Picture Quality 350d versus 400d

It seems like I am waiting for a definitive answer to question about photo quality between these two cameras. Is the 400d, better , much better or slightly better or the same as the xt? At the beginning we heard the comparison of a few users suggesting the results were the same but I wondered if it was their refusal to want to upgrade or if they really believed it. Second was the under exposure issue that doesn't seem to be much of an issue or does it? Finally I heard the extra 2 million megapixels with an L series lens will make the 400d standout? What about with not L series lens. Are the photos we are seeing better or worse then 350d? I think they are better but I have not tracked if it was because of the lens or not? Any opinions appreciated . Rick

rick said:

It seems like I am waiting for a definitive answer to question
about photo quality between these two cameras. Is the 400d, better
, much better or slightly better or the same as the xt? At the
beginning we heard the comparison of a few users suggesting the
results were the same but I wondered if it was their refusal to
want to upgrade or if they really believed it.

Click to expand...

It seems you can expect just about the same image quality with the same or perhaps a touch noisier high ISO - Canon themselves has implied as much. Note that being as good as the 350D really is very good; there are no glaring defects to fix or anuthing.

rick66883 said:

Second was the under
exposure issue that doesn't seem to be much of an issue or does it?

Click to expand...

If there is such an issue it just mirrors the view of some people that the 350D was prone to overexposure (blowing out highlights). It's quite possible Canon has gone for a bit lower default exposure level to avoid that. Nothing to worry about and you can trivially adjust the behaviour yourself by adjusting the exposure compensation setting anyhow.

rick66883 said:

Finally I heard the extra 2 million megapixels with an L series
lens will make the 400d standout? What about with not L series
lens. Are the photos we are seeing better or worse then 350d? I
think they are better but I have not tracked if it was because of
the lens or not? Any opinions appreciated . Rick

Click to expand...

The difference between 8mp and 10mp is pretty unlikely to make any kind of visible difference. You probably need to set up a test shot, with the two cameras side by side, taking the same scene, then pixel-peep to find any visual difference.

To put it this way, the linear resolution for a 10mp sensor is about 11% bigger. It means that for nine pixels in a row from the 350D you have ten pixels from the 400D covering the same area. In any kind of natural scene, you're not going to see any meaningful improvement in quality.

--
Japan: http://www.lucs.lu.se/people/jan.moren/log/current.html
Images: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jannem/

I've taken a good number of pictures at Classic Car Shows with both cameras - using the 18-55 kit lens. Both produced excellent pictures and I couldn't distinguish the pictures of one camera from the other. Meanwhile, I bought the XTi because I really like the large, easy to see LCD - for both changing settings and viewing pictures. In the near future I may purchase a 50mm f1.4 or perhaps another faster, short zoom for use in photographing family weddings in dimly lit churches and reception halls. But, for now the kit lens does a fine job.
Good luck.
--
Favorite slogan: Photographers take pictures, not cameras.

rick said:

It seems like I am waiting for a definitive answer to question
about photo quality between these two cameras. Is the 400d, better
, much better or slightly better or the same as the xt?

Click to expand...

Canon's engineer of the 400D was pretty honest about it: the quality is the same - not superior, not inferior.

Of course, the advantage of the 2Mp more remains, in terms of larger printable size. If you don't print your images, then I think that for you there should be no real difference between the two. I have upgraded from the 300D and I can see the difference, but for a 350D owner I think it's not the same. I would have not upgraded if I had a 350D.

ON the other hand, there is a few improvements other than size that may be worth considering. One is the LCD - as a mostly outdoors photographer, I can tell you that you can really feel and use the difference in LCD size!! You can judge the pictures better on the site, and at the end of the day, your eyesight is less tired.

Another thing to consider is the autofocus: it really works much better than 300D's, and since 350D has the same as 300D, I think you would also feel the improvement. But if you focus mostly manually, as I do, this also may not be a significant difference.