Eos 10D

wilmorh

wilmorh

Admin's Favourite Member
Messages
1,314
Edit My Images
Yes
Untill the middle of the year I had a much loved Nikon D80, but due to circumstances beyond my control, I had to sell it. It broke my heart, and I've felt lost without it:( A friend of mine has just offered an opened ended loan of his Canon Eos 10D. I've never used Canon, and know nothing about them, and whilst I have no interest in the Nikon/Canon debate (beggers can't be choosers;)), I'd love to hear about the camera. I have looked through the forums, and found the odd thread which gives a mixed response:shrug:

Really want to kickstart my hobby again, I've missed it dreadfully
 
It is a very good camera although a little long in the tooth now.

The main thing to look out for is it can only use EF fit lenses not EF-s so wide angles are not particularly cheap as with the crop factor of 1.6x you would need either the Sigma 12-24 EX DG, Sigma 15-30 EX DG or Canon 17-40L. There are a number of lenses in the 28-135 areas which are reasonable priced but you will need to check the reviews as some have better IQ than others.
 
My first dslr a canon 10d for sport....i thought i would never need another camera ever when I had that... pictures where luverly... but as mentioned it is old now and i probably couldnt work with one anymore... slow everyhting is the way I would describe it compared to todays dslrs..
 
trencheel303 said:
Yep, don't know about others, but older Canon DSLRs are _really_ slow.
Click to expand...

Yes they are, but I found a great difference when I sold a Nikon D100 and a Fuji S2 and got myself a 20D. That was back in the day when Canon had the edge over it's competitors:lol:
Summary: They are all slower than today's counterparts. That's not to say the 10D can't kickstart your hobby though.
 
EdBray said:
The main thing to look out for is it can only use EF fit lenses not EF-s so wide angles are not particularly cheap as with the crop factor of 1.6x you would need either the Sigma 12-24 EX DG, Sigma 15-30 EX DG or Canon 17-40L. There are a number of lenses in the 28-135 areas which are reasonable priced but you will need to check the reviews as some have better IQ than others.
Click to expand...

Not quite... It can't take Canon EF-S, but it can take small frame EF compatible lenses. That includes all Tokina offerings, and most likely Sigma and Tamron. Only canon does EF-S lenses, the others are EF with less glass.
 
daugirdas said:
Not quite... It can't take Canon EF-S, but it can take small frame EF compatible lenses. That includes all Tokina offerings, and most likely Sigma and Tamron. Only canon does EF-S lenses, the others are EF with less glass.
Click to expand...

You are right, I used the cheap Sigma 18-50 f3.5-5.6 on a 10D for a while. It was a very good camera, image quality wise. Just was slow in operation and had a small buffer.

It will make a good kickstart camera though.
 
I think you've said it yourself, beggars can't be choosers ;) :D

It's a camera. A camera is better (by a long way) than no camera at all :D. Better kit makes life easier for us, but there's no reason why an older body can't yield great results! As mentioned above, ef-s lenses won't fit, but the offerings from sigma, tamron et al should be fine, as they're ef fit but create a smaller image circle (for cropped sensor cameras)

Long story short, thank your friend profusely, and get stuck in! Here's flickr's 'camera finder' page for it, have a look at the kind of shots people are still getting with theirs :)

http://www.flickr.com/cameras/canon/eos_10d/

Chris
 
Thank you so much for all your replies, getting the camera in the morning, mus[S1][/S1]t admit, getting excited now Can't wait t get back into it:D
 
I was in a similar boat not so long ago and decided to go for 20D but as said a camera is better than no camera, particularly if you getting a good deal on it :)
 
neoboy said:
I was in a similar boat not so long ago and decided to go for 20D but as said a camera is better than no camera, particularly if you getting a good deal on it :)
Click to expand...

Ah, but the 20D is still a match for many current models, i think its actually better than a lot of the entry level models.
 
neoboy said:
I was in a similar boat not so long ago and decided to go for 20D but as said a camera is better than no camera, particularly if you getting a good deal on it :)
Click to expand...

20d followed 10d but if i recall was a major upgrade.. big changes.
 
KIPAX said:
20d followed 10d but if i recall was a major upgrade.. big changes.
Click to expand...

Definitely, even though the megapixels only went up from 6 to 8, there were major changes "under the hood".

I remember the first time I used a 20D when I still had my 10D, and it was one of those "WOW!" moments.
 
I was Nikon for years but always envied the pics from Canon as they just looked better, so rather than selling up and going for a top notch Canon I went for a 20D and to be honest I havent looked back......still using it and loving it, even my missus has sold her Nikon and bought a 20D they are just a good camera and not wads of money to buy, you can get a well used one for around 170quid and a really nice as new one for 200 of our quid.............the IQ from them is great, not perfect but much better than I could get from a D1X D200
 
The 10D is a very capable camera - I used mine extensively before I upgraded to the 20D.

Yes, it was a little slower in operation but not as bad as some would have you believe. I used it for action shots of dogs - mostly greyhounds and lurchers. Sure, I got plenty of OOF shots but I nailed plenty more.

ISO 800 while not pretty was usable for clean prints up to A4 (maybe larger with modern software).

Overall, don't be put off.
 
RichardtheSane said:
The 10D is a very capable camera - I used mine extensively before I upgraded to the 20D.

Yes, it was a little slower in operation but not as bad as some would have you believe. I used it for action shots of dogs - mostly greyhounds and lurchers. Sure, I got plenty of OOF shots but I nailed plenty more.

ISO 800 while not pretty was usable for clean prints up to A4 (maybe larger with modern software).

Overall, don't be put off.
Click to expand...

Having just read this, the D200 must be slow as the 20D seems to do things a tad faster or mine seems to do:thumbs:
 
wilmorh said:
Thank you so much, you've restored my faith, so excited now!!
Click to expand...

I doubt you will be disappointed, its a very good camera (and coming from a Nikon you will be even more amazed by the picture quality ;) :lol::lol: )
 
They're good cameras. If you don't expect lightening speed of operation and shoot RAW you'll get good results.

I have some 10D shots that have had very favourable comment.

Good luck with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top