Wanting to upgrade from EOS-10D

[Chris Hayes]

I'm interested in getting a new Canon digital SLR. I currently have the EOS-10D, and have had it since 2004. I love my camera, but would like a higher megapixel, and want to get the new 10-22mm wide angle lens, but it wont fit on my camera I have a Canon 28-80mm lens, Canon 70-200mm L lens that I got with the 10D, and a Sigma 17-35mm EX lens. I'm looking at the 30D because of it's relatively cheap price, and the 10-22mm lens will work with it. Was wondering what everyone here would reccomend?

 

[James Langford]

I made the exact same step as you last year, going from the 10D to the 30D. A couple of points on the transition:

* More megapixcels is very nice
* 30D responds much faster in every way
* Noise on the 10D is actually better than the 30D is lower ISOs
* Noise on the 30D is much better than the 10D at higher ISOs
* Display on the 30D is much nicer, brighter, etc
* Focus on the 30D is much more consistant
* The 30D seems to have a stronger IR blocking filter, so I still use my 10D for IR.
* View finger on the 30D is much brighter, and easier to see.

Now, if I had to do it all over again, I would have gone with the 40D instead of the 30D. Check out the review on this page:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d/

40D wins hands down compared to the 30D. It is a bit more pricey, but is a better camera all around. Also, have you considered the 5D? It is more expensive, but having a full framed camera for doing landscape work would be awesome. From everything I've seen, it is an excellent camera.

My 10 cents,

James

 

[Tom Mitchell]

Unless you decide on a 5D, this becomes primarily a choice between the 30D and the 40D.

It depends what you shoot. If it is mainly landscapes, then the primary advantage of the 40D over the 30D is the 14bit raw files, which make a big difference in my opinion. You can really push the heck out of a 14 bit file in post, beyond where a 12 bit would be useless.

Again, if you shoot primarily landscapes, and your hands feel comfortable with one, check out an Xsi. The image quality is the same as the 40D, with 2 more megapixels.

Live view is a great tool for landscapes as well.

I guess my opinion would be that if you do a lot of post processing, use a tripod for your landscapes, and want the bigger body, I would go for the 40D. If you don't mind the Xsi body, I would grab one of those. If you don't do much PP, and aren't interested in live view, I would definitely get a 30D.

If it came down to a question of a 30D + 10-22, or a 40D without one, I would get the 30D. The 10-22 is that good of a lens.

My standard advice is that bodies come and go quickly, but your lenses will last. Unless you really desire the the added features of the 40D, the 30D is a great camera. And the 10-22 is an even greater lens.

Full frame for landscape, imho, is overrated. The 10-22 is virtually indistinguishable from any ultra-wide lens, 'cept maybe the 16-35II. But the image quality of the 5D is worth the difference in price. It is a truly fantastic camera from the IQ point of view.

One more thing, The Canon's dust shaker does work. I have tested it a lot, and it really makes a difference.

Good luck on your choice and keep us posted on what you get!

 

[Erik Perozo]

Hi Chris I don't know if this is the place to post this but I am selling my 40D with 10-22 mm for $1650 but I can sell both separate. Details on the reason why are personal.

If it helps when I was doing research on both the 40D and 30D when I was upgrading from my digital rebel, I found that the 40D was the better choice. the 40D does have a Sensor Cleaner that the 30D doesn't but the 30D is good. Yeah feel free to email me if you like about the camera or lens.

 

[Karen Burdick]

I have to agree that the choice would probably be between the 30D and the 40D. I bought a 30D just shortly after they came out and I love that camera. I like the features on the 40D, but I guess the question is...are they worth the extra cash. I also have the 10-22mm and it works wonderfully with this camera. I have taken it on several trips now and I am quite impressed. Just a little personal opinion if that helps. In truth, if the 40D had been out at the time, I very well may have gotten it. It is a nice camera.

 

[Eric Treece]

I am going to upgrade to the 40D as well. I have a 20D now that I love, but I want something that I can use the lenses that were made for this series to be applicable to my next camera. The 5D will not take the 10-22mm that I use alot more than I thought I was going to. So that became the no brainer for me. I love the full frame of the 5D, but in the end I don't want to have to buy a couple of new lenses to boot. The price difference to me isn't that much between the 30D and the 40D and the gap between those two cameras seems to be narrowing. You can get the 30D w/o lens and including a 2GB CF Card for $829.95 and the 40D w/o lens and a 4GB CF card for 1199.95 thru B&H Photo in the latest catalog from them.

 

[Chris Hayes]

Thanks for your input, everyone. I was looking at B&H's website a little while ago. I'm thinking of going with the 40D, because of the extra MP, and a couple of extra features. I have 3 lenses, two of which I'll probably need to replace. I have a Canon 28-90mm that I got a few years ago. I think that one will have to be replaced if I read the specs on the 40D correctly. Thankfully, it'll only cost me 80 or 90 bucks. I also have a Sigma 17-35mm wide angle lens. That one I'll probably replace with the 10-22mm. I wont commit to buying a new camera for probably a couple months or more, as it isnt drastic that I do so.