Canon Rebel XL 350 D 8mp vrs 10D 6.3mp

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Eugene Wendland - 09 Dec 2005 23:20 GMT

Hi

I'm looking for some advice on purchasing a Canon SLR. The two I'm looking
at is a new Rebel XL 350D with 8m.p. or a slightly used 10D with 6.3 m.p.
The 10D seems a bit more rugged although I'll be losing some resolution.
Most of the photography I do is outdoors, naturescapes, travel, family
archives, etc.

I'll save a bit on the 10D. Any advice will be helpful.

Thanks

Eugene Wendland

Reply to this Message

Bill - 10 Dec 2005 00:03 GMT

>I'm looking for some advice on purchasing a Canon SLR. The two I'm looking
>at is a new Rebel XL 350D with 8m.p. or a slightly used 10D with 6.3 m.p.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>I'll save a bit on the 10D. Any advice will be helpful.

This may seem like a hard one to decide. There are advantages to both,
but personally I think the XT has more features and performance going
for it than the older 10D.

For starters, forget about the megapixels...the difference between 6 and
8 is negligible. And the XT is tougher than you may think, since it's a
polycarbonate shell over a stainless steel frame. Short of bashing it
against a concrete wall, it's just as tough for non-pros.

The big factor is not the body, but the quality of lenses you put on it.

Reply to this Message

Jim Redelfs - 10 Dec 2005 01:49 GMT

> the XT has more features and performance going
> for it than the older 10D.

I agree.

> forget about the megapixels...the difference
> between 6 and 8 is negligible.

I respectfully disagree. 2 million pixels is anything BUT negligible. That's
a WHOLE LOTTA "digital zoom", among other things.

That that Rebel XT (350D) uses Canon's latest processor (Digic II) makes it a
significantly more capable camera in many ways.

> The big factor is not the body, but the quality of lenses you put on it.

The glass is a "big" factor certainly, but it's not the ONLY factor, or even
the biggest.

:)
JR

Reply to this Message

Steve Wolfe - 10 Dec 2005 05:41 GMT

>> forget about the megapixels...the difference
>> between 6 and 8 is negligible.
>
> I respectfully disagree. 2 million pixels is anything BUT negligible.
> That's
> a WHOLE LOTTA "digital zoom", among other things.

Do you really think so? When you look at it linearly, going from a 10D to
a Rebel XT, you go from 3072 horizontal pixels to 3456 pixels, for an
increase of...12.5%. A "digital zoom" factor of... 0.125. I wouldn't call
that a "WHOLE LOTTA", I'd call it negligible.

I've shot at both sizes, and the difference really isn't much at all. You
have to be in a reeeeeealllly borderline situation before you see any
advantage from 8 megapixels.

>> The big factor is not the body, but the quality of lenses you put on it.
>
> The glass is a "big" factor certainly, but it's not the ONLY factor, or
> even
> the biggest.

In the context of the original question (shooting "outdoors, naturescapes,
travel, family
archives"), where it doesn't sound like he needs high-end features like
47-point AF or 8 frames per second, then yes, I'd say that the lens will be
the biggest factor. A 300D with a good lens will give you a better image
than a 1Ds Mk2 with a poor lens.

steve

Reply to this Message

Hannu - 10 Dec 2005 09:15 GMT

>For starters, forget about the megapixels...the difference between 6 and
>8 is negligible. And the XT is tougher than you may think, since it's a
>polycarbonate shell over a stainless steel frame. Short of bashing it
>against a concrete wall, it's just as tough for non-pros.
>
>The big factor is not the body, but the quality of lenses you put on it.

I agree. I might add that look at the price you'll spend on the
lenses, the price of the body will not be the main point.

The original question I have solved: I have both, they both are very
useful, I need only single lenses (just be careful between the EF and
EF-S), I don't really need to worry if one would need some service, I
can use the other :)

Reply to this Message

This old Bob - 10 Dec 2005 15:52 GMT

> Hi
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> I'll save a bit on the 10D. Any advice will be helpful.

From what I have seen the high ISO has a lot less noise on the XT/20D sensor
compared with the 300D/10D sensor.

Reply to this Message

ian lincoln - 13 Dec 2005 17:12 GMT

Both are good cameras. The rear wheel on the back of the 10D is better than
going through user menus to use the same functions on the XT. It comes down
to ease of use. Technology wise they are equal.

The 10D will be physically larger. The XT sensor is not the same as the
20D. It doesn't produce the level of detail that the resolution implies.
Some of the noise reduction is inferior on the XT. It basically scales back
on the red channel which is the noisiest. Some rated real world picture
quality higher for the 300D than the 350D. If you do alot of flash work the
350D has ETTL-2 whereas the 10D only has version one. It comes down to the
price of each and the condition each is in. I doubt the 10D is under
manufacturers warranty.

>> Hi
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> From what I have seen the high ISO has a lot less noise on the XT/20D
> sensor compared with the 300D/10D sensor.

Reply to this Message

This old Bob - 13 Dec 2005 22:14 GMT

> Both are good cameras. The rear wheel on the back of the 10D is better
> than going through user menus to use the same functions on the XT. It
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>> From what I have seen the high ISO has a lot less noise on the XT/20D
>> sensor compared with the 300D/10D sensor.

Do you have more info on the differences between the sensor on the 20D and
350D???

Thanks,
-Bob

Reply to this Message

ian lincoln - 14 Dec 2005 01:08 GMT

>> Both are good cameras. The rear wheel on the back of the 10D is better
>> than going through user menus to use the same functions on the XT. It
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> Thanks,
> -Bob

All i know is that it wasn't the obvious choice of fitting the sensor of the
20D and just crippling the features. It is actually a different sensor.
The noise reduction is a little aggressive. Side by side with 20D and old
300D shows colour saturation was different to the others. It seems the keep
the noise as low as 20D they were pretty agressive with reigning in the red
channel. Despite the extra resolution nothing came of it. The 300D came
out better. The flash was sposed to be spot on. The servo focusing was
spot on too. The weakness of the 20D is the back or forward focusing and
the tendency to underexpose with full flash. As for choosing what type of
metering and what type of focusing, the options are better than the 300D but
they are still in menus. The extra dial and the little 'wart' are better on
the 20D. The 20D allows the recording of RAW+Large and fine jpeg. The 300D
doesn't. The 350D i don't know. The 350D is smaller and more ruggedly
built than the 300D. The battery is a smaller one design too. Whereas the
10D, 20D 300D and canon camcorders of 440 up to 700 series use the bp511
battery. I only bought the 20D cos i couldn't justify the 350D having
already owned the 300D. For a first time DSLR i would have got the 350D.
Having owned and still own a 50E film camera i am quite at home with the 20D
operation straight away. I also only bought a 300D cos the 10D was
impossible to get hold of. I did wait for just too long to get a 10D new.
By the time the 20D launched i could get one for the same price as a new
350D. I foolishly waited that bit longer. If you shoot landscapes you will
need mega bucks to buy a quality 17-40F4L. The ef-s range of lenses do not
fit the 10D. It does on the latest 3 bodies. Other than that the noise is
low enough and the handling good enough to rival the 20D. Also the
continuous shooting isn't bad. The frame rate is behind the 20D but that is
it. I didn't hear as much criticism with the 10D regarding lockups, or
misfocusing. If you currently own a quality film camera you will still need
to buy a 17mm lens. Frame rates aren't an issue for landscapes and 2.5 or
3fps is adequate for all but the most demanding sports photographers.

Reply to this Message

This old Bob - 14 Dec 2005 06:20 GMT

Thanks for writing but I was hoping for a reference to a source which said
the 350D and 20D sensors were not the same.

Reply to this Message

ian lincoln - 14 Dec 2005 12:31 GMT

> Thanks for writing but I was hoping for a reference to a source which said
> the 350D and 20D sensors were not the same.

It was a review in amateur photographer. My other source is
www.dpreview.com

Reply to this Message

l e o - 14 Dec 2005 14:41 GMT

> Thanks for writing but I was hoping for a reference to a source which said
> the 350D and 20D sensors were not the same.

If you read the specification at dpreview closely. The dimensions of the
sensors are not the same.

Reply to this Message