Who here would NOT purchase the 400D, and Why?

Started Sep 22, 2006 | Discussions thread
eastbroadtop Regular Member • Posts: 101
choice between 350 and 400...

I just bought my XT a few weeks ago, right when the XTi was hitting the shelves, and a few weeks before the D80 hit the shelves. Why?

1) Price. The XT body was $200 cheaper than the XTi, and $400 cheaper than the D80. That price difference paid for the glass.

2) Resolution. Yes, I know 10 MP is "bigger" than 8MP, but nothing I shoot is ever published wider than one page, so I don't need the extra resolution. For my own personal enlargements, I have yet to print larger than 11 x 14 because I don't have the wall space. I'm told that 8MP is adequate for 16 x 20, so if that's true, I'm set. Okay, you can also "crop" the image more effectively because there are more pixels to chose from. That's why I bought the zoom lens. What's the point of buying a 10MP camera (or 8 or 6) if you're going to crop it down to only 4? Frame your shot with the lens, and you won't need to crop (except to trim the edges).

3) Weight. I'm not a fan of heavy cameras. I carried a 25 pound TV news camera around for 10 years. I'm ready for small. The body is roughly the same size as the AE-1 it's replacing, and larger than the Minolta DiMage I had been using for digital work. I've got the XT and my Mini DV video camera in my camera bag, along with various accessories, and the whole thing comes in less than 10 pounds.

4) Self cleaning chip? Sorry, I'm not convinced it's the cat's meow everyone is talking up. The sales rep I talked to still recommends getting the chip professionally cleaned once a year, so it's not saving me any maintenance costs. I've only got one lens right now, so dust from changing lenses isn't an issue. Even as often as I changed lenses on my AE-1, I never had noticeable dust issues. Besides, that's what Photoshop is for. I work a lot with old photographs, so I'm used to retouching dust and scratches. (And not just by using the Dust and Scratches filter.) If I find it to ever be an issue, I'll look for that in my next camera. But for now, it's not worth the price.

5) More accurate AF? While the XT's AF was certainly a concern, I didn't get the feeling from reading others' opinions that it was a deal breaker. Most seemed quite happy and got stellar results from their XTs. With much of my work being done on manual or center point AF, I didn't think the occasional soft image would be intolerable. Certainly when compared to the number of shots I "missed" because I was busy manually focusing my AE-1, it's still an improvement. It's far more accurate than my Minolta. Again, if it proves to be an issue, I'll upgrade with my next camera.

Bottom line, the XT does everything I need in a camera--excellent image quality, simple to use, lightweight, and manual control over everything. I do wish the viewfinder was larger, but the Good Lord blessed me with 20/15 vision, so even that's not as much an issue as it would be for many.

Who knows what I'll be shooting on in 5 years, but considering I had the AE-1 for over 20, I don't foresee myself upgrading any time soon.



Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MOD imqqmi
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow