Upgrading from a 10D, Nikon or Canon?

robscomputer

Hello,

I've been shooting with my Canon 10D since 2005, and really running into some performance issues. I was set on buying a 40D but then thinking that I could go with Nikon or Canon, since I don't have a large kit.

Here's a list of my biggest problems with the 10D.

1) Noise - Camera is pretty much set to 100ISO all of the time. Anything above will get too much noise and 1600ISO is just way too much.

2) Buffer - I shoot RAW and when taking single pictures isn't bad but on motordrive it's really bad. I wait about 2 minutes between 7 shots before I can take the next 7.

3) Viewfinder - I wear glasses and the little view finder of the 10D is sometimes difficult to view from especially when the camera is at a funny angle or on a tripod.

I take mostly landscape and some action, and really like wide angle lens. So I was thinking I could go with the Canon 40D, and the 10-22, but at that price, it's close to the price of the Canon 5D (just use my current 17-40mm).

Another choice was going to Nikon D300? I heard that Nikon has better flashes than Canon?

Any comments or suggestions are welcome!

claudermilk

Well, anything you get that's current will leave your 10D in the dust. Just the nature of the beast (the current bodies will leave my 20D behind for he most part, too).

Nikon does have a better-thought-out flash system. I'll leave any further debate to the experts--my knowledge is limited to occasional use of a 580 on auto.

If you are going to switch it sounds like this is the time with a small kit. Once you get more heavily invested in lenses & other proprietary accessories it becomes painful.

swintonphoto

robscomputer wrote:

Hello,

I've been shooting with my Canon 10D since 2005, and really running into some performance issues. I was set on buying a 40D but then thinking that I could go with Nikon or Canon, since I don't have a large kit.

Here's a list of my biggest problems with the 10D.

1) Noise - Camera is pretty much set to 100ISO all of the time. Anything above will get too much noise and 1600ISO is just way too much.

2) Buffer - I shoot RAW and when taking single pictures isn't bad but on motordrive it's really bad. I wait about 2 minutes between 7 shots before I can take the next 7.

3) Viewfinder - I wear glasses and the little view finder of the 10D is sometimes difficult to view from especially when the camera is at a funny angle or on a tripod.

I take mostly landscape and some action, and really like wide angle lens. So I was thinking I could go with the Canon 40D, and the 10-22, but at that price, it's close to the price of the Canon 5D (just use my current 17-40mm).

Another choice was going to Nikon D300? I heard that Nikon has better flashes than Canon?

Any comments or suggestions are welcome!

The speed issues may be as much about the speed of the cards you are using as anything. For example I have a CF card that takes 40 seconds to write 5 raw images to, and another one that takes 5 seconds to write the same. The camera isn't the issue, its the card.
The Nikon D-300 looks like one of the best camera options for the price on the market in my opinion. That being said, the 40D and 5D are also awesome. I really don't think you will go wrong with any of them. If you have an unlimited budget the Nikon D3 looks like the most amazing DSLR ever made.
A little push for another, as a happy Olympus user, I would recommend checking out the E-3 as well.
Nice thing is now you can't make a bad decision because all these cameras are really great.
Good luck!

Shima

robscomputer wrote:

Hello,

I've been shooting with my Canon 10D since 2005, and really running into some performance issues. I was set on buying a 40D but then thinking that I could go with Nikon or Canon, since I don't have a large kit.

Here's a list of my biggest problems with the 10D.

1) Noise - Camera is pretty much set to 100ISO all of the time. Anything above will get too much noise and 1600ISO is just way too much.

2) Buffer - I shoot RAW and when taking single pictures isn't bad but on motordrive it's really bad. I wait about 2 minutes between 7 shots before I can take the next 7.

3) Viewfinder - I wear glasses and the little view finder of the 10D is sometimes difficult to view from especially when the camera is at a funny angle or on a tripod.

I take mostly landscape and some action, and really like wide angle lens. So I was thinking I could go with the Canon 40D, and the 10-22, but at that price, it's close to the price of the Canon 5D (just use my current 17-40mm).

Another choice was going to Nikon D300? I heard that Nikon has better flashes than Canon?

Any comments or suggestions are welcome!

I'm saving for a 40D myself, it has an awesome buffer. To get an idea of how bad ISO is on the cameras you're considering I'd recommend looking at dpreview.com They have excellent examples that will show you noise levels on the different dslr's.

Tee Why

If you already have a 17-40, I'd lean towards the 5D.
If you really do a lot of sports though, the higher fps and the larger buffer pushes me towards the 40D.

The Nikon D300 is nice. If I had to start from the beginning and need to do landscapes and sports, I'd probably go wtih either a 40D or a D300, mainly b/c the 5D is a bit slower than the other two.

Manfr3d

Reading this thread I want to add a couple of points:

The 10D is indeed limited by 1.5MB/s write speed
so even a faster card will not help you much. I use
Sandisk Ultra II and Extreme IV with the 10D.
The only difference in speed is when formating
the card and when reviewing images. Writing
is the same. The buffer accepts 9 (not 7) RAW
images in burst mode and takes aproximately 60
seconds to clear.

I don't know if you've tried shooting JPEG for
sports. Thats what I do with the 10D +70-200/2.8L
and it has worked good for me so far. Of course
it's not as nice as with a 40D but it can be done.

If your heart is really set on sports photography
you should buy a faster camera like the 40D or D300.
But if you prefer landscape, portrait etc. etc.
I recommend to go with the laaaarge Viewfinder
of a 5D. It makes a huge difference and the image
quality of the 5D is amazing too.

By the way the 40D has almost identical NOISE
performace as the 20D and 30D. Why? because
the 40D underexposes 1/3rd or 1/4th of a stop
per default. See:

your call http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-40D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx

leebase

You'll love the 40D -- it's way better in every way than your 10D. Even the 20D was a leap in improvement. The 10D was still using ETTL, the 20D onward use ETTL II -- which closed the gap considerably as far as flash performance.

With regard to the D300 -- you can't go wrong here either. It's also more expensive.

For the money, I'd stay in the Canon camp with the 40D. But if you have little invested in Canon glass and flashes -- then the D300 is as good a reason to switch to Nikon as you could want.

The 40D and the D300 are comparable cameras -- with the D300 priced about right for it's extra features.

Lee

angevin1

I currently own a D200 and have been troubled by the noise issue, until. Until I began using the Noiseware from Imagenomics. Stuff works, and works well. I have and had been tempted to get a Canon just for that reason, but the imageware fixed that. Interestingly, I needed a second camera to ensure event shots and picked up a used D70S from KEH. If I had to start over and went Nikon, I'd go with the D70S and save my money for glass. It takes fantastic photos, even with the cheapest of glass attached and as others reported, it fires the SB series of flash assemblies in Commander mode (wireless).

tom

TylerW

As someone who made the jump from a 10d to a 40d, its a huge leap forward. I can't speak to the Nikon camp, but I have no regrets at all to my purchase. I used to mis a lot of shots when shooting action with the 10d, not so anymore with the 40.The buffer is massive, the write speed is quick enough that the camera is pretty much always ready to shoot. ISO 1600 is totally useable out of the box, and 3200 looks very good after you hit it with the neat image hammer.

It actually changed my opinion on the desire to go full frame, as someone who shoots both landscapes and sports. There's plenty of wide glass out there for crop sensors, but once you lose that 1.6x crop factor, its expensive to get it back. The only downside to upgrading is that I've had to invest in some CF cards again. 10 megapixels fils a 2gb card a lot faster than 6!

Oh yeah, hi Rob!

robscomputer

Thanks for the suggestions. I take about 80% landscape/non-sports, and 20% sports. For my photography I usually perfer using wide angle lenses, which right now is a 17-40. If I could, I would like to go wider.

Considering this, I'm not sure if it's worth the full frame, or just buy the 10-22. I'll have to read up on the performance on both. The 40D seems like the obivous choice, and think it would be enough for everything I need. In addition I can pick up a flash with the body.

TylerW wrote:

As someone who made the jump from a 10d to a 40d, its a huge leap forward. I can't speak to the Nikon camp, but I have no regrets at all to my purchase. I used to mis a lot of shots when shooting action with the 10d, not so anymore with the 40.The buffer is massive, the write speed is quick enough that the camera is pretty much always ready to shoot. ISO 1600 is totally useable out of the box, and 3200 looks very good after you hit it with the neat image hammer.

It actually changed my opinion on the desire to go full frame, as someone who shoots both landscapes and sports. There's plenty of wide glass out there for crop sensors, but once you lose that 1.6x crop factor, its expensive to get it back. The only downside to upgrading is that I've had to invest in some CF cards again. 10 megapixels fils a 2gb card a lot faster than 6!

Oh yeah, hi Rob!

Hi Tyler!

Thanks for your personal review, the 1.6x factor is nice and do believe it's helpful with sports. We need to meet up for some photography!

Thanks,
Rob

kini62

robscomputer wrote:

Thanks for the suggestions. I take about 80% landscape/non-sports, and 20% sports. For my photography I usually perfer using wide angle lenses, which right now is a 17-40. If I could, I would like to go wider.

Considering this, I'm not sure if it's worth the full frame, or just buy the 10-22. I'll have to read up on the performance on both. The 40D seems like the obivous choice, and think it would be enough for everything I need. In addition I can pick up a flash with the body.



Hi Tyler!

Thanks for your personal review, the 1.6x factor is nice and do believe it's helpful with sports. We need to meet up for some photography!

Thanks,
Rob

Skip the 10-22 and get the new Tokina 11-16/2.8:D

Apparently the best IQ of any crop sensor ultra wide lens, plus it's 2.8 as well.

Gene

claudermilk

Heehee. Another Tokina to wind up the 10-22 owners with. Even having the excellent 12-24, I am sorely tempted by the 11-16; gets me another mm closer to the Canon wide end (though that's not too important for me), and gets me my f2.8....mmmm... f2.8 from 11mm through 200mm...drool.