Page 1 of 2
Advice please re camera
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 1:34 am
My Cannon EOS camera kit has been sitting in a cupboard for a couple of years waiting for the price of a good Digital cannon EOS body.
I now think it's time to bite the bullet and make a decision, I was thinking of getting the Cannon EOS 400D
it looked like the right camera and has come down to the right price for my wallet.
Then they bring out the Cannon 40D
and throw my decision into the air, it's the camera but is it worth the extra money ?.
Have any of you had any experience with these cameras, I would appreciate your thoughts.
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 5:43 pm
I have a 400D and I love it - miles better than my old fuji S9500. I wish I'd bought one sooner. I take a range of subjects but mainly trains and the FPS really helps with that - I got some really crisp shots at Brands Hatch the other week. I would recommend it as a 'keen/experienced amateur' camera before moving to the Â£1k bracket.
If you get one, get a deal with a telephoto. Buy two memory cards and a battery charger and spare battery if the package doesn't all ready include them.
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:37 pm
One thing to seriously look at before you do buy is whether or not you will use it a lot. This may sound stupid, but there are a lot of people I know who buy things and only use them occasionally. If you are going to do this then keep your money and the camera you already have.
Second thing is that a DSLR is much more different to a point and shoot. Point and shoots do all the work, and give some good pictures. However if you get lighting conditions wrong, they are useless. A DSLR makes you work to get the shot. The pre programmed modes are not always the best things, and you will have to tinker around to get the right setting. This may not be practical if you are photographing something then moving on quickly.
I also have a Canon EOS 400D, after some helpful adivce from Dave. It is a great camera, but for me it was expensive. When you think it is still a lot of money, but for what you get it is very cost effiecient. I got the body only and paid more for better lenses than the kit. The picture you take is only as good as the lenses. One is the normal 18-50, whereas my other one is 70-300 telephoto with macro mode. I do a lot of photgraphy for school plays and sports and this telephoto is very very useful. I'd even go as far as saying in most situations it is better than the 18-50 one, which was made by Canon. The telephoto is made by Sigma.
I would not go straight into buying one of the Â£1000+ cameras as I don't see what they hold over the 400D, apart from more MP. The 400D is what I would recommend to a serious enthusiast who will make the most of it. There are plenty of good cameras, such as the Fuji S9600 which may be better for your needs.
Let me know if you need any more advice,
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:55 pm
Sounds like you are used to a SLR camera Aiden - the one good thing is that, no matter which camera you go for, you will be able to use your existing lenses.
For the record, I'm more than happy with my 350D.
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:58 pm
Raider wrote:the one good thing is that, no matter which camera you go for, you will be able to use your existing lenses.
As long as it is the same brand, or generic brand (eg. Sigma produce ones for Canon, Sony etc). I've also heard of some problems of SLR lenses not working as well with DSLR bodies, so you may think of getting new lenses, although it may not be necessary.
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 10:01 pm
It's a Canon EOS body that Aiden has and a Canon EOS D-SLR that he is looking at getting so I can't see there being any problems.
I have tried my brothers lenses (they are over 20 years old) on my 350D and they work just fine - you just line them up with the red dot on the front of the body when you attach.
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 10:07 pm
Take a gander at the Digital Camera review site,
before deciding what to spend your money on.
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 10:53 pm
Thanks for the replies, I think I'll go for the 400D I can't justify the extra Â£400 that I would have to spend to get the 40D.
From reading the reviews the 400D body gets the thumbs up, but the 15-55 mm lens gets the thumbs down, however the cost between the camera with lens is only Â£11 so I think I'll pay the Â£11 as I have the 35-80 mm lenses with my original 35mm film Cannon EOS.
My other Lens is a 75-300mm Cannon and I have a 700AF dedicated autofocus Flash with a Cobra AF-H hand flash.
I've read that the original EF lenses work with the digital bodies but there may be some picture cropping due to the digital sensor not covering as big an area as a frame of 35mm film, have you noticed this with your cameras ?
Will my flash guns still work with the digital body,
Sorry about all the questions, but I don't want to make a **** up and end up having to spend a fortune replacing all my other gear that went with my old EOS
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:02 pm
Sounds like a nice collection of lenses there - I'm not jealous, honest.
Can't see why the flash wouldn't work - I connected my brothers up to my 350D and, although the batteries were not very well charged, it did seem to be OK.
Might be worth asking in a local shop before buying mind (if you can find one these days that is)
Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 7:42 pm
Raider wrote:It's a Canon EOS body that Aiden has and a Canon EOS D-SLR that he is looking at getting so I can't see there being any problems.
Just saying that there has been reports of problems with some lenses, although it is hard to tell if it will be a problem with Aiden's unless he tests them out.
All in all the 400D is a very good choice, hope you have as much pleasure with it as I have.
Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:31 pm
350D is still getting better reviews than the 400D which replaced it last I read.
Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:33 pm
The reviews I have read say that the 400D body and lens is not as good as the 350D body and lens, but this is basically because the kit lens is not very good with the 400D.
Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:45 pm
mortyfootball wrote:The reviews I have read say that the 400D body and lens is not as good as the 350D body and lens, but this is basically because the kit lens is not very good with the 400D.
Thats what the reviews that I read said, the body was an improvement but the lens was rubbish.
I've decided to go for the 400D but SWMO has put her foot down and refused.
I'm living in the belief that she is going to buy it me for Christmas
only because she scarer's me when she shouts
Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:03 pm
I'm a Nikon guy so I can't comment on the Canons exactly, but it sounds as though the 400D is a good choice. You can be sure that the image quality from any recent DSLR will be superb anyway, and the differences negligible unless you're printing huge enlargements etc
One thing that hasn't been mentioned though - go and try the camera out! Not to sound patronising as you obviously have camera and SLR experience, but the entry level Canons are small. I couldn't get comfortable with the size and design of the handgrip in particular - one of the reasons I went with the Nikon D50 in the end.
Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:19 pm
Well I've worked on her for over a week now and today she gave the go ahead to get it,
The bad news, unfortunately the 400d with lens has gone up in price.
The good news the 400d (body only) has come down in price from Â£390 to Â£367.95
and it has a further Â£50 cash back from Canon so I'm very happy, a good result for once.
I'll have to get stuck into getting the layout finished so I can take the pictures.
Thanks for all the advice.