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

Started Sep 22, 2006 | Discussions
strikeback03 Senior Member • Posts: 2,892
keep dreaming

ok, most of those are viable, but 30fps at full resolution is not. obviously it's way beyond the capabilities of a shutter, so it would be electronically handled. and HD video is far lower resolution than 8-10MP, so it is not realistic to expect that bandwidth at all.

but it seems you basically want a high-quality video camera with a larger sensor.
--
http://www.linelight.org/

Greenmind Regular Member • Posts: 271
Re: Who here would NOT purchase the 400D, and Why?

First off I think you need to exclude happy 350D users from this thread for the results to be real. (no offense guys) We've all heard countless people saying "no" simply because they had 350D and while this is a fair enough reason it is not a reflection of the 400D's abilities and more of a reflection of people having what they need from a previous model. It would be like me saying I won't buy a 2007 Toyota Corolla because I already own a 2005 model.

I would buy one and I did.

My reason for buying the XTi is this... As someone moving from an Olympus C750UZ I found it was time to upgrade when my camera started bugging out on me during a Flaming Lips concert I went to. I've always wanted a DSLR but the price was too much for me. The XTi was released the same month I got an extra paycheck and a month before my birthday making it have no impact on my monthly budget. I read a ton of reviews, played with it at the local camera shop and compared it to the D80 (the only other option I've considered) and found I liked the way it felt and the way the settings worked more (probably because of where I'm coming from)

The XTi was a cheap way for me to jump into the DSLR world and see if I wanted to play the game. It's made by a reputable company with an investment in the DSLR market. I plan to spend some money on some new lenses as I get extra cash, then when I make my move back east and experience the pay raise I know I can get from it I will probably get whatever the upgrade to the D30 is and give the XTi to my wife.

I've enjoyed the 1000 or so photos I've taken with my XTi and although my skills are still lacking I'm finding significant improvements every day.

critterbug Regular Member • Posts: 296
Re: Who here would NOT purchase the 400D, and Why?

Returned the XTi today. I had it for 2 weeks, and today was the last day I could return it for full refund. Wasn't an easy decision. IQ is spectacular!

Im still keeping my Canon 50mm prime and Sigma 17-70 though. My mom has an XT, so im going to give my lenses to her, in exchange for being able to occasionally borrow it. The XTi was nice, but if you've got an XT its not really worth the upgrade IMO. Until Canon improves the viewfinder with a higher magnification pentaprism vs the pentamirror setup there using now I dont think its worth it. If you already have the XT that is.

As consumers right now were really in a cant loose situation I think. XTi is a great camera, I just prefer the D80 for my own style/needs. Wasn't an easy decision to return it. Later this week ill be getting a D80 for the better viewfinder, grip/build and the extra features such as wireless flash.

martin surovcek Senior Member • Posts: 1,082
Re: Martin

well, mostly yes, most of them was shooted for free, just for fun.

-- hide signature --

Martin Tony Surovcek
icq:140820372
http://www.n3.sk

BrunoNZ Regular Member • Posts: 446
Not me

I've had one here at work to test for a couple of weeks and like it (mostly) However, like others here:

1] I have the 350D and while there are features in the 400D I'd like, the overall improvement is not enough to justify spending the money

2] Key features I'd like are not in the 400D and I'd need to go up the range to get them -- specifically, 5fps shooting, better viewfinder

3] I'd rather spend money on another lens - either a 17-40mm f/4 or a macro lens - before I replace the body.

LuisG Regular Member • Posts: 128
Because 500D is just around the corner...

...it is so much better, faster and cheaper than the 450D it replaces

Seriously, I see no point in upgrading from 350D, throwing more money on a marginally improved body with such a short life cycle, it will not make better / different / nicer images.

I will skip 1, 2 or even 3 body generations, unless it breaks or something.

If I were in the market now for a new camera, I'd consider 400D.

snapware wrote:

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

-- hide signature --

Regards,
LuisG

SamK2 Contributing Member • Posts: 908
Re: Because 500D is just around the corner...

Luis is quite right. The 400D offers very little over the 350D to make it worth upgrading for the owner of a 350D.

It's not nearly the same as the significant improvements in speed and features that the 350D offered over the 300D.

LuisG wrote:
...it is so much better, faster and cheaper than the 450D it
replaces

Seriously, I see no point in upgrading from 350D, throwing more
money on a marginally improved body with such a short life cycle,
it will not make better / different / nicer images.

I will skip 1, 2 or even 3 body generations, unless it breaks or
something.

If I were in the market now for a new camera, I'd consider 400D.

snapware wrote:

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

Jovo Veteran Member • Posts: 4,200
Re: Because 500D is just around the corner...

Perhaps if you used a 400D for a few weeks you would realise that the 400D is a huge improvement over the 350D. After taking 2900 shots over the last couple of weeks:

1. The focusing is far more accurate and faster, especially with a F2.8L
2. There is a definite improvement in IQ, both on screen and printed
3. Thanks to the extra 2MP, able to crop prints more without losing quality

4. The increased buffer means in RAW I can take 10 shots compared to the previous 4
5. A huge LCD screen on which you can actually see what you have taken
6. Exposure is much better and doesn't blow the highlights anymore
7. Option to use a different histogram
8. Sensor cleaning
9. Increased shutter life
10. My 400mm F5.6L no longer oscillates in AF with the 1.4x TC attached
Etc, etc

So if you believe these benefits offer little over the 350D, you are seriously misinformed.

SamK2 wrote:
Luis is quite right. The 400D offers very little over the 350D to
make it worth upgrading for the owner of a 350D.

It's not nearly the same as the significant improvements in speed
and features that the 350D offered over the 300D.

LuisG wrote:
...it is so much better, faster and cheaper than the 450D it
replaces

Seriously, I see no point in upgrading from 350D, throwing more
money on a marginally improved body with such a short life cycle,
it will not make better / different / nicer images.

I will skip 1, 2 or even 3 body generations, unless it breaks or
something.

If I were in the market now for a new camera, I'd consider 400D.

snapware wrote:

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

-- hide signature --

 Jovo's gear list:Jovo's gear list
Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Sigma 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM Canon EF 24-105mm F3.5-5.6 IS STM
SamK2 Contributing Member • Posts: 908
Re: Because 500D is just around the corner...

Not for me.

I don't have a 400mm lens, and all my Canon lenses focus fine with the 350D, including the 50mm f/1.8 Mark I.

You can get the same exposure on the 350D by setting exposure comp to -1/3, which is what I usually do.

I have taken 9,000 pictures in my first year with the XT, and never filled the buffer. I think somebody who worries about wearing out the shutter should get a 30D anyway, because something else will probably wear out on the 400D before the shutter does.

Jovo wrote:
Perhaps if you used a 400D for a few weeks you would realise that
the 400D is a huge improvement over the 350D. After taking 2900
shots over the last couple of weeks:

1. The focusing is far more accurate and faster, especially with a
F2.8L
2. There is a definite improvement in IQ, both on screen and printed
3. Thanks to the extra 2MP, able to crop prints more without losing
quality
4. The increased buffer means in RAW I can take 10 shots compared
to the previous 4
5. A huge LCD screen on which you can actually see what you have taken
6. Exposure is much better and doesn't blow the highlights anymore
7. Option to use a different histogram
8. Sensor cleaning
9. Increased shutter life
10. My 400mm F5.6L no longer oscillates in AF with the 1.4x TC
attached
Etc, etc

So if you believe these benefits offer little over the 350D, you
are seriously misinformed.

SamK2 wrote:
Luis is quite right. The 400D offers very little over the 350D to
make it worth upgrading for the owner of a 350D.

It's not nearly the same as the significant improvements in speed
and features that the 350D offered over the 300D.

LuisG wrote:
...it is so much better, faster and cheaper than the 450D it
replaces

Seriously, I see no point in upgrading from 350D, throwing more
money on a marginally improved body with such a short life cycle,
it will not make better / different / nicer images.

I will skip 1, 2 or even 3 body generations, unless it breaks or
something.

If I were in the market now for a new camera, I'd consider 400D.

snapware wrote:

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

Bernhard Huber Regular Member • Posts: 250
I think y´re right NT

I think y´re right NT

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.

Later,

K

VincentJ Senior Member • Posts: 2,262
No CF card, BP-511, LCD, etc.

I sure as hell wouldn't. No CF card, no BP-511 batteries, no LCD aperture/shutter speed display, can't reuse my current stock $300 worth CF cards and batteries.

Mirko Cano Regular Member • Posts: 141
I have a 350D...

... and honestly, i think it is silly to upgrade so quickly. I don't think the changes are so important...let's see what the 450D looks like...but i had thought of getting a full frame in a couple of years anyway.

Better invest on lenses...

jgb Veteran Member • Posts: 7,505
Re: No CF card, BP-511, LCD, etc.

The 400D still uses CF cards. The aperture/shutter speed is still displayed on LCD and in the VF. No, you can't use BP-511 batteries.

VincentJ wrote:

I sure as hell wouldn't. No CF card, no BP-511 batteries, no LCD
aperture/shutter speed display, can't reuse my current stock $300
worth CF cards and batteries.

-- hide signature --
fad
fad Forum Pro • Posts: 17,748
I bought one instead of a Leica M8

It's just as small, has great IQ, shares lenses with my 5D, and won't make me feel like an idiot for paying luxury prices for something that, on principle, spits in the face of electronic innovation.

I bought one sight unseen. I know its only weakness is the view finder, and that some find the body too small.

I want small. I bought it with the 35mm f2. So besides being a party camera, a take to the store camera, a long telephoto camera and a second body camera -- it will also be, with the 35mm, a camera I can use like a rangefinder with light weight, fixed lens, manual or preset focus, a low light lens, and somewhat more stealth than the 5D with a large zoom.

Once I paint on the red dot then tape it over, it's a cheap way to fulfill my Cartier Bresson fantasy!

-- hide signature --
 fad's gear list:fad's gear list
Nikon D3S Nikon D800 Nikon D4S Nikon D810 Nikon D750 +23 more
LuisG Regular Member • Posts: 128
Re: Because 500D is just around the corner...

Perhaps if you had my money constraints and photographic skills, you would realise that I have a lot of more significative uses for my hard earned money, including filters, a tele lens, an ultrawide lens, a fast wide prime, a good normal zoom, a good tripod/ballhead, perhaps a good macro, lighting stuff and probably a lot more traveling, that would be a ... let's not say "huge", just "real" improvement on the final result of my photography.

Compared to all that, 350D-> 400D is only a very minor improvement. Even more, if I get a 1ds mkII today, my photography would not be significantly better....

OTOH, if I already had all that equipment, I would not buy a 400D anyway, but I'd be looking for a 5D or some 1 series body.

Jovo wrote:

Perhaps if you used a 400D for a few weeks you would realise that
the 400D is a huge improvement over the 350D. After taking 2900
shots over the last couple of weeks:

1. The focusing is far more accurate and faster, especially with a
F2.8L
2. There is a definite improvement in IQ, both on screen and printed
3. Thanks to the extra 2MP, able to crop prints more without losing
quality
4. The increased buffer means in RAW I can take 10 shots compared
to the previous 4
5. A huge LCD screen on which you can actually see what you have taken
6. Exposure is much better and doesn't blow the highlights anymore
7. Option to use a different histogram
8. Sensor cleaning
9. Increased shutter life
10. My 400mm F5.6L no longer oscillates in AF with the 1.4x TC
attached
Etc, etc

So if you believe these benefits offer little over the 350D, you
are seriously misinformed.

-- hide signature --

Regards,
LuisG

delhi Contributing Member • Posts: 553
Not me

my 350d does everything up to my expectations. No reason to get the 400d. And if I need to upgrade, i'd look at xxD series instead. I heard the new 40d has DIGIC III. Mmmm....

-- hide signature --
El Rondo Regular Member • Posts: 129
I'm not dreaming that much!

strikeback03 wrote:

ok, most of those are viable, but 30fps at full resolution is not.
obviously it's way beyond the capabilities of a shutter, so it
would be electronically handled. and HD video is far lower
resolution than 8-10MP, so it is not realistic to expect that
bandwidth at all.

but it seems you basically want a high-quality video camera with a
larger sensor.

I don't want a video camera, and the sensor size is just fine. I just want some of the High-end technology to trickle down to the still camera market. I think most people are happy with having a digital version of the SLRs design that manufacturers have been making for years. I'd just like to see more innovation.

30fps at full resolution is viable in terms of speed and resolution. Just look at the kind of sensors DALSA are making. 8 megapixels at up to 36fps Progressive! Although I agree about the shutter part.

HD is much lower resolution (about 2 megapixels).

And full-time live preview tould be possible through semitransparent mirrors, something that would require much thinking out-of-the-box.

And yes, I'll keep on dreaming

-- hide signature --

http://patenteux.com
Check out my desktop wallpaper and time-lapse galleries!

Jovo Veteran Member • Posts: 4,200
Re: Because 500D is just around the corner...

Since I do a lot of birding, if I get a FF camera, it no longer gives me the 1.6x crop factor. The 400mm + 1.4x TC gives me a FOV 896mm, compared to just 560mm with a FF.

LuisG wrote:

OTOH, if I already had all that equipment, I would not buy a 400D
anyway, but I'd be looking for a 5D or some 1 series body.

-- hide signature --

 Jovo's gear list:Jovo's gear list
Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Sigma 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM Canon EF 24-105mm F3.5-5.6 IS STM
Sosua
Sosua Senior Member • Posts: 2,342
Re: I Would not

Seriously - I would not expect to take ultimately better images with the 30D's replacement - I would simply see it as a nicer tool in which to capture them with...

The photographer is a bigger difference than anything else, do you seriously thing you could create finer work than a seasoned pro with a 300D with an XTi?

A new camera makes life nicer, and you may even be able to brag to your freinds if they care, but be sure of one thing - your photos will not improve. They may be slightly larger / noisier / softer / sharper - but they will not be transformed by a gadget.
--

http://www.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=241428

 Sosua's gear list:Sosua's gear list
Olympus E-M5 II Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Pro
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads