300d vs 400d

I'm trying to stick to using my digital rebel (300d) as it's my primary camera. I do however, have access to an XTI that I can pretty much use whenever I want.

I also know that theoretically, the more mp crammed on a sensor, the more noise you're supposedly going to encounter in the high iso range. Will the 300d be better in low loight conditions at say an 800iso vs a 1600iso than the 400d? I'm going to be using the 70-200mm f/2.8 is

Not sure about the 300D but the 400D shows slightly more noise than the 350D at ISO1600 but you really have to look quite hard to see it.

Obviously the 30D would be a marked improvement.

If you have access to a 400D why not do a comparison...?

the 300d is a capable camera, do a comparison and show us

Speed, speed, speed!!!

evandavies wrote in post #2761194
If you have access to a 400D why not do a comparison...?

30d is coming soon. Buying lenses now since I have 2 more than capable cameras

I have a 300D and 400D and although I have not used or experimented much with 1600asa, I have taken allot of shots with both at 800asa, both in low light and using a long lens on a cloudy day.....I have gotten great shots with both. I am far from being a pro but I can't tell allot of diference.

i use a 300D for concert photography always shooting at 800ISO and above.

At 800 the images are OK and with a bit of Noise Ninja, they are absolutely fine.

at 1600 they become unusable and there isnt much i can do to save them.

i dont know about the 400D though im afraid.

take a look at www.ryanatkinsonphotog​raphy.co.uk, all images shot in the portfolio were on a 300D with 800ISO

Village_Idiot wrote in post #2761556
30d is coming soon.

Congrats

The theory behind the assumption is good, but you have to factor in Digic vs. Digic II. All I can say is my 30D is light years ahead (okay, maybe just a stop or two ) of my 300D in terms of noise, or lack thereof.

I used to own a 300D and noticed a substantial noise improvement when I moved to a 350D. Now I have a 400D, and I'm not convinced that it's any worse than the 350D. So, in a round about way, I'd say that the 400D is better for noise levels.

There is a better noise improvement on the latter cameras but having said that the 300d is more than capable.
It's biggest drawback is virtually no buffer and slowish startup time.
When I moved up to the 20D i noticed a real difference at 1600 iso.
800 iso and below there is not much difference although in my opinion 200 iso on the 20d is no different to 100 iso whereas on the 300d 200 iso did have some very minor noise.

noise is and buffer are the only things that bother me about my 300d. was thinking of upgrading to 400d but now that i hear it isnt much better i dunno? any of you upgrade from 300d to 400d and were happy? i want to upgrade but dont want to pay more if it isnt going to do much.... want to get something im happy with for a while so i wont have to upgrade unless i would get alot better and start making money with it. especially considering im always broke and had to save forever to get the 300d