«

I'm not too concerned about the megapixel race, but I am ready to move
beyond my 3 MP compact. My film gear has been Canon for many years, so I
have many lenses and familiarity with how Canons operate (my compact is also
a Canon). I know that I can get a pre-owned 10D for a decent price if I
spend a little time looking, and it is built more to the size of my Elan
IIe. I hear some say that it still has better noise characteristics than
either the 20D or the Rebel XT. That would be important to me. The XT is
faster, though. I haven't actually handled a XT yet, but I'm concerned about
the small size of the body and the cramped controls. Having said all that,
is the 10D still a viable alternative to the newer, faster XT?

For my purposes here's how it breaks down:

10D Pros-
Built like a tank
Better noise characteristics (maybe?)
Able to set Kelvin temp
Will fit my hands better
Can be used to ISO3200
Can probably find one for less than the price of a XT

10D Cons-
Heavier
Slower in both shot speed and autofocus
Fewer frames in burst mode

XT Pros-
Faster
Lighter
More frames in burst mode
A few more pixels (although I don't consider the difference from 6 to 8 all
that much)

XT Cons-
Way tiny
Cramped controls
More money than a used 10D

If anyone has experience with both I'd like to hear from you.

Tony wrote:

>I'm not too concerned about the megapixel race, but I am ready to move
>beyond my 3 MP compact. My film gear has been Canon for many years, so I
>have many lenses and familiarity with how Canons operate (my compact is also
>a Canon). I know that I can get a pre-owned 10D for a decent price if I
>spend a little time looking, and it is built more to the size of my Elan
>IIe. I hear some say that it still has better noise characteristics than
>either the 20D or the Rebel XT.

I don't know who said that, but they were probably on medication at the
time.



The 20D and 350D/XT have VERY low noise. The older 10D is about equal at
ISO 100/200 if I remember correctly, but it starts to suffer from noise
issues as the ISO increases, while the 20D and 350D/XT are virtually
noise-free up to about 400 ISO, and quite useable at 800 and 1600.

I may be wrong on this, but generally speaking, the newer cameras handle
noise much better.

>That would be important to me. The XT is
>faster, though. I haven't actually handled a XT yet, but I'm concerned about
>the small size of the body and the cramped controls. Having said all that,
>is the 10D still a viable alternative to the newer, faster XT?

Yes and no.

The 10D is viable if you need specific features that it has over the XT.
But beyond that, the XT is the way to go.

I agree that the 350D/XT is very small, perhaps even cramped to the
large-handed amongst us. But myself, being of medium sized hand, find it
somewhat small too but practical none-the-less. It's small, light, and
fully featured, which means it has most of the functionality of the 20D,
but in a smaller, lighter package, which is something I wanted.

The glass that's mounted on the body is more important to me than the
body, within practical limits of functionality of course, and that's why
I chose the XT over the more expensive 20D.

>For my purposes here's how it breaks down:
>
>10D Pros-
>Built like a tank
>Better noise characteristics (maybe?)
>Able to set Kelvin temp
>Will fit my hands better
>Can be used to ISO3200

Most of the pros/cons are meaningless.

The ability to set Kelvin temperature and reaching ISO 3200 may be of
some benefit under special circumstances, but for most people I doubt it
really means much.

So I'd say go for the XT, unless the size is a serious issue for you.

Something I noticed, people with smaller hands find that using the XT
without the vertical grip is actually a benefit. I like the grip, but I
don't have small hands...not big either, but my girlfriend doesn't like
the grip as it cramps her "pinky finger".

>Can probably find one for less than the price of a XT

Performance is the main issue as far as I'm concerned. The 8mp to 6mp
difference is negligible, so I'd concentrate on features and usability
over most other things.

In article <rMCdnSdDi64QlaveRVn->, Tony <>
wrote:


> 10D Pros-
> Built like a tank
Yep
> Better noise characteristics (maybe?)
No complaints here
> Able to set Kelvin temp
Don't care - shoor RAW
> Will fit my hands better
> Can be used to ISO3200
Yeah, but it's not a pretty sight
> Can probably find one for less than the price of a XT
>
> 10D Cons-
> Heavier
> Slower in both shot speed and autofocus
Jeez...think before you press the button
> Fewer frames in burst mode
Again...think before you press the button

It's been a little over 2 years since I bought my 10D and I have no
complaints. Yeah, I'd like a few more MP, but the 16x20s on my wall
attest to the quality of the 10D.

"Bill" <> wrote in message news:_b6dneG8s6Z4vaveRVn-...
> Tony wrote:
>
>>I'm not too concerned about the megapixel race, but I am ready to move
>>beyond my 3 MP compact. My film gear has been Canon for many years, so I
>>have many lenses and familiarity with how Canons operate (my compact is
>>also
>>a Canon). I know that I can get a pre-owned 10D for a decent price if I
>>spend a little time looking, and it is built more to the size of my Elan
>>IIe. I hear some say that it still has better noise characteristics than
>>either the 20D or the Rebel XT.
>
> I don't know who said that, but they were probably on medication at the
> time.
>
>

Hmm, I've done a bit more looking and I see much more info indicating the
20D noise characteristics are either indistinguishable from the 10D or
slightly better, so I stand corrected.


>
> The 20D and 350D/XT have VERY low noise. The older 10D is about equal at
> ISO 100/200 if I remember correctly, but it starts to suffer from noise
> issues as the ISO increases, while the 20D and 350D/XT are virtually
> noise-free up to about 400 ISO, and quite useable at 800 and 1600.
>
> I may be wrong on this, but generally speaking, the newer cameras handle
> noise much better.
>
>>That would be important to me. The XT is
>>faster, though. I haven't actually handled a XT yet, but I'm concerned
>>about
>>the small size of the body and the cramped controls. Having said all that,
>>is the 10D still a viable alternative to the newer, faster XT?
>
> Yes and no.
>
> The 10D is viable if you need specific features that it has over the XT.
> But beyond that, the XT is the way to go.
>
> I agree that the 350D/XT is very small, perhaps even cramped to the
> large-handed amongst us. But myself, being of medium sized hand, find it
> somewhat small too but practical none-the-less. It's small, light, and
> fully featured, which means it has most of the functionality of the 20D,
> but in a smaller, lighter package, which is something I wanted.
>

I have handled a 10D and like the way it feels, but have not yet played with
a XT. I have used a Canon S1 quite a bit (it's the camera we use at work).
Have you used the S1 at all? If so how does the XT compare in terms of "hand
usability"?


> The glass that's mounted on the body is more important to me than the
> body, within practical limits of functionality of course, and that's why
> I chose the XT over the more expensive 20D.
>

....remainder snipped...

Tony wrote:

> I have handled a 10D and like the way it feels, but have not yet
> played with a XT.

-Then I'd wager you won't like the way the XT feels.
It is much smaller and lighter, with a distinctly flimsy,
less-secure-in-your-hands feel (at least to me...).
I'm sure it produces fine images, but with regard to "feel"...it's not
right/ready for my hands.

"A disturbing new study finds that studies are disturbing"
"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:5DBZe.31070$sx2.22463@fed1read02...
> Tony wrote:
>
>> I have handled a 10D and like the way it feels, but have not yet
>> played with a XT.
>
> -Then I'd wager you won't like the way the XT feels.
> It is much smaller and lighter, with a distinctly flimsy,
> less-secure-in-your-hands feel (at least to me...).
> I'm sure it produces fine images, but with regard to "feel"...it's not
> right/ready for my hands.


Got to agree w/ you here Mark. Tried it out when they first came out and
now my sister has one so I've had plenty of time to play with her's w/ my
lenses and I just don't like it. I put on my EF 28-135 and even that lens
dwarfs the body making it feel very unbalanced. It may feel better with the
vertical grip attached (a must have for any body IMHO) but out of the box it
just felt way tooo small.

My advice to the OP is the same I give every time this comes up. Go to the
local camera store and try out the different choices. Buy what you are most
comfortable with and nothing less even if that means saving a few more
bucks. I was all ready to buy when the XT came out but after holding it I
decided to wait for the money to buy a 20D. I've very glad I did.

--

Rob

Tony wrote:

>> I agree that the 350D/XT is very small, perhaps even cramped to the
>> large-handed amongst us. But myself, being of medium sized hand, find it
>> somewhat small too but practical none-the-less. It's small, light, and
>> fully featured, which means it has most of the functionality of the 20D,
>> but in a smaller, lighter package, which is something I wanted.
>
>I have handled a 10D and like the way it feels, but have not yet played with
>a XT.

The XT is quite small and if you've used a film SLR, then initial
handling is definitely going to be negative.

I thought the XT was way too small at first as well when handling one in
the store. But I also had a chance to borrow one from a friend and shoot
with it all day long. Oddly enough, my opinion changed as I began to
become accustomed to the size, weight, and operational control of the
XT. By the end of the day, the small size wasn't really a factor.

Now after using the XT for a while, I can't stand my film body as it
seems like a massive hulk compared to the XT. As with all things,
regular use allows you to adjust to the size of the XT. Everything is
relative I guess.



> I have used a Canon S1 quite a bit (it's the camera we use at work).
>Have you used the S1 at all? If so how does the XT compare in terms of "hand
>usability"?

Sorry, I haven't used the S1 so I can't offer any insight.

[This followup was posted to rec.photo.digital and a copy was sent to the
cited author.]

In article <hrudnfIqR4-7aqveRVn->,
says...
> I was all ready to buy when the XT came out but after holding it I
> decided to wait for the money to buy a 20D. I've very glad I did.
>
I had the same negative reaction when I first held the 350D/XT just after
its release, but I bought one a few months later and quickly got used to
the feel. For me, the change came when I realised I could use the right
side of the end of my index finger on the shutter.

I now appreciate the small size and weight and I'll put the money I saved
towards a second full frame body when they become less expensive.

Robert R Kircher, Jr. wrote:

>>> I have handled a 10D and like the way it feels, but have not yet
>>> played with a XT.
>>
>> -Then I'd wager you won't like the way the XT feels.
>> It is much smaller and lighter,

Everyone has their own preferences. Personally, I now like the smaller
size of the XT with almost all lenses, except the tiny 50mm f/1.8. In
which case it's difficult to hold the combo by the lense, which is what
I do with most of my other lenses when not on a tripod.

The small size and weight is an advantage for me as I have enough weight
in lenses to haul around with me.

I will admit I didn't like the size at first either since I was moving
from a medium sized film body with grip to the little XT. But after
using it for a day, my opinion changed.

Now I find handling a 20D is too big and I don't like it. It feels
"bloated and heavy" by comparison. It's all relative.

>now my sister has one so I've had plenty of time to play with her's w/ my
>lenses and I just don't like it. I put on my EF 28-135 and even that lens
>dwarfs the body making it feel very unbalanced.

"Dwarfs the body"?

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make much sense...what would you say if
you had a bigger lense like the 70-200 f/2.8 on it? Of course it will
dwarf the body, but it does that with almost any camera body, including
the 20D.

My point is, who cares what the combo looks like. Functionality is the
primary concern. If the XT was another 25% smaller with tiny buttons and
controls, then it might be difficult to operate and become an issue. But
from a usability point of view, it's not too small.

Of course, opinions vary.

"A disturbing new study finds that studies are disturbing"
"Bill" <> wrote in message news:MJqdnTdQEb6u8qreRVn-...
> Robert R Kircher, Jr. wrote:
>
>>>> I have handled a 10D and like the way it feels, but have not yet
>>>> played with a XT.
>>>
>>> -Then I'd wager you won't like the way the XT feels.
>>> It is much smaller and lighter,
>
> Everyone has their own preferences. Personally, I now like the smaller
> size of the XT with almost all lenses, except the tiny 50mm f/1.8. In
> which case it's difficult to hold the combo by the lense, which is what
> I do with most of my other lenses when not on a tripod.
>
> The small size and weight is an advantage for me as I have enough weight
> in lenses to haul around with me.
>
> I will admit I didn't like the size at first either since I was moving
> from a medium sized film body with grip to the little XT. But after
> using it for a day, my opinion changed.
>
> Now I find handling a 20D is too big and I don't like it. It feels
> "bloated and heavy" by comparison. It's all relative.
>
>>now my sister has one so I've had plenty of time to play with her's w/ my
>>lenses and I just don't like it. I put on my EF 28-135 and even that lens
>>dwarfs the body making it feel very unbalanced.
>
> "Dwarfs the body"?
>
> I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make much sense...what would you say if
> you had a bigger lense like the 70-200 f/2.8 on it? Of course it will
> dwarf the body, but it does that with almost any camera body, including
> the 20D.
>
> My point is, who cares what the combo looks like. Functionality is the
> primary concern. If the XT was another 25% smaller with tiny buttons and
> controls, then it might be difficult to operate and become an issue. But
> from a usability point of view, it's not too small.
>
> Of course, opinions vary.


Well as you've said to each their own. Just as you don't like to work with
the 20D I simply don't like to work with the 350D which was quite a
disappointment to me because the feature/dollar is very attractive.

As to use of the term I don't mean to indicate the look of the combination,
I'm referring the physical mass of the two in comparison to what I'm used
to. I found my hands hit each other and I found the grip to be too narrow
to get a good one hand grip on the camera.

In regards to adding a larger zoom or telephoto, this is where I think the
350D could shine. The lens is heavy enough why add a heavy body, but again
I found the balance off at least from what I'm used to using.

Don't get me wrong, I think the body is packed with great feature for it's
price. I just wanted to caution that before anyone lay out $800 + dollars
they should try any possible body on for sizes. I've had enough occasion to
use my sisters 350D to know I wouldn't like it. Others. like yourself, may
very well find the body to your liking. I would suggest to the OP that if
he tries it out and likes it, it can be a great choice because the $400
difference between the 350D and the 20D could net him a good lens.

--

Rob