400d vs 40d

I would get the 40d! who says he isnt going to buy better glass soon?? From what Ive seent he 40d is alot better then the 400d but! Like others have said if its your first slr you will be happy with the 400d its a good camera to learn with and by the time you have learnt to use it properly the 40d will probaly come down a bit in price

thanks
will

I would take a 400d and a 50mm 1.4 and 17-40 f/4 over a 40D and 28-135IS any day of the week. The 40d has a lot of bells and whistels to help you take the best shot possible (spot metering, faster fps, bigger screen ect) but in reality the 14 bit sensor isn't going to make a noticable difference for the 400d's 12bit sensor unless you are shooting in raw and tonemapping those files (photoshop, photomatix and aperture do not have raw support for the 40d yet)

Even with all the bells and wistels, when it comes to taking a good photo your glass is the most important part.

Good luck!

Tell us how important USD$700 is to you? is there really that much difference in price?

Im an absolute sucker for getting what i want right the first time.. i dislike selling and replacing. If your the type of person who has a camera with you most of the time you go out and enjoy shooting everything and think you will continue to for a while then id seriously consider the 40d.

I used an uncles 400d on the weekend and it seemed to have all the features I would need... although i do like spot metering for action shots... but the VF was small, the options were more awkward to change quickly, its small in my hands and its made of plastic. With my 24-70 lens on it im certain it took as nice pics. EXCEPT when we were throwing the nephew around in a sheet and the 40d was stellar in getting a sharp fast midair shot.

Would you ever goto an airshow? car race? these things are where I like to take my camera as well as sunsets etc. I tested my new lens in bad light tracking a car going 60-70km hr using servo mode and got 30 sharp shots in 5 seconds it took to drive past me. The 400d can do all of these things but the 40d can do it all better, faster and more accurately.

The user experience is one part of photography that some people value more than others. But everyone has a line in the sand when it comes to money. Mine was the 40d as the 1Dmk3 was too much. For the same AUD$6000 that a mk3 costs i got a 40D, 24-70, 100-400,Grip,2Batts. So you could say i went the route of lesser body more glass also but the diff for you is 1 lens not 2.

Its your moolah$$$ id get the upgrade. But my house is chockers with bloody toys, im an addict. and i count things in "how many days pay is it worth"

goodluck - only you know the answer to this one

In my opinion, the extra mooneh should be worth it. Why should? Because I haven't used it.. but assuming all those white paper features play true to me personally, I'd say it is so. 400D vs. 30D? That's a harder decision.. for me atleast. But I'd snap up a 40D over a 400D.

Super-Nicko wrote in post #3919952
...Its your moolah$$$ id get the upgrade. But my house is chockers with bloody toys, im an addict. and i count things in "how many days pay is it worth"

Chockers? I'm off to google what in the world that word means, but regardless of the outcome I'm integrating it into my repertoire.

I would rather buy the better camera and then save more money to get better lenses

I'm very interested in exactly this question ... already have decent quality glass.

Other than more fps for the occasional motor sport shoot ... will I really notice the differences between a 400D and 40D in image quality / colour ?

Dekka wrote in post #3919982
Chockers? I'm off to google what in the world that word means, but regardless of the outcome I'm integrating it into my repertoire.

Hahaha Not sure if your being sarcastic or not...

Just incase your not... (didnt know it was Australian slang) but chockers is to be "full of" or "busting at the seams with" etc etc hehehe

"...man I ate soooo much, im absolutely chockers..."

as for this question.... " will I really notice the differences between a 400D and 40D in image quality / colour ?"

Not sure.. possibly not.. getting the shot is probably the difference. I mean your average final big print gets a bit of PP work and any differences in colour etc would be fixed there anyways i suspect. Im sure theres an amount it would be better... dont know if you'd pick it easily though.

Super-Nicko wrote in post #3920202
Hahaha Not sure if your being sarcastic or not...

Just incase your not... (didnt know it was Australian slang) but chockers is to be "full of" or "busting at the seams with" etc etc hehehe

"...man I ate soooo much, im absolutely chockers..."

Yeah, I googled it and found out, after much searching I might add.

And no, I'm not joking. "Chockers" is now in my vocabulary and I fully intend to use it whever possible, and a few times where it's not. It's just too cool of a word not to.

haha just read that and laughed... told my wife the story... she wondered if you are using it in its "aussie" accent or in an american accent... its more like"chokkaz" rather than how i can imagine it might be pronounced "chawk-ers" or "choke-errs"

Made me laugh anyways... love the net for its world wide community

well im still struggling with the decision.

one question id like to have answered though is what exactly does spot metering do for you?

the difference as far as i can understand is the faster fps on the 40d, higher iso meaning to get the same shot on an xti may require a slower shutter speed do to the lower max iso but.

i dont see that beeing a problem anytime soon. does anyone know of a thread that has side by side shots at iso 800+ for the 400d and 40d w/ 100%crop to see noise levels?

oh and one more thing, is it best to have both a UV filter and a polarizing filter?

I wouldn't call the tape on the 40D battery and memory doors weather sealing. It seems to be decent dust protection, but nothing more.

Have you went and played with either of them yet? the 350/400d feels like a cheap toy to me and I much prefer the controls of the 20d/30d/40d line up. My wife loves her XT since it feels more comfortable in her hands. She just shoots photos of our daughter outside and then some landscape shots. the XT fits her needs. While I shoot action sports and weddings. So the rebels are not suited for me.

Until this past summer, I was shooting 100% on my 20d. I have around 90k clicks on it and it has yet to give me an issue. While that doesn't mean the 40d that I just got wont' give me issues, it does say something for the durability of it. I wouldn't even dream of bring my wifes xt out in -20F weather in a blizzard to shoot kiteskiers blasting around on a snowcovered lake. My 20d takes it like a champ.

If you think you will want to use it in just about any situation and you have the coin for it, I'd say drop on the 40D or even a 30D (which isn't a whole lot more then the 400d). then start saving up for a good quality range of lenses.

thewavebb wrote in post #3923656
... I wouldn't even dream of bring my wifes xt out in -20F weather in a blizzard to shoot kiteskiers blasting around on a snowcovered lake. My 20d takes it like a champ....

Not to be argumentative, but what in the two digit cameras give it an advantage in cold weather over three digit cameras. I have had both my XTi and my 5D out in the cold and both also performed without flaw.
But it seems to me that the XT/Xti would have the advantage over the two digit cameras. I mean, have you ever put your tongue on cold metal when it’s -20? Your gonna have to walk in the house with the camera hanging off your tongue. That won’t happen with a three digit camera.

Super-Nicko wrote in post #3920771
haha just read that and laughed... told my wife the story... she wondered if you are using it in its "aussie" accent or in an american accent... its more like"chokkaz" rather than how i can imagine it might be pronounced "chawk-ers" or "choke-errs"

Made me laugh anyways... love the net for its world wide community

Trust our Antipodean cousins to claim it as there own slang

The original term is Chock-A-Block, and means crammed so tightly together as to prevent movement. It probably has nautical origins based around the term chokkefulle, or full to choking.

However the abbreviated term "chocker" would seem to be a WWII UK military slang meaning 'fed-up or disgruntled'

There was also a BBC childrens TV show in the 1980's called Chock-A-Block which "starred" an extremely large yellow computer, modelled to resemble a mainframe of the time; it filled the entire studio and provided the backdrop for the show.

(info courtesy of wikipedia and the phrase finder)

Wouldn't want you being confused