400D or 30D

[nigelr07]

Okay
I'm no pro - all amateur. I bought into the 300D when it first came out and am glad that I did. However, I want to extend my camera range and given my budget would normally look at the 30D with 18-55 lens for my next step.
That was until the 400D made it's appearance, the 30D is around £200 more (30D) for 2megapixels less.:confused:
Any good reasons why I should continue looking at the 30D?????
Is it worth waiting that little longer for the 400D prices to start to fall?

[PAFC2004]

30D easily.

[nigelr07]

My heart tells me the 30D is what I need but my head wants to know why. What is so much better about the 30D???

[TMR Design]

I just went through this exact thing and have decided on the 30D. I did not have a DSLR previously but my understanding is that if you have an XT, the XTi, although nice with some new features is not a recommended upgrade. it is the replacement entry level DSLR. I was really tempted to get it but after talking to many people here and actually playing with one for a while I am convinced the 30D is for me.

I would not sweat over the megapixels and I am sure everyone here will tell you the same thing. The marketing has gotten to many of use and more mp sounds great but lets not kid ourselves. The 30D is 8.2 mp and appears to be a brilliant camera. The Xti (400D) is using the same size sensor as the as the XT and is cramming the extra mp into thame sensor.

I am just waiting for the rebates to kick in and I am going to buy the 30D. If you are unaware of the rebates you might consider waiting and getting the 30D as the price differential between 30D and XTi with not be as great.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=222191

[EOSAddict]

Handling, speed, handling, AF, handling,

Gotta love that dial!

[TMR Design]

My heart tells me the 30D is what I need but my head wants to know why. What is so much better about the 30D???

I didn't know what people meant by the 'feel' and 'build' being better until I held one and compared it to the XTi.

Go play with one and compare for yourself. I believe that you (or I) would still take great pictures with an XTi but the operation and features really make it feel great.
I also took into consideration what others said about putting a longer lens and a flash on an XTi and it feeling a bit unbalanced, so I went back to Best Buy yet again to bother the salesman I know and had him put a 70-200mm lens and a 580EX flash on both and there was no question that that 30D had an overall better feel and was balanced nicely compared to the XTi.

I also fell in love with the rear dial as many told me I would. :cool:

[Sir Tony]

30D hands down.

Size, quality, controllability, two screens, the wonderful wheel, speed, magnesium body, 100,000 shutter, it just feels better. Who cares about the anti-dust, buy yourself a rocket blower. Its not all about mega pixels, cramming more pixels on the same size sensor only makes more noise.

[nigelr07]

I believe that you (or I) would still take great pictures with an XTi

Thanks for the vote of confidence - Good job you haven't seen my images.:wink: Maybe one day when I'm brave enough I may post for c&c.

From what everyone is posting the move to 30D does seem to be far more of a step up than I would achieve with the 400D.

[EOSAddict]

Handling of the XTi is the same league as your 300D. I went from the 300D to the 30D and its a huge leap in my opinion. I fully back what Sir Tony said above. But after all this advice, you have got to go and try both!

[nitsch]

If you are deadset on upgrading the body then without question go for the 30D as the others have stated. However have you thought about investing in glass instead? Of course it depends on what sort of things you shoot but generally speaking good glass on a basic body will yield better images than poor glass on a better body.

[EOSAddict]

Wise words Nick, I got all my 'good' lenses before moving up from the 300D.

[picturecrazy]

yes, I agree with nitsch. Add a 17-55 IS or a 70-200L to your kit and you'll likely have a whole new love for your camera.
You've now used your camera and lenses for many years and probably learned a whole lot from them. Now that you are not an ultra novice, you can probably now appreciate good glass more than all the first time dslr buyers here who insist on L lenses right from the get go (which I think is lame).

[nigelr07]

... have you thought about investing in glass instead? ...

I hadn't and now you have me thinking.. :confused:<br>
Assume 30D budget, what lens(es) would you go for. My photography involves, sport - football, motor racing and aircraft so a standard and zoom similar to my current would do or would you recommend a good all round zoom?

[EOSAddict]

Sigma 24-70, 70-200 2.8 and 1.4 TC! Or maybe the ned Sig 17-70 for the wide end. Or the Sig 100-300 f4.

[laimis.s]

well if the money doesnt matter to you then go for 30d. but remember that lens is most important...

[Grooby]

30D
you also get ISO3200

[irhxcbcziuzxs]

Okay
I'm no pro - all amateur. I bought into the 300D when it first came out and am glad that I did. However, I want to extend my camera range and given my budget would normally look at the 30D with 18-55 lens for my next step.
That was until the 400D made it's appearance, the 30D is around £200 more (30D) for 2megapixels less.:confused:
Any good reasons why I should continue looking at the 30D?????
Is it worth waiting that little longer for the 400D prices to start to fall?

30d, 400d isnt much of an upgrade

[pieq314]

You probably need lenses more than you need a new body. If you just have the 18-55mm lens with 30D/400D, your pictures will not be that different from what you can get with the 300D.

[brivett]

Well I now have a 1DMkIIn, a 10D and a 20D... and from 3 days ago also a 400D

I already prefer the 400D to the 20D.... and most people say the 30D has little over the 20D... so go figure.

The 400D is a little beauty with a great screen. Some how it feels far less plasticy than the 300D/350D and has a better user interface than the 20D.

Of course, I love the 1DMkIIn way better... but I wanted a light camera for when I'm not working.

For those in the UK... 400D from Dixons at Luton airport (flying internally) £452 Inc VAT with the cheapy kit lens included. serious value.

Baz

[irhxcbcziuzxs]

better interface than the 30d ... =X

[EOSAddict]

better interface than the 30d ... =X

Each to his own :confused: just goes to show you have to go physically hold them to decide!

[aladyforty]

I got a 30D and love it, no regrets at all. The only thing I dont like about it is the noisy shutter, when photographing wildlife it can scare them

[dbett]

I really like the single large screen on the 400D. It is really well designed and makes changing the key settings really easy.

As for the feel, it depends on the person. I like the smaller size of the Rebels over bigger cameras. In fact, that's why I initially decided for an XT (which was returned when the XTi came out 2 weeks later) over a Nikon.

[manwithcamera]

I had the same decision to make, I decided on the 400D to which I am adding the EF 17-40 L,
the 18-55 kit lens is ok if a little soft for my needs but the camera is fantastic,

for me personally at this time I would rather spend my money on a great sharp lens that just might take advantage of those extra pixels.

I would have waited to see what the 40D had to offer but I needed a good high resolution camera right now for a big project (product catalogue) so I went for the 400D.

[irhxcbcziuzxs]

Each to his own :confused: just goes to show you have to go physically hold them to decide!

yea, definatley to each his own =D

[Madweasel]

better interface than the 30d ... =X
He did say 20D - the 30D has the same big screen as the 400D. I'm still a bit surprised though, because the 20D and 30D have the wheel and the 400D/XTi doesn't. Oh well.

[laimis.s]

For those in the UK... 400D from Dixons at Luton airport (flying internally) £452 Inc VAT with the cheapy kit lens included. serious value.

Baz

damn >.< i spent 550 on my 400d with the kit lens :) i might as well have flew to london had a nice day out buy the camera and fly back to manchester :D

[steved110]

If I was in the market for my first DSLR now, I too woul;d struggle between the 400D and the 30D - they are both superb cameras, and the 400D 'feels' nicer than the 350D as well....but there is no getting away from the fact that the 30D is a much better camera - far higher spec, except for the irrelvance of 2 extra MP crammed onto the sensor, and the anti dust features.

Best advice is to go hold one of each and see how you feel. If the 400d feels OK to you, as well it might, the advice to save cash on the body to spend on the glass is good advice.

[cgratti]

30D, not a tough choice.

Better build quality .

[grego]

If you plan to go further into the DSLR game, the features in the 30D fit more of what you see in the higher ups than the 400D. The menu system is pretty much the same on the 20D, 30D, 5D, 10D, etc. And then the dial on the back is used in every other DSLR except the rebel series.

[rklepper]

well if the money doesnt matter to you then go for 30d. but remember that lens is most important...

Up to a point. If the body is not up to the task, no lens will help. If you need fast and accurate AF then it has to be the 30D.

[dbett]

Up to a point. If the body is not up to the task, no lens will help. If you need fast and accurate AF then it has to be the 30D.


Isn't the 400D's AF system the same as the 30D's?

[Tyreman]

One item with 30d maybe ergonomics with regard to finger controls better.
if you have large mitts or paws-+?

[laimis.s]

Up to a point. If the body is not up to the task, no lens will help. If you need fast and accurate AF then it has to be the 30D.

yeah but, does an amateur REALLY need a very fast AF system? i mean i doubt he will use half of the potential of a 400d... For professionals who's job is to take pictures all the time yeah the 30d will be better. i could be wrong though

[OpenC]

I'll just chip in here and say to anyone who's basing their decision in part on the screens: I've got a 30D, which has the same screen as the 400D, and to be honest it's not really any better than the original 350D/20D screens. It's bigger, but blurrier. You get no real sense of how sharp a shot is until it's on your computer.

That said, and back to the original debate: 30D, IMHO. An additional two megapixels counts for not-really-very-much when the 30D is pushing out 3506x2???. The wheel is cool, the spot meter is cool, does the 400D have the custom functions? I'm not sure.

The 400D is a top piece of kit, of course, but whichever way you look at it the 30D is the better camera. It's wrong to say, "30D costs more and has less megapixels? Madness", although if you can't see the other differences the chances are you won't need them :)

[Tyreman]

I'll just chip in here and say to anyone who's basing their decision in part on the screens: I've got a 30D, which has the same screen as the 400D, and to be honest it's not really any better than the original 350D/20D screens. It's bigger, but blurrier. You get no real sense of how sharp a shot is until it's on your computer.

That said, and back to the original debate: 30D, IMHO. An additional two megapixels counts for not-really-very-much when the 30D is pushing out 3506x2???. The wheel is cool, the spot meter is cool, does the 400D have the custom functions? I'm not sure.

The 400D is a top piece of kit, of course, but whichever way you look at it the 30D is the better camera. It's wrong to say, "30D costs more and has less megapixels? Madness", although if you can't see the other differences the chances are you won't need them :)


I don't even have the screen(preview-whatever) active after each shot here... its a waste of time IMHO!
I play chimpanzie after the shooting.:)
Unless I had an operational issue.

[OpenC]

I'm pleased it's not just me. The big screen shouldn't change anyone's mind about which one to buy (although it's getting harder to find one with the smaller screen).

When I first got the 30D, I took it to Scotland for a week, before it had ever been plugged into a PC. I was distraught at how bad the pictures looked on the camera, but delighted when I got it home and found out that they'd come out well after all. I used to have a cheap little Sony compact digital which had a much, much better screen than the Canons do.

[grego]

I'll just chip in here and say to anyone who's basing their decision in part on the screens: I've got a 30D, which has the same screen as the 400D, and to be honest it's not really any better than the original 350D/20D screens. It's bigger, but blurrier. You get no real sense of how sharp a shot is until it's on your computer.



No screen would be good for viewing a photo. Only if they are really blurry or very very very bright(to the point of white) or very very black, would you be able to really say if the photo works of not. Heck, even most laptops aren't good for viewing photos.

[TMR Design]

For those that want to continue to drive themselves nuts deciding whether to get a 400D or a 30D here is some good reading for you.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=20150037

[grego]

For those that want to continue to drive themselves nuts deciding whether to get a 400D or a 30D here is some good reading for you.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=20150037

It's pretty simple. If you are new to DSLR's, then the 400D, will probably be a better choice. If you have been in the SLR field for a little bit, you probably would be getting the 30D or something higher.

If you want to do sports, the 30D is probably a better choice to ease into. That's pretty much it. Don't buy based on megapixels, but buy based on financial need and what will help you get the best kit(body + glass + extra stuff) possible.

[nigelr07]

Sport is reasonably high on the agenda - Moving people ,vehicles and aircraft so a good AF system is quite high with spot metering and spot focussing. I do have large mitts (I'm over 6'3) so small camera's don't work. Hence the tendency toward 30D

The problem now is all the talk about better glass. I realised this would probably be a requirement but I now need to go figure my next steps.

Thanks for the advice so far, need now to look at the glass aspect.

As some one said above "Go figure" ;-)

[laimis.s]

No screen would be good for viewing a photo. Only if they are really blurry or very very very bright(to the point of white) or very very black, would you be able to really say if the photo works of not. Heck, even most laptops aren't good for viewing photos.

I'm pleased it's not just me. The big screen shouldn't change anyone's mind about which one to buy (although it's getting harder to find one with the smaller screen).

When I first got the 30D, I took it to Scotland for a week, before it had ever been plugged into a PC. I was distraught at how bad the pictures looked on the camera, but delighted when I got it home and found out that they'd come out well after all. I used to have a cheap little Sony compact digital which had a much, much better screen than the Canons do.

oh come on guys... thats what the HISTOGRAM is for!!! if you know how to use it then you can see if the shots dont have enough light/or too much...

[grego]

oh come on guys... thats what the HISTOGRAM is for!!! if you know how to use it then you can see if the shots dont have enough light/or too much...

Histogram is the only reason really to use a screen. But...it still is not absolute. Especially when shooting in tricky lighting, the histogram can be thrown off. It's all about knowing what you are shooting and all. Obviously the histogram is more important, but you can quickly delete anything you see that's super bright or super dark. And of course completely blurry. And the histogram is a good guide to see if you have a decent exposure, to continue on.

But back to my point, about laptop screens. When you edit, you want a good monitor, at least if you want a good final output.

[steplim]

I hadn't and now you have me thinking.. :confused:<br>
Assume 30D budget, what lens(es) would you go for. My photography involves, sport - football, motor racing and aircraft so a standard and zoom similar to my current would do or would you recommend a good all round zoom?


I am in the same situation as you now. I am thinking hard whether to upgrade my body to 30D (Not 400D) or a good glass.
As many had said; from 300D to 400D is not consider as an upgrade. For additional features on 400D does not justify for upgrade.

I am adding a good zoom lens, EF70-200f/4L, which suitable for portraits, sports, landscape although it doesn't perform as well in low light. If you prefer, you may consider the 70-200 f/2.8L. Just my 2 cents worth.

[MyDomainer]

Histogram is the only reason really to use a screen. But...it still is not absolute. Especially when shooting in tricky lighting, the histogram can be thrown off. It's all about knowing what you are shooting and all. Obviously the histogram is more important, but you can quickly delete anything you see that's super bright or super dark. And of course completely blurry. And the histogram is a good guide to see if you have a decent exposure, to continue on.

But back to my point, about laptop screens. When you edit, you want a good monitor, at least if you want a good final output.

I agree with you Grego. The best screens in the market to view your photos in REAL color are those of Apple. I use a 17" powerbook for all my workflow, rendering and preview. My clients are always amazed at how the pictures look. I would say a high quality monitor increases 20-30% chances of sale, which is big when you need to close an important deal.

Going back to the topic, if I were you I would go for the 30D. However, if you are short on a budget, I would go for the 20D or the 400D, and buy the best glass you can afford. Having an expensive camera with standard lens is like having a mercedes with a 1.8 motor. You are always going to feel the difference...

[OpenC]

oh come on guys... thats what the HISTOGRAM is for!!! if you know how to use it then you can see if the shots dont have enough light/or too much...

I must protest; I didn't say the screen was no use at all, I said that the bigger screen isn't really any more useful when it comes to reviewing your pictures, which I stand by. It's not about how dark/light the image is, it's about how relatively blurry a perfectly sharp shot will look on the LCD, regardless of LCD size. Obviously you can see the histogram just the same on both.

In any case, for the purposes of this thread the discussion is academic, because the 400D and the 30D have the same screen :)

[dbett]

In any case, for the purposes of this thread the discussion is academic, because the 400D and the 30D have the same screen :)


I know they are the same size. But are they the same otherwise?

[TheSteveMadden]

I know they are the same size. But are they the same otherwise?

From all reports, the 400D has a much brighter screen, easier to see in bright sunlight. They also changed the gamma on the brightest setting, so it's not good for evaluating tonal range, but I guess it's fine for seeing if anybody blinked.

[Tyreman]

Maybe the best way is to physically compare the two cameras... then go away and make a decision later.

[tlc]

I got a 30D and love it, no regrets at all. The only thing I dont like about it is the noisy shutter, when photographing wildlife it can scare them


i started another thread over that same thing and everyone beat me up over it. :o

apparently, the noisy shutter is sexy. :shock:
go figure. :p

[Tyreman]

i started another thread over that same thing and everyone beat me up over it. :o

apparently, the noisy shutter is sexy. :shock:
go figure. :p


Well maybe because they don't have what you have?:D

[tlc]

if you have a 300d, i wouldnt even contemplate a 400d. its pretty much a sidestep, not forward, in my opinion. sure there are a few differences, but not enough to warrant this as an 'upgrade'.

i just went from a 300d to a 30d and i never looked back. the fps was soooo worth it.

and screen had nothing to do with it.

size doesnt always matter......:confused:

[brivett]

Sorry... but I regularly review 500+ shots at half time, between shoots, or planes etc... The bigger screen is MASSIVELY important. Sure if you have time to zoom in and out etc on every shot the small will be fine.... but for me it is one reason why my 20d is now designated for emergency use only. the larger screen does enable you to better check focus, action freeze and lighting.... No questions. lets embrace technology-price breaks.

I don't know the 30d interface, but the 400D's interface is closer to the 1 series than the 20d is... I like that. maybe the 30d has followed that path and dumped the aweful single scroll round menu on the 20d... even the P&S Canons don't have that.

The only downside of the 400d (for most people) is that it's tiny....too small for long term use in man-size paws. For me, that's why I bought it... something to keep tucked in a raincoat pocket when getting grab shots... oh and a camera to take on hols.

I'm sure that the 30d is a better camera than the 400d ... No arguement...

Baz

[nigelr07]

Thanks to all who have helped in this thread - and that is all of you. I read your comments and took your advice on board and have done two steps.

1) Handled both the 400D and the 30D. In my oversized hams, the 400D almost felt like a toy, the grip far too thin for my mits. The 30D SO much nicer to handle. I also liked the whole ergonomics of the 30D over the 400D. Down side is the shutter, it is noisier but for what I do I don't think that will be a problem.
2) Looked at new glass. I wanted a walkabout lens and have decided on the EF 28-135 IS USM. Know it's not an L but seems to review well and the total cost of the two is in my budget.

Well that's where I'm heading and my funds are gone for a bit longer....;)

Thanks sincerely for all your advice and guidance.:D

[taslin]

I would say 30D for body even though I just got mine....it feels like a sherman tank compared to the XT. On the glass....You have to have the 70-200mm f/2.8. I went for the non-IS because I have heard it's faster than the IS or better for sports and I saved $400ish that I used to by my 580ex and upgrade to the 30D. If you need a walking lens I would suggest the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 for the budget minded person. I would suggest that before you buy the 30D to get a good piece of glass and then see how your current camera works. I bought all my glass before I bought my 30D. It was truely amazing to me the difference in color and quality of the pictures between my Tamron and the kit lens.

[ahmads]

You guys are almost making me regret my XTi purchase. :confused:

[aladyforty]

you buy what suits YOU. If you are just starting out with a DSLR the 400D is fine,if you are not worried about the build or the small size of it, again its a good camera. If you are a wildlife or sport photographer perhaps the 30D would have been a better choice but overall you have a nice camera there.

[grego]

You guys are almost making me regret my XTi purchase. :confused:

Don't, if you can make use of the money you saved to buy yourself stellar glass, then do.

[Banditloon]

I'm upgrading from the 350D to the 30D next month. My old trusty 350D will be the back-up camera for my work, and I'll miss the dinky thing :lol:

Before I bought the 350D, I tried the 20D also, but wasn't impressed, but then I was only taking pictures as a hobby and not taking it too seriously. Running around with a camera bag on my bag, riding a bike to do landscape shots, the 20D just felt to big for what I needed, and the 350D has been a good introduction to DSLR's for me :D

Now my requirements have changed with more motorsport events and comissions being handed around and I decided (within my budget), the 30D would be the best choice.

I've even decided to get the 30D over another motorcycle... Thats just madness!!! :lol:

[John T]

Well done Nigel! You made the right decision. I too moved from the 300D to the 30D- as you've no doubt discovered, both cameras are of a similar size except the latter is slightly heavier and much better built. As you also discovered, compared to these models, the 400D is a bit of a toy!

I also started off with the 28-135 IS and was extremely pleased with the results for not too much outlay.

Good luck with your new purchases!

[Rhinotherunt]

Honestly I would look at getting better glass before getting a new camera.

[xxbodkinxx]

XT as you see in my sig, 30d to be delivered tomorrow. The 30d>XTI in my eyes. The 30d is the perfect camera for a amature who wants to step up their game a little, possibly start trying to make a little money as a profession. The xti is what I would of bought if it had come out 2 years ago when I wanted to get into digital dslr.


That being said I think that whatever camera you like in your hands and whatever fits your budget a bit better is what you should go with.


HELL I see tons of pictures of people with the 10d or origional digital rebel that blow my mind away. Its not the camera usually, its the talent and glass on the camera.

[nigelr07]

HELL I see tons of pictures of people with the 10d or origional digital rebel that blow my mind away. Its not the camera usually, its the talent and glass on the camera.

I've been passively watching this thread grow and it does point to a couple of things (in no particular order! :wink:)

1) The technical bits, screen size, scroll wheel, custom functions, etc.
2) Physical size.
3) Glass.
4) The "thing" behind the camera.
5) The need / ability to PP the final result

1) I don't use all the functionality of my 300D(XT) but what I do use I am continually experimenting with. I work in IT within the defence industry so functionlity, twiddly bits are not something I'm concerned about other than is there some REALLY useful functionality on the 30D over the 300D
2) Who said size doesn't matter. borrowed a 400D and within the hour new it wasn't right for me. The grip is far too narrow, to the point of being uncomfortable. 30D whilst a "Sherman tank" is much more comfortable in my bulky hands.
3) Glass, well the EF28-135 has improved the images I've shot, they do appear richer though I'll hold off on final critique of the lense until I've had a good range of images from it. Having said that it has left the body once for about 2hours since I bought it, Think it's going to be firmly attached for somewhile to come...
4) "The thing" in this case me:oops:. I'll never be a Snowdon, Bailey, Cartier Bresson or maybe even half as good as most of the members of this forum (Many of whom I've developed a healthy respect for:mrgreen:). I've seen some stunning images in this forum from the rebel/XT/300D and I have no plans to get rid of it anytime soon, though I still plan to complement it with a big brother/sister (being PC here:)).
5) PP. I note an awful lot of PP work discussed and undertaken just to make images printable and I do wonder if this is more of an issue than the camera. However if the basic foundation isn't good, you'll never be able to correct what isn't there and I thats a combination of items 1-4.

I have one post in the sport forum and if I get the nerve up to show my attempts again I'll post for C&C....