Canon 10D vs. Canon XTI...

Hi, may be a stupid question - I'm new to digital cameras, I'm
switching from my Canon A1 and I was offered a Canon EOS 10D with a
18-55mm lens for $650.00 CAD. I'm seeing in the advertisments coming
out now that you can get a Canon EOS XTI with a 18-55mm & 75-300mm for
about $850.00 CAD. Here is the stupid part - Is the XTI that much
better of a camera with the higher megapixels or was the 10D a
different and/or better series of camera...

Thanks to all...

On Nov 30, 4:49 pm, wrote:
Hi, may be a stupid question - I'm new to digital cameras, I'm
switching from my Canon A1 and I was offered a Canon EOS 10D with a
18-55mm lens for $650.00 CAD. I'm seeing in the advertisments coming
out now that you can get a Canon EOS XTI with a 18-55mm & 75-300mm for
about $850.00 CAD. Here is the stupid part - Is the XTI that much
better of a camera with the higher megapixels or was the 10D a
different and/or better series of camera...

Thanks to all...

The 10D is much more rugged than the XTi, but it's an antique.

wrote in message
...
Hi, may be a stupid question - I'm new to digital cameras, I'm
switching from my Canon A1 and I was offered a Canon EOS 10D with a
18-55mm lens for $650.00 CAD. I'm seeing in the advertisments coming
out now that you can get a Canon EOS XTI with a 18-55mm & 75-300mm for
about $850.00 CAD. Here is the stupid part - Is the XTI that much
better of a camera with the higher megapixels or was the 10D a
different and/or better series of camera...

Thanks to all...

The difference in megapixels is insignificant. But the XTi does offer the
built-in anti-dust mechanism. Not sure how well it works. The 10D does
have a better build and personally I prefer the control layout. You should
really handle both to see if you have a strong preference for one or the
other. Keep in mind the 10D is used, so unless you can find out just how
many shutter actuations it's had you don't know if you're buying a camera
that might need a shutter replacement soon.

Mark

In article , Mark B.
wrote:

Hi, may be a stupid question - I'm new to digital cameras, I'm
switching from my Canon A1 and I was offered a Canon EOS 10D with a
18-55mm lens for $650.00 CAD. I'm seeing in the advertisments coming
out now that you can get a Canon EOS XTI with a 18-55mm & 75-300mm for
about $850.00 CAD. Here is the stupid part - Is the XTI that much
better of a camera with the higher megapixels or was the 10D a
different and/or better series of camera...

The difference in megapixels is insignificant. But the XTi does offer the
built-in anti-dust mechanism. Not sure how well it works. The 10D does
have a better build and personally I prefer the control layout. You should
really handle both to see if you have a strong preference for one or the
other. Keep in mind the 10D is used, so unless you can find out just how
many shutter actuations it's had you don't know if you're buying a camera
that might need a shutter replacement soon.

also, the canon 10d can't accept ef-s lenses, whereas the xti can. the
canon 18-55 lens is an ef-s lens, and therefore it won't mount on a 10d
unless either the camera or the lens has been physically modified.

or, maybe the description is wrong and it comes with a different lens.

In article , Scott W
wrote:

The 10D should make a pretty good looking 8 x 12 inch print and it still
a pretty good camera, but I would not totally discount the extra
resolution of the XTi.

I have 16x20s on my wall made from my 10D, and I doubt you could tell
them from film.

In article , Scott W
wrote:

Maybe not, but I could sure tell them from the same shot taken with a
XTi, assuming a good lens was used. Well unless you have furniture in
the way of getting up close to the print.

A lot of it comes down to technique.

On Dec 2, 1:22 am, Scott W wrote:

For a 12x18 inch print the XTi would print at 216 ppi, not great but not
too bad. The 10D would print at 170 ppi, the difference would be pretty
easy to see.

You would never be able to see those differences.
OK, maybe "never' is a strong word.
Let's just say that with normal source material you would never be
able to see those differences.

In article , Scott W
wrote:

Buy the guy looking to buy either a 10D or a XTi would be using the same
technique with either camera, so that does not enter into it.

Given the choice, I'd go with the XTi just because it's newer. But I'm
not about to give up my 10D.

I am not saying that pixels are the most important thing in this world,
I have an 8MP camera and I am not going to rush out and get a 10MP one
just for the extra resolution.

No, and we both could probably shoot at higher ASAs with less noise
than the 10MP.

But Mark said "The difference in megapixels is insignificant", this is
just not true, certainly not between 6 and 10 MP.

I haven't seen the need to upgrade yet. Although that 30+MP Hasselblad
looks attractive...

"Scott W" wrote in message
...
Mr. Strat wrote:
In article , Scott W
wrote:

Maybe not, but I could sure tell them from the same shot taken with a
XTi, assuming a good lens was used. Well unless you have furniture in
the way of getting up close to the print.

A lot of it comes down to technique.

Buy the guy looking to buy either a 10D or a XTi would be using the same
technique with either camera, so that does not enter into it.

I am not saying that pixels are the most important thing in this world, I
have an 8MP camera and I am not going to rush out and get a 10MP one just
for the extra resolution.

But Mark said "The difference in megapixels is insignificant", this is
just not true, certainly not between 6 and 10 MP.

Scott

I was thinking of the xTi's predecessor which was 8mp. At larger print
sizes, there should be a more obvious difference between 10 & 6mp.

Mark

On Dec 5, 6:46 am, Annika1980 wrote:
On Dec 2, 1:22 am, Scott W wrote:

For a 12x18 inch print the XTi would print at 216 ppi, not great but not
too bad. The 10D would print at 170 ppi, the difference would be pretty
easy to see.

You would never be able to see those differences.
OK, maybe "never' is a strong word.
Let's just say that with normal source material you would never be
able to see those differences.

Well, that is about the difference you would get between a 300mm lens
and a 400mm one, not quite but close. Say I take two photos, one
with a 300mm lens and one with a 381mm lens and printed both images
the same size, could you tell the difference? If not it would seem
that we could all be happy with 300mm lenses and not worry about
400mm, just shoot with the 300mm lens and crop more.

Scott