Reading mode: Light Dark

Canon EOS 400D + specs at RobGalbraith.com

Go to last post
thw said:
in-camera image stabalization in Canon DSLRs. The white paper for
the 400D explains why.

Personally, I was expecting (i) larger viewfinder (ii) color temp
white balance (iii) auto iso (iv) 1/3rd iso steps (v) much larger
grip (vi) wider DR and true ISO 3200 (especially in view of Chuck
Westfall's recent interview).

I don't believe the 400D cannot be better than the 30D in terms of
features. It may not have 5 fps and the built, but I was certainly
expecting it to trump competing models (especially Sony A100 and
Nikon D80) in terms of the features I mention above.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, the Nikon entry level is still the D50 and for Pentax the K100D. Unless Canon is coming with a simpler version, this one must compete with those.... Not only in features but also in price.

This may not be a concern fo most posters here who already have a dslr, but it might be for total Newbies.
thw said:
BUT the improved AF is the only thing I truly WANT. So, I guess
it's alright. No money now for upgrade... will only do so in year
2008. ;)

-------------------------------------------
See the colors of my world in:
thw.smugmug.com
-------------------------------------------
Click to expand...
--
janneman
http://www.pbase.com/jl2

 
T3 said:
David Martin said:
T3 said:
David Martin said:
There are a lot of very welcome improvements there, chiefly the
improved AF.
In my view they are seriously behind the competition in two
respects though - and I don't mean in-body IS.
The viewfinder - they are sticking to tht 'tunnel' - that must now
be the worst viewfinder in it's class by a mile, The D80 hammers
it, the A100 is better, and the Pentax a lot better too.
Click to expand...
In the entry-level segment, the vast majority of buyers aren't
going to make the viewfinder their determining factor. After all,
most of these buyers are moving up from digicams that don't have
viewfinders anyways. Furthermore, few if any of these buyers are
ever going to use the viewfinder for manual focus, so it'll
probably never be an issue.
Click to expand...
I really wasn't focussing on whether it will sell. I was mainly
interested in how good I feel the camera to be.
And it's not realy about MF. If we want to talk buyers, most DSLR
buyers are in the same boat as me - over 50, with none too
brilliant eyesight.
Plus it is just nicer to look through a decent viewfinder.
Click to expand...
Sure, but for the typical entry-level buyer that these cameras are
aimed at, it probably isn't even going to be considered.
Click to expand...
I give up. I am just interested in what the cameras are like - I couldn't give a toss how many Canon sell relative to how many Nikon sell - I don't own shares in either.
Is having a decent viewfinder better or not?

Don't know why you feel the need to defend Canon against all comers - they will do just fine without.

Many aspects of the D80 are quite clearly better than the 400D, and even better than the 30D.
That does not mean to say either camera is rubbish.

However, this is obviously just based on the information to hand, and until we get more high ISO shots from the D80 we will not know for sure.

You can also save a couple of hundred buying the 400D rather than the D80, which I hadn't realised in my initial post.
T3 said:
SNIP
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
DaveMart

'Just a wildebeast on the plain of life'
Please see profile for equipment
 
because a lot of people including me - like the body. As to plastic - it's probably tougher than metal these days. I dropped my 300D five feet onto hard wooden flooring and the only thing damaged was the battery door. OTOH my metal Ixus has a large dent in its metal body - and I don't even know when it happened.
--
TonySD
 
That's true. Sometimes plastic body would be more resistant to physical damage than metal one. And I like the 350D body pretty much. The size is so perfect.
Tony SD said:
because a lot of people including me - like the body. As to
plastic - it's probably tougher than metal these days. I dropped
my 300D five feet onto hard wooden flooring and the only thing
damaged was the battery door. OTOH my metal Ixus has a large dent
in its metal body - and I don't even know when it happened.
--
TonySD
Click to expand...
 
Do others find this XTi really very exciting? I don't. It seems like a VERY mild upgrade. Am I missing something?

Uh, not to mention..

That has to be the ugliest / clunkiest camera I think I have ever seen.

Doesn't Canon have SOMEONE in their design department to catch the bodies up to THIS century.

???

--
Sal Sessa / Dallas, TX USA
http://www.salsessa.com
 
While new features are always nice, there's nothing here that would cause me to be sorry I had bought a 350 less than a year ago.

My focus now is on improving my PP skills to achieve the results I want and to decide on a new walk-around lens (my 28-105 just isn't wide enough for travel).

10mgp is always nice but I don't think the upgrade from 8 to 10 is as big as 6 to 8.

Self-cleaning sensor is nice but since I only have one lens (for now anyway) that probably hasn't been an issue for me.

I see our CF cards have not been pushed off the map.

I guess in this day and age of technology, Canon was a bit conflicted.

Many current XT owners would be upset if there were compelling reasons to upgrade. Obsolescence on successive models is a bit much.

I think existing customers would accept alternate releases. Depending upon the next specs in 18-24 months from now, I might consider it.

I wonder how many people who bought XTs within the past 6-8 months are now sorry they didn't wait? Probably not many.
 
The article says the kit lens is 18-55mm. The picture in this article shows an 18-85mm. are my eyes bad? which is it?
 
The D80 costs $200 more?Is the Raw converter for this Nikon $100,too?
 
Myer said:
While new features are always nice, there's nothing here that would
cause me to be sorry I had bought a 350 less than a year ago.

My focus now is on improving my PP skills to achieve the results I
want and to decide on a new walk-around lens (my 28-105 just isn't
wide enough for travel).

10mgp is always nice but I don't think the upgrade from 8 to 10 is
as big as 6 to 8.

Self-cleaning sensor is nice but since I only have one lens (for
now anyway) that probably hasn't been an issue for me.

I see our CF cards have not been pushed off the map.

I guess in this day and age of technology, Canon was a bit conflicted.

Many current XT owners would be upset if there were compelling
reasons to upgrade. Obsolescence on successive models is a bit much.

I think existing customers would accept alternate releases.
Depending upon the next specs in 18-24 months from now, I might
consider it.

I wonder how many people who bought XTs within the past 6-8 months
are now sorry they didn't wait? Probably not many.
Click to expand...
Good point. The thing is, in this thread the "dissapointed ones" look at the 400D as an upgrade, but it is "merely" the next entry level Canon. Just the 300D or 350D updated to what Canon thinks an entry level camera should have now. If you want a true upgrade, then look at the 30D or 5D

--
janneman
http://www.pbase.com/jl2

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top