 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / February 2007Your opinion of Canon 400D
I am planning to buy a Canon 400D, recently launched by Canon. I would like your opinion on the camera from your own experience or what you might have heard from others. Also please compare this camera with other likely competitors. Both pros and cons. Many Thanks, Abbas > I am planning to buy a Canon 400D, recently launched by Canon. I > would like your opinion on the camera from your own experience or > what you might have heard from others. > > Also please compare this camera with other likely competitors. Both > pros and cons. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/ http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/ Read...learn...think...choose. :) -Mark²  SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> I am planning to buy a Canon 400D, recently launched by Canon. I >> would like your opinion on the camera from your own experience or [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > :) > -Mark² NOTE: The true competition for the Nikon D80 is the Canon 30D...not the 400D. But right now, the closest Nikon is the 6MP D50, price-wise. Here's the review for the D50: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond50/ -Mark² SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > NOTE: > The true competition for the Nikon D80 is the Canon 30D...not the 400D. They don't exaclty line-up model wise. Both Canon and Nikon have settled on a strategy of playing inbetween eachother's model numbers to avoid true apples-to-apples comparisons. FWIW: D50 Nikon 400D Canon D80 Nikon 30D Canon D200 Nikon 5D Canon After that the analogy breaks down a bit, since Canon is the only company offering FF DSLRs. Sensor wise the D80 is very close to the D200 so to many Nikonians its probably 'close enough'. I shoot a 350D and don't find any need to upgrade anytime soon, however if I was buying new I'd probably pick a 39D becase of Canon's lense lineup; for price/performance the D80 would be my choice though based just on the body. >I am planning to buy a Canon 400D, recently launched by Canon. I would like > your opinion on the camera from your own experience or what you might have [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Many Thanks, > Abbas Hi Abbas! Whatever your decision, think that with such cameras, you change lenses. These may cost a lot of money and can only be used with same brand camera. You have a number of choices: Canon, Nikon, Pentax, etc. As far as Canon goes, the lens that comes with it (Xt, XTi, 30D, whatever) is not very good. Buy the body and lens separately. I'm not familiar with Nikon, but I think the kit lens is a better one than Canon's. The 400 is cheaper than the 30D as well as the Nikon D80. However, from what I can conclude, all these are very good cameras. You might also want to go to a shop and see them for yourself and handle them. They're not the same size and many people prefer handling a particular model. You might also want to see the Olympus Evolt E-500: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse500/ It has a very good review, comes with 2 lenses and is not very expensive. It may not be in the same class than the above-mentioned cameras (to many readers of this newsgroup), but it takes great photos. My son-in-law bought one and is very happy with it. Take care, Marcel PS By the way, I have a Canon Rebel XT, 2 lenses bought separately (one of which costs just about as much as the body), a Canon flash, and I'm very happy with it. I'm also locked with Canon ;-))))) >I am planning to buy a Canon 400D, recently launched by Canon. I would like > your opinion on the camera from your own experience or what you might have [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Many Thanks, > Abbas ====================================== I have the 350D and love it so I'm sure the 400D is a fine camera. The kit lens is fine for the price (under $100) and if you're moving up from a P&S, you'll be fine with it. It's a great starter lens that I still use to this day (and I have a nice selection of L glass to use too). Once you get a feeling for the camera and your type of shooting (landscape, people, wildlife, etc.) , you will then be able to see what type of lens you want to invest in. The lenses are the investment as you'll be able to upgrade bodies (as long as you stay with Canon) and you'll already have lenses. Other than the kit lens, I'd stay away from APS-C (digital only lenses (Canon EF-S Series) as they won't work on full frame sensor cameras you may upgrade to a few years down the road. Have fun and get out and shoot, no matter what camera you decide on. -Smitty >I am planning to buy a Canon 400D, recently launched by Canon. I would like > your opinion on the camera from your own experience or what you might have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and > cons. I bought one just to play with and I loved how they used the LCD to show current shot settings and more. Very nice. I expect all the new Canon's will have this, except the 1-series probably, and unfortunately. I next tried a 5D and wish that feature was on that camera. I bet the 5D replacement in February (rumored) will have this, too. >> I am planning to buy a Canon 400D, recently launched by Canon. I >> would like your opinion on the camera from your own experience or [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > camera. I bet the 5D replacement in February (rumored) will have > this, too. Good gravy, I hope not! -What a waste of battery power that would be, among other problems. I would never wish to require an overly-bright screen, just to see basic settings which should ALWAYS be visible (as they are with the second screen). The combining of the two is a cost/space saving aspect, and nothing more. I can't imagine having to blind myself on a long-exposure dark-shoot by having to adjust settings staring at a bright screen while in the dark. The gentle backlight on all other Canon DSLRs is just right. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > Good gravy, I hope not! > -What a waste of battery power that would be, among other problems. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: > www.pbase.com/markuson I couldn't agree more. That was on the list of drawbacks when I was researching the camera. I wish that the body was large enough to allow for a second LCD. > >> I am planning to buy a Canon 400D, recently launched by Canon. I > >> would like your opinion on the camera from your own experience or [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > dark-shoot by having to adjust settings staring at a bright screen while in > the dark. The gentle backlight on all other Canon DSLRs is just right. The display can be toggled on and off with a back-panel button, and also automatically goes off when you bring the camera close to your face to shoot. >>>> I am planning to buy a Canon 400D, recently launched by Canon. I >>>> would like your opinion on the camera from your own experience or [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > also automatically goes off when you bring the camera close to your > face to shoot. Of course you can turn it on and off. -But you're still stuck adjusting settings with it in many situations, and that means you're stuck staring at a mostly-white, bright light...in the darkness. One can literally use a white screen such as that as a flashlight (something I do with my mp3 player's screen brightness). On a camera? No thanks. That...alone...might be enough to keep me away--were I in the market for a similar body. I want to be able to simply look at my camera at any point and see what it's settings are... If Canon ever drops the second LCD on their mid-to-upper bodies (5D, 30D, 1 series), I'll be extremely disappointed. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > > The display can be toggled on and off with a back-panel button, and > > also automatically goes off when you bring the camera close to your [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > white screen such as that as a flashlight (something I do with my mp3 > player's screen brightness). Yeah, and I _have_ used it that way a couple of times :^) However, most of the settings that are not also duplicated in the viewfinder are ones that I'm probably not going to be changing often in a very dark setting (which is where avery bright display might be disturbing) - I know what ISO I'm probably going to be shooting at, at least for a number of frames, and I know what white balance I've decided I'm going to be using, I know by feel which position my lens focus and IS are in (auto or manual, mode1/mode2/off), and so on. Other than info about the battery and number of frames left on the card, that sort of thing, all the critical information (exposure, aperture, exposure compensation, autofocus points, etc) are all still duplicated in the viewfinder. If I need to change one of those other settings, I turn the display on, change the setting, and turn it back off again if it's too bright. No worse than it was using a small penlight to dig out a roll of film from the camera bag and load it, "'way back when". [We all tend to get spoiled :^)] In addition, are you even aware that the 400D has 10 brightness settings for the display, available through the easily accessible menus? The dimmest setting can hardly be called flashlight bright - it's quite comfortable yet very readable even in total darkness - much more readable than a small LCD display, about the same overall brightness as a standard LCD screen that size of the type your camera uses would be. > On a camera? No thanks. > That...alone...might be enough to keep me away--were I in the market for a > similar body. Many of the normal settings ARE still available through the viewfinder. IOW, it's not that big of a deal for me (it obviously is for you, and that's why not everyone has the same camera, car, or computer), and it is extremely handy to be able to see it all at a glance when it's not a situation in which your night vision is going to be blown, or if you've dimmed it down in those situations. It's also FAR more readable in bright daylight without having to adjust the viewing angle because the bright sun is washing out the contrast on the standard LCD display. > I want to be able to simply look at my camera at any point > and see what it's settings are... But, uhm, that's exactly what it does for you.... =;^) Yeah, it'd be really nifty-neato to be able to put it into a "night" or "battle station" mode with red (or even a cool blue or cool green) so as not to disrupt your night vision. But for me, it's just not that critical, because when I've got it at the dimmest setting, it's just not an issue. > If Canon ever drops the second LCD on their mid-to-upper bodies (5D, 30D, 1 > series), I'll be extremely disappointed. I actually far prefer it over the 350D that had the separate displays. I'm sure I'll lose that [personally perceived] advantage when I move up to the 1DS Mark II (or whatever happens to be the top-o-the-line) next summer. "Adopt, Adapt, and Improve" - motto of the Round Table. :^) It all somes down to what each of us prefers. I can respect your preferences, you can respect mine (I hope). That's more than many posters can say here, in their constant wrangling about things that they will never, ever, ever be able to change the other posters' minds about - Canon v. Nikon v. Oly v. [whichever], Windoze v. Mac, the Sensor Wars, etc., ad nauseum. But then, this IS usenet. B^) >>> The display can be toggled on and off with a back-panel button, and >>> also automatically goes off when you bring the camera close to your [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > aperture, exposure compensation, autofocus points, etc) are all still > duplicated in the viewfinder. I'm talking about things like metering mode...battery indicator...white balance...RAW mode vs. other...drive/timer mode...etc. These are NOT reproduced in the viewfinder. > If I need to change one of those other settings, I turn the display > on, change the setting, and turn it back off again if it's too > bright. No worse than it was using a small penlight to dig out a > roll of film from the camera bag and load it, "'way back when". [We > all tend to get spoiled :^)] No need for a pen light with other DSLRs, as there's a perfectly dim ilumination button for the second LCD which glows a very dark-friendly amber... > In addition, are you even aware that the 400D has 10 brightness > settings for the display, available through the easily accessible [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > the viewing angle because the bright sun is washing out the contrast > on the standard LCD display. You think? In my experience, standard LCD displays are at their most brilliant contrast in bright sunlight. ? >> I want to be able to simply look at my camera at any point >> and see what it's settings are... > > But, uhm, that's exactly what it does for you.... =;^) Right, but not until you push the button to turn the display on. > Yeah, it'd be really nifty-neato to be able to put it into a "night" > or "battle station" mode with red (or even a cool blue or cool green) > so as not to disrupt your night vision. But for me, it's just not > that critical, because when I've got it at the dimmest setting, it's > just not an issue. I would think that might be something they could have easily offered as a menu customization (colored text on a black background, for example), or could certainly offer in a firmware update... >> If Canon ever drops the second LCD on their mid-to-upper bodies (5D, >> 30D, 1 series), I'll be extremely disappointed. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > about - Canon v. Nikon v. Oly v. [whichever], Windoze v. Mac, the > Sensor Wars, etc., ad nauseum. But then, this IS usenet. B^) Everyone has their own preference, and we buy accordingly. It also occurs to me that a lot of people who come from point & shoot cameras have never known anything BUT on-screen setting displays...so I would imagine they might not even think of an alternative. Anyway... To each their own. :) SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > I would never wish to require an overly-bright screen, The killer defect on the 30D is the far-too-dim color screen. It is barely invisible in sunny areas even if you shade it and shield your eyes. And it is **THE** vital feature, since it is what has the histogram to tell if you overexposed something. With the dead-end cutoff of brightness levels of digital, you need to check every shot. Doug McDonald >> I would never wish to require an overly-bright screen, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >dead-end cutoff of brightness levels of digital, you need to check >every shot. I am curious as to what kind of photography you do that requires that you check every shot. Personally if it's a stationary subject I autobracket and worry about it later, and if it's a transient subject then I can't reshoot it anyway. But then I'm used to working with cameras that don't even have a meter. >Doug McDonald >> I would never wish to require an overly-bright screen, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Doug McDonald My 300D has variable brightness for the lcd screen, accessible in the menu. I run mine at 2 (out of 5), and it's adequately bright. Have you tried increasing the 30D's lcd brightness? - assuming you have one, and are not just commenting on a quick look in a camera store, where the brightness could have been fiddled anywhere. Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > My 300D has variable brightness for the lcd screen, accessible in the > menu. I run mine at 2 (out of 5), and it's adequately bright. Have you > tried increasing the 30D's lcd brightness? - assuming you have one, and > are not just commenting on a quick look in a camera store, where the > brightness could have been fiddled anywhere. Oh I have one, and I have it set to max brightness. It's OK except in sunlight (and no, looking away from the sun and shielding the screen with my hands just isn't quite good enough). Doug McDonald >> My 300D has variable brightness for the lcd screen, accessible in the >> menu. I run mine at 2 (out of 5), and it's adequately bright. Have you [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Doug McDonald I don't have a real problem with my 30D. I'm thinking this must be a personal thing. I don't have this problem with my FX01, or our S2IS, either, though some insist they can't see a thing in their LCDs in the sun. SignatureWashington Post humorist Art Buchwald was eulogized by friends Friday after a long and hilarious career. Reports of his death may be exaggerated. Every comedian thought he had died and gone to heaven when Hillary Clinton announced she is running for president. > Oh I have one, and I have it set to max brightness. It's OK > except in sunlight (and no, looking away from the sun and > shielding the screen with my hands just isn't quite good enough). Hopefully this isn't too stupid of a question, but are you wearing polarized sunglasses to see the LCD? The light coming from an LCD is polarized and if the angle is right, it will go black with sunglasses. >> Oh I have one, and I have it set to max brightness. It's OK >> except in sunlight (and no, looking away from the sun and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > polarized sunglasses to see the LCD? The light coming from an LCD is > polarized and if the angle is right, it will go black with sunglasses. :) I'm sure there are plenty of people who have no clue what's going on when wearing their Maui Jims... :) SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> Oh I have one, and I have it set to max brightness. It's OK >> except in sunlight (and no, looking away from the sun and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sunglasses to see the LCD? The light coming from an LCD is polarized and if > the angle is right, it will go black with sunglasses. No, I don't wear polarized glasses. However, with them the correct way you would get increased contrast of the screen, a good thing. Doug McDonald >> My 300D has variable brightness for the lcd screen, accessible in the >> menu. I run mine at 2 (out of 5), and it's adequately bright. Have [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Doug McDonald My 5D has the same screen, and it's fine, though certainly not "pretty" in bright sunlight. But honestly, here...anyone relying on the displayed IMAGE is kidding themselves if they're using that to determine proper exposure--if for no other reason than the fact that conditions will ALWAYS effect the accuracy...not the least of which being your brightness settings. The only real and trustworthy indicator on ANY camera's review screen is of understanding and use of the histgram display (info disdplay on Canons). The simple histogram display is certainly readable in even the brightest of conditions. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> My 300D has variable brightness for the lcd screen, accessible in the >> menu. I run mine at 2 (out of 5), and it's adequately bright. Have you >> tried increasing the 30D's lcd brightness? - assuming you have one, and >> are not just commenting on a quick look in a camera store, where the >> brightness could have been fiddled anywhere. >Oh I have one, and I have it set to max brightness. It's OK >except in sunlight (and no, looking away from the sun and >shielding the screen with my hands just isn't quite good enough). Direct sunlight is going to be a problem no matter what. You *can* arrange for a bright enough LCD screen and if you listen hard enough you can hear your batteries emptying as you watch it. Signature--- Paul J. Gans >>>My 300D has variable brightness for the lcd screen, accessible in the >>>menu. I run mine at 2 (out of 5), and it's adequately bright. Have you [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > you listen hard enough you can hear your batteries emptying > as you watch it. I'm super happy with the LCD on my Nikon D200 but it chews up batteries fast. > I bought one just to play with and I loved how they used the LCD to > show current shot settings and more. Very nice. I expect all the new > Canon's will have this, except the 1-series probably, and > unfortunately. I next tried a 5D and wish that feature was on that > camera. I bet the 5D replacement in February (rumored) will have > this, too. The rear display is being used because there is no other place to show the settings. Cameras that are large enough to have a second LCD for settings display will continue to keep them. If not, I won't be buying one. The only reason the 400D/XTi has the settings on the display is because they removed the second display in order to make room for the larger screen. The Nikon D40 is the same because there is no room for a top display. >> I bought one just to play with and I loved how they used the LCD to show >> current shot settings and more. Very nice. I expect all the new Canon's [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > screen. The Nikon D40 is the same because there is no room for a top > display. I think they just did it to save money, every ever so small Pentax D-SLR has managed to get one put on it, don't an exceuse not to. >>> I bought one just to play with and I loved how they used the LCD >>> to show current shot settings and more. Very nice. I expect all [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I think they just did it to save money, every ever so small Pentax > D-SLR has managed to get one put on it, don't an exceuse not to. I don't think it has anything to do with saving money. I think it has everything to do with design and target market (newbies). A second display is more convenient when you know why it's there. But the people moving up from P&S like having it all on the back of the camera in one large display. These are the same people who use Auto mode and don't understand why the camera would have manual controls. > >>> I bought one just to play with and I loved how they used the LCD > >>> to show current shot settings and more. Very nice. I expect all [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > camera in one large display. These are the same people who use Auto > mode and don't understand why the camera would have manual controls. I think that statement is probably as much of an over-generalization as is the statement that it was monetarily motivated. I'm certainly not a newbie, I like the new display far better than the old, and the second display is NOT "more convenient" to me. It may certainly have been market-oriented, because the tiny little display on the 350D was one of the biggest griping points I heard (and agreed with) - so Canon decided to use a bigger display with almost twice the previous screen's area. That did, indeed leave no room for the second display which had previously been directly above the old, smaller display. Combining them into one common display made sense in that case, not because it was designed for "newbies". Besides, if a newbie doesn't know that the things mean, it's not going to matter _where_ the information is displayed now, is it? Don't over-generalize, it's usually wrong. :^) >> >>> I bought one just to play with and I loved how they used the LCD >> >>> to show current shot settings and more. Very nice. I expect all [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Don't over-generalize, it's usually wrong. :^) Generally speaking of course! ;-) > > Don't over-generalize, it's usually wrong. :^) > > Generally speaking of course! ;-) And the corollary: Nearly half of all people you meet are below average. Best Regards, -- Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/ >>> Don't over-generalize, it's usually wrong. :^) >> Generally speaking of course! ;-) > > And the corollary: > Nearly half of all people you meet are below average. ....of the population of the people I meet. But many of us are fortunate enough to not have to meet a lot of people of average or below average intelligence, and that applies to many NGs.... == Signaturejohn mcwilliams In article <45629293$0$1601$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Pete D <no@email.com> wrote: <major snippage.> > > Don't over-generalize, it's usually wrong. :^) > > Generally speaking of course! ;-) At least _SOMEBODY_ got it. <g> "Don't anthropomorphize animals - they hate that..." > I think that statement is probably as much of an over-generalization > as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > second > display is NOT "more convenient" to me. Well that's your preference and I don't agree with it. I don't believe it's the general concensus of the enthusiast and pro market either. I prefer the second top display, and every other SLR user I know prefers it, including a couple of pros from both Canon and Nikon camps. We would all go "postal" if the info display was removed. > It may certainly have been market-oriented, because the tiny little > display on the 350D was one of the biggest griping points I heard > (and But who was griping, experienced users or newbies? I owned a Canon XT for over a year, and the display size was never an issue for me since I'm not one to chimp and play with the images. I'd rather do that on the proper equipment. Besides, why not put a display on the top like the other Canon models, or the Nikon, Pentax, etc. cameras that all have top displays? There would be enough room if they rearranged things a bit. And you'll notice the new Nikon D40 no longer has a top display, which goes hand-in-hand with the concept of simplicity for newbies. > Besides, if a newbie doesn't know that the things mean, it's not > going > to matter _where_ the information is displayed now, is it? Not at first, but hopefully they don't remain a newbie. If they don't care to advance, then a better SLR choice would be something like the Nikon D40 - simple and easy to use, but with the response and image quality of an SLR. I think Nikon has dropped a bomb on Canon with the D40, and at nearly have the price of the Canon (at introduction) I think it'll be a hot seller to the entry-level crowds. Thank you guys, I have bought the 400D but I am not to keen on the 18-55 kit lens, Due to budget constraints, I am looking for Sigma Lens, Suggest an appropriate lens. Abbas >I am planning to buy a Canon 400D, recently launched by Canon. I would like >your opinion on the camera from your own experience or what you might have [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Many Thanks, >Abbas |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.