt like the prospect of having to deal with film.

But now, it seems that digital cameras have seriously come to age.

I started off heavily leaning towards a Canon Digital rebel...an outstanding value. However, as I did more research there seemed to be a large consensus that if you are considering the Rebel, you might as well pay up and get a 10D, as most found they outgrew the Rebel quickly and soon upgraded.

Since I had moved up in price point, I looked at the 20D as well. Given it's additional features, if you are willing to spend the money for a 10D, it seems you might as well go for the 20D.

You can see what is happening here. This is snowballing like crazy.

I can get a Rebel Kit for about $700 after rebate

Or...on the advice of quite a few, if you are going with the Rebel, you might as well pay up and go for the 10D...which for the body is roughly $1100, plus a decent starter lens for around $200-300...for a totalof $1300-1400.

OR...WHAT THE HELL....the 20D Kit...comes with the same lens as the Rebel, which seems to be semi-decent...a good starting lens...$1500.

This incrementalism has gotten a little ridiculous.

So, I have ruled out the 10D, and am deciding between the Rebel and the 20D. I have read up on the features of each fairly extensively.

As far as my background in photography...this is my first SLR camera and have no practical experience with fine tuning the many adjustments available with such. I think I will like this new hobby and dont want to get into a situation of wanting to upgrade very soon and taking the hit on the outlay for the Rebel...like many have seem to have done from what I have read. I get the strong impression that the 20D will be all I will ever need and can upgrade with lenses accordingly.

So, my decision lies between the Rebel and the 20D. This post, now that I look back at it, seems to be more of a rant than a questions, but I would appreciate feedback nonetheless.

As far as my intended usage, I tend to be a fan of large panoramic scenic views so I think this will be my primary intended usage, but I also like the prospects of capturing wildlife, people, and the occasional macro level picture as well.

Thank you for your time and patience. All feedback is welcomed and encouraged.
Zippy The Wonderdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 2, 2004, 11:45 AM   #2
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529


My personal impression is there are a large number of people in photography, just like electronics that have to have the latest and greatest - even if they don't need the new features - they want them. As you mentioned, when you get into an SLR you will need a decent starter lense - but you will quickly find the starter lense has limitations and you will want an additional lense (or two or three, etc...). If you are planning on doing indoor photography with either of these cameras you will also quickly find you need an external flash. With either camera you will want at least a 1gb high speed flash card ($80 or so). So, I would estimate spending an additional $500-$1000on top of the camera body in the next 6 months. I will say the Rebel is a fabulous camera as I'm sure the 20D is. But it's not like comparing the cost of the 10D to the 300D (now about $350 difference) - you're talking about a $600 difference. If you can afford $2000 - $2500 then go with the 20D - if you can't then go with the Rebel. I think you'll find when you get more involved that the lenses and most importantly your own ability will make the bigger difference in the outcome - not which body you use. Whatever body you buy will likely be replaced long before the lenses (assuming you buy quality glass) - but that's just my two cents. Good luck on your decision :?
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2004, 12:42 PM   #3
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803

JohnG, while your logic is right, there is a problem here:
But it's not like comparing the cost of the 10D to the 300D (now about $350 difference) - you're talking about a $600 difference. If you can afford $2000 - $2500 then go with the 20D - if you can't then go with the Rebel.
The price different is $600 (I assume that is right, it sounds about right.) It sounds like your second sentence is saying that if you can't afford $2000-2500 you should get the Rebel. That the rebel is much cheaper. But that isn't correct. Everything you list as an expense (lenses, hot-shoe flash, CF card,...) applies to all three cameras in question. DRebel, 10D, 20D. So the only price difference that needs to be considered is the $350 for the 10D or the $600 for the 20D.

The biggest question that Zippy needs to answer is what he will take pictures of. This is what should drive your camera choice (well, that and cost and a few special case things.) If you were going to take pictures of your kids playing sports I would say get the 20D. I you were taking pictures of buildings and trains it probably doesn't matter so get the DRebel. If you really wanted to make big prints, I'd say get the 20D. If burst shooting matters but fast AF doesn't, then maybe the 10D.

It's purely a question of what you will do, and which camera will make doing that easy (or at least not hard.)

The Drebel has some interface quirks which I hate. It limits what metering modes you choose. I would never buy the DRebel. But that is just me. For many people, the DRebel is all they need and more.

If you're really not sure you will want to get into photography than I would probably suggest the 10D over the 20D. The 20D's a better camera in almost every way, but it's cheaper. If you don't know you're going to use it a lot, then spending the extra money on the 20D might not be worth it. (And to confuse things futher the 20D is smaller and lighter... for some this is very important.)

But seriously, to really recommend something we need to know what you are going to do with it. I won't tell you which car to buy until I learn how you use the car. Do you hall wood? Carry around several dogs? Travel long distances alone? Ya see what I mean? Without knowing what you will do, its very hard to give you a meaningful suggestion.

eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2004, 2:13 PM   #4
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529

sorry for the confusion - I was simply pointing out when you look at cost you want to include all the other 'essentials'. To your point, if shooting your kids sports is the prime reason for buying the camera and you have a hard budget of $1400 then buying the 20D with kit lense is going to be a disappointment. You have to consider the body, lense, and flash (and other accesories) costs together to get an accurace cost comparison. For me personally, having a Drebel with a 70-200 2.8 lense is more useful than having the 20D with kit lense - same cost. Is the 20D a better camera - absolutely. But if all I have is $1400 then for my needs the DRebel was better. I think a number of people max out their budget on the body when they enter into SLRs and find they don't have any money left over for a good lense or flash. Sometimes the 'best' solution is too expensive. Which leads to your point - knowing how someone will use the camera can help determine what other 'extras' will really be essential (want to do portraits - you'll need an external flash, sports - a good constant apreture zoom, etc). In summary my advice was to not just focus on the body - especially if you have a budget.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2004, 2:35 PM   #5
Senior Member
NHL's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,567

JohnG may have a point...

Also even though a 20D is better @ noise handling than the dRebel to accomodate for slower lenses, one really needs to buy f/2.8 lenses for the 20D to maximize its focusing ability otherwise you are just restraining the 20D's AF capability as well!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2004, 12:54 AM   #6
Senior Member
cameranserai's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 548

Perhaps I am throwing in a curveball here, but no one has mentioned the Nikon D70, which is better than the Rebel and much cheaper than the 20D now that initial supplies have sated early demand discounts are becoming available.

Personally as a starter kit I would, given the requirements, go for the body only (whether Nikon or Canon) plus the new Sigma 18/50 F2.8 lens. This will be superb for landscape photography, and is F2.8 throughout to cope with no matter what llighting conditions.

Moving up to sports photography (my speciality) I use the image stabilised 70/200 F2.8 with a 1.4 teleconverter, which is more than adequate. Sigma, Nikon, or Canon, depending on your final choice of body. I have the D70 and am more than satisfied but I chose it over the Rebel on Steve's advice. In his words the Rebel is a stripped down D10 and the D70 an enhanced D100 at a cheaper price. Given the pace of technology I am sure there will be a new Rebel along soon since it is falling behind now.

In conclusion I believe your choice at the moment is between the D20 and the D70 Nikon. I don't think you will need all the features of the D20 for many years, but whatever it is a tough decision since you will be locked in to that manufacturer for ever and a day. Once you have a collection of lenses (I have 6 Nikkors) you are, unless you have a big windfall, locked in for evermore. I wish you the best.
cameranserai is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:55 PM.