How old a Canon DSLR would you buy?

Messages
3,291
Name
Kell
Edit My Images
Yes
Random one this...

A few Christmases ago i bought my daughter a Canon 300D to use to learn photography.

It was a bit battered, but it didn't worry me too much, as I think it was less than £30.

Unfortunately, it's really, really slow in terms of usage. Press the button, it takes the pic, and waits about 5 or 6 seconds before it displays anything.

It wasn't like this when I first bought it, but it makes it pretty much unusable. I don't think it's the memory card, as I haven't changed that, but it's a possibility.

The thing is, it would still take a decent photo when it was working - here's one my daughter took four years ago:

IMG_0790 by Kell Lunam-Cowan, on Flickr

So I'd like to replace it with another cheap camera. it would need to be a Canon as all my other stuff is Canon, but what would still make a decent buy?
i see there's a 20D for sale in the classifieds, which is likely to be better than a 300D, but how old is too old and how much is too much to pay?
I didn't really want to spend more than £30-£40.
Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
No offence intended but at £40 it’s worth taking a punt on a later model as the 300D was the first digital rebel so anything higher like the 350D, 400D and the 20D are bound to be an improvement. Is it possible that the battery is not working correctly as it may be the cause of the slow down?
 
Anything's possible I guess.

My plan was to sell the 300D first and take it from there.

Looking at this table it outlines which cameras were part of the same DIGIC range.

It would be good to understand at which point a key improvement was made - ie

"on the release of DIGIC III, Canon completely changed the game and it's not worth considering any model that doesn't at least have that."
 
I'm not sure if this is possible but can you do a "hard reset" of the firmware with a DSLR? When a computer gets slow you can speed it up with a reformat...might be worth seeing if it's possible with a camera too?
You can reset the firmware to factory settings and you can do deep format of the memory card which also might help. "I don't think it's the memory card, as I haven't changed that, but it's a possibility." Also worth remembering that memory cards do not last for ever and it might be an ageing card that is causing the slow-down, not the camera.
 
Last edited:
I've had 300D, 10D, 20D and 5D. I used the 20D for something like 7 years. I think I only saw any real improvement in image quality with the 5D. The main problem with the early APS-C cameras is IMVHO the dynamic range and not being able to boost the shadows without noise, and a lot of it.

If you go for a 5D I think a good cleaning regime is pretty much essential as they're dust bunny magnets.

More modern kit really moves things on, for example my current MFT cameras, GX80 and GX9, move thongs on quite a bit from the 5D. Any more modern MFT or APS-C will very possible improve on this older Canon kit but of course even if you could find a good deal on the body you'd need to spend on lenses.
 
I bought a canon 10d off ebay for about 20 quid.. worked great on a summers day for remote behind the goal shots at football matches..

So in answer to your question... it all depends on what you want it for :)
 
I started out DSLR learning with a 20D - about five years back. It's actually better built than
"modern" XXD camera and way better than a 1000D- metal body and reasonable waterproofing. There are also more on
camera controls. Image quality is good. 8.1 MP is ample for anything except really deep crops. I print at 18*12
no problem there. For £40 it is amazing value.

I'd avoid the 10D. Canon's first try and they got a few things wrong!
 
The Canon 300D was released shortly after the Canon 10D and introduced the EF-S mount.

I had one and upgraded it to a 350D and then to a 400D. I seem to remember the 350D was much more responsive than the 300D but the upgrade to the 400D was more of an evolutionary upgrade, mainly bringing more megapixels to the table.

The Canon 20D was deemed a significant upgrade to the 10D at the time. I can still remember people raving about the low noise at ISO 3200 :).

For a budget of £30 I would try to get in order of preference a 20D or a 30D, a 450D, a 400D, or a 350D.
 
"on the release of DIGIC III, Canon completely changed the game and it's not worth considering any model that doesn't at least have that."


Hmmmm. I'd take that with a pinch of salt.

Like a lot of the above, I started with a 20D then a 30D (very little difference before getting a 7D and 1DIII.

The 40D is the one Canon camera that I've always wished that I'd owned.

Even today, using a 20/30D as a starter kit isn't a terrible idea. It teaches you the limitations of your kit and how to best use it.

Probably the most significant tech jump was from 10D to 20D.
 
I still have the 350D which was the first DSLR I got and it can still take excellent pictures when coupled with a decent lens.

I've used a number of Canon cameras and they are all excellent as long as you learn how to use them and don't expect them to match the latest super-duper ones costing thousands.

And a lower pixel count no longer counts for much with software like AI Gigapixel able to upscale your images to beyond even the most expensive cameras (as long as your lenses are able to match the resolution necessary).
 
I've got a like new, hardly used 20D somewhere in the loft, like has been said it's a brilliant piece of kit, even now. Ok the screen is a bit small, but does that matter too much anyway. It's really only ever been used for family occasions, and played with indoors etc. Got to be worth £50 of anyone's hard earned. I seem to remember it's only got around 8000 activations on it.
 
Last edited:
I think the first proper Canons were 5D, 20D, 1DII and 1DsII. The rest are maybe 450D or 500D in their respective market segments. 20D and 30D were largely identical and could easily and quickly get the shot. Both were only 8MP so pretty much unsuitable for anything but a hobby or a very accidental fine art image. 1DII was a machine gun, but IQ only marginally better at the same 8MP. No good for anything but random portraits and good light sports and news. (even 1DIII is hardly any better at 10MP - you just don't have the image size). 5D and 1DsII were where the real kit began.
 
+1 for the 350D. It was my first DSLR and still have it, albeit modified for infra red. Very inexpensive to pick one up.
 
Canon 5D Classic was my second camera after the 400D. Paired with the Canon 50mm f/1.8 and it's what got me back into photography for good. Not the greatest AF but there's something magical about the images from the 5D.
 
If you can get hold of a 40D for your budget they're a great camera. I was using one until the start of 2017 as my regular camera. They're built like a tank and the image quality is fine if you don't go over ISO800
 
The 6MP 300D and 10MP were highly regarded for sharpness, and you can still get decent prints today.. Although 350D and 20D (8MP) showed improvements in many areas, image quality of the older models was preferred.

The 300Ds would be about 12-13 years old now so I guess it's slowing down through wear and tear.... if you can get a 'pristine' example for the same money then great
 
5D for £40?

Also be interested to hear views on whether a more modern, more basic camera would be a better choice than an older, pro-sumer camera.

20D vs 1000D for example.

You wont get a 5D for £40 but cameras at that price will all probably be much of a muchness for image quality and personally at that price I'd just look at what's available and probably buy on condition as much as anything else.

Just on the point above about the 10D. That camera wont take Canon EF-S lenses but will very probably take APS-C lenses from other manufacturers and one thing I preferred about the 10D over the 20D was the shutter when using the camera in social situations as the 10D has a much quieter shutter than the 20D which has IMO an awful shutter sound.
 
I love my old Canon EOS D30. Bought for around £20 a while back now! Love the fact it takes shots better than any fancy swanky phone out there and is almost 20 years old and doesn't miss a beat!
 
Get a 550d or later. You will see such an improvement.

What I really wanted to do was keep my old 600D - especially as MPB only offered me £85 for it. But someone i knew wanted a camera and I sold it to help fund the 80D I have now.

Should have stood up to SWMBO.
 
£40 bought me a 450d from a member on here in good working condition and boxed i see no reason why there shouldn't be others knocking about around for the same price and for that kind of money it's a bargain
i also have a 20d that my daughter/s use
out of the 2 they find the 20d better to use but if your daughter is used to the 300d the 450d might be more familiar to her
 
Well I’ve looked at the Canon site to update the camera and I can’t see any way to download anything official.

But I think I’ve worked out why it’s so slow. I remember now that I switched it to RAW rather than large JPEG.

I think it’s a read/write problem with the CF card being too slow. I switched it back to JPEG and it’s much quicker.

Maybe just a faster card would sort it. Certainly be cheaper than a new camera.
 
I've been watching lots go on Ebay for a while now and they seem to be really holding their value. Some 500Ds going for well over £100. Many are being sold without chargers or with third party batteries. It really does pay to read the descriptions very carefully.

Probably the best buy would have been a (IIRC) 400D with the kit lens and 70-300 zoom, which went for £85. As I don't need the lenses, I could have sold them on and ended up with a cheap camera, but I didn't want the hassle.

In the end, a guy I used to work with was selling an old 20D with genuine Canon Battery grip for which I paid £50. I don't know the shutter count, but I do know it was one of several bodies he had and he said he's barely used it. I'll sell the grip on and sell the 300D on so it shouldn't be much of an outlay.

I know it's old, but then I won't mind taking it places I wouldn't necessarily take my good* camera.

*Good is a relative term, an 80D for me is at the very top of what I can afford.
 
20D is still a good camera! I still have mine, although I need to pick up a Canon lens again if I want to use it.
 
If she has small hands buy a 350D and a GOOD lens (maybe a 70 300mm IS USM zoom) and let her learn on that, or the Nifty Fifty, 50mm f1.8 which in terms of image quality is the equivalent of an L glass lens from f2.8 on.

And if you have a good computer with a fast GPU then a program like AI Gigapixel will gave images of over 30MP!:

Many of these photos were taken with the 350D with my 70-300mm L lens or other lenses and then upscaled:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/20926615@N05/albums/72157700442514594
 
40D
 
I'm inclined to agree with those saying the 40D.
You can pick one up for under £100 on either ebay or via mpb.
I know it's a bit more than you want to pay but there are plenty of people still using them and producing cracking photos.
 
Another vote for the 40D. Great workhorse, really well built, and a significant step up from the models that preceded it.
 
I had a 40d but the real hidden jem now is the 1D MK 3. I have one and its far better than a 40d and in many ways better than a 7d even
 
Back
Top