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

Discussion in 'Canon' started by Eugene Wendland, Dec 9, 2005.

  1. 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.


    Eugene Wendland
    Eugene Wendland, Dec 9, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Eugene Wendland

    Bill Guest

    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.
    Bill, Dec 10, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Eugene Wendland

    Jim Redelfs Guest

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

    Jim Redelfs, Dec 10, 2005
  4. Eugene Wendland

    Steve Wolfe Guest

    forget about the megapixels...the difference
    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.
    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 Wolfe, Dec 10, 2005
  5. Eugene Wendland

    Hannu Guest

    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 :)
    Hannu, Dec 10, 2005
  6. Eugene Wendland

    This old Bob Guest

    From what I have seen the high ISO has a lot less noise on the XT/20D sensor
    compared with the 300D/10D sensor.
    This old Bob, Dec 10, 2005
  7. Eugene Wendland

    ian lincoln Guest

    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.
    ian lincoln, Dec 13, 2005
  8. Eugene Wendland

    This old Bob Guest

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

    This old Bob, Dec 13, 2005
  9. Eugene Wendland

    ian lincoln Guest

    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.
    ian lincoln, Dec 14, 2005
  10. Eugene Wendland

    This old Bob Guest

    Thanks for writing but I was hoping for a reference to a source which said
    the 350D and 20D sensors were not the same.
    This old Bob, Dec 14, 2005
  11. Eugene Wendland

    ian lincoln Guest

    It was a review in amateur photographer. My other source is
    ian lincoln, Dec 14, 2005
  12. Eugene Wendland

    l e o Guest

    If you read the specification at dpreview closely. The dimensions of the
    sensors are not the same.
    l e o, Dec 14, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.