400d vs 40d

all right ill start out by apologizing because im sure you have all read this post before but i couldnt find one recently so gotta start my own

Anyways i just recently purchased a 400D and have a 14 day exchange period on it. is the 40D worth the 700 difference?

This is my first SLR and of course have alot of learning to do. i know the 40d has spot metering which the XTI doesnt and the sensor is better, but how much of a difference does it really make?

Thanks in advance

I thought the sensor was identical.

Anyway, opinions vary: I know for me, at the moment, there's no point in spending that extra cash.

Far better to spend it on a good lens.

You'll get some more opinions over the next few hours, no doubt.

I agree, given that your just starting investing is some quality glass will improve your pics way more than a new body and in very noticeable ways. The 40D is nice and has a lot of bells an whistles but given the same lens, it would be very difficult to see the difference in the final picture. However, a pic taken with a 40D and the kit lens and a pic taken with the XTi and a 17-55IS, the XTi will simply outshine the other.

Go with the glass.

If, in the future, you find the XTi is limiting you, sell it and move up - but by then, hopefully you'll have some glass that can really bring it out.

The XTi is a great camera with a rich feature set and priced on the cheap. Congrats on the purchase.

gjl711 wrote in post #3916379
...However, a pic taken with a 40D and the kit lens and a pic taken with the XTi and a 17-55IS, the XTi will simply outshine the other.

Alright, as a new EOS 40D owner, I'm going to defend the 40D kit lens.

It is not your everyday, run-of-the-mill kit lens. It is actually a very good lens: Canon 28-135mm F3.5-5.6 EF IS USM.

I really like the image stabilization in it. This photo was taken handheld at 1/15 sec.

The sensor's on the 40D and the XTi are not identical. The 40D has larger microlenses over the sensor which are supposed to help in gathering light. The 40D sensor also has 14 bit raw conversion as opposed to 12 bit. Not huge differences perhaps, but the sensors are distinct. The 40D also has a much improved auto-focus system than the XTi.

My advice is if you plan on shooting fast moving objects, sports, birds, wildlife, etc., then the features on the 40D are worth the extra cost. The increased frames per second and improved auto-focus engine will get you pictures in those situations that the XTi would miss.

If you're style of photography does not demand the speed in autofocus or frames per second, then the XTi will be fine and will take fantastic images for you. The real world difference in image quality between these two cameras is minimal.

The only other reason to go for the 40D if you don't need the extra features would be the size and ergonomics. Some people find the rebel series too small to comfortably handle. Altough, the battery grip for the rebel pretty much fixes that problem for much less $ than an upgrade to the 40D would cost.

McManus wrote in post #3916537
The sensor's on the 40D and the XTi are not identical. The 40D has larger microlenses over the sensor which are supposed to help in gathering light. The 40D sensor also has 14 bit raw conversion as opposed to 12 bit. Not huge differences perhaps, but the sensors are distinct.

Thanks for the clarification: I was sure I'd read somewhere that Canon had stated the sensors were the same. It would appear I was mistaken.

McManus wrote in post #3916537
The only other reason to go for the 40D if you don't need the extra features would be the size and ergonomics. Some people find the rebel series too small to comfortably handle. Altough, the battery grip for the rebel pretty much fixes that problem for much less $ than an upgrade to the 40D would cost.

Agreed: the battery grip improves the size of the camera no end, plus the advantages of double battery power and portrait controls make it well worth the purchase. Go for the original Canon one - not third party ones which have been reported to fail.

as far as glass goes i have 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS lens and would of course be keeping it regardless of the decision on the body.

for now not alot of sports photography, just the soccer teams that i coach which is ages 9-10 so its not fast paced enough to NEED the 40d im guessing

Go for the glass! A good lens will make more of a difference than upgrading to the 40D. Once you understand what features you need that the 400D doesn't have would be the time to look at upgrading the body. If you are just starting out you won't know this yet.

Sounds like for your situation saving the money is the way to go. No need to spend money on features you don't need.

AperturePriority wrote in post #3916447
Alright, as a new EOS 40D owner, I'm going to defend the 40D kit lens.

It is not your everyday, run-of-the-mill kit lens. It is actually a very good lens: Canon 28-135mm F3.5-5.6 EF IS USM.

I'm not slamming the 40D, nor the 28-135 in fact, I have the 28-135 and used it often before getting the 17-55. My point was that given a choice of upgrading body or glass, especially if you do not have a bunch of glass, the glass is going to give you significantly more bang for the buck. Couple that with the fact that your comparing a 400D and the 40D and a body upgrade will do almost nothing to the quality of your pics.

gjl711 wrote in post #3917212
...the fact that your comparing a 400D and the 40D and a body upgrade will do almost nothing to the quality of your pics.

Sure it does!

With the 40D, you will be able to use ISO 3200 for those situations where you really need it. You will also be able to use a light meter to dial in a specific kelvin temperature for your white balance. You will have access to a shutter speed of 1/8000 for those critical stop-action shots. And what about spot-metering, doesn't the XTi lack that? We also can't forget about the 6.5 fps rapid firing.

All these will most certainly contribute to the quality of your pics.

.

AperturePriority wrote in post #3917306
All these will most certainly contribute to the quality of your pics.

I disagree. There are a couple of things there that MIGHT allow you to take a slightly different shot than you would have made with the 400D, but is that actually enhancing the QUALITY of your pictures?

Once you're talking about equipment at this level, and the images you might want to create, I think it's more important to look at changes to the photographer rather than the gear.

My opinion only.

EMarkM wrote in post #3919502
I disagree. There are a couple of things there that MIGHT allow you to take a slightly different shot than you would have made with the 400D, but is that actually enhancing the QUALITY of your pictures?

Once you're talking about equipment at this level, and the images you might want to create, I think it's more important to look at changes to the photographer rather than the gear.

My opinion only.

I agree that just because someone has a better camera, lens, whatever, doesn't make them a better photographer. If someone has the best word processor in the world, that doesn't make them a best-selling author!

By the way, the 40D has better weather seals than the XTi. If rain or moisture gets into the XTi, then the quality of the images will suffer for sure!

.

ummmm...the weather sealing is on the battery door and the cf door! i dont see that making a diffrence!

just stick to the xti, because your new to dslr's. the 40d might have too much things on it that you wont need, for now! i have a xti for three months and iam still learning how to use it! id say keep the xti, and get better glass! its your money...spend it wisely! some people here will say glass will be the one to make or break the picture while some say its the body, but in the end of the day it will come down to if you liked the pictures you took and if you had fun!