400d vs 40d

The 350D does work in serious cold. I have used it at -32C (-25F) - however the 28-135 IS do not like such temperatures. The grease or whatever there is in the lens doesn't like it, and the AF isn't too happy.

hahahaha fantastic stuff racing man

im VERY careful in my posts hence the disclaimer " (didnt know it was Australian slang) "

as i KNOW that its so easy to be disproved here on POTN especially when you talk cameras...

Good work, again a giggle even at 5:56 am

VladDracule wrote in post #3923509
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'm probably going to upgrade from my 350D/XT to the 40D later this year, BUT, that's only because I now want more from the camera than the XT can give me. However I've spent the last year re-learning photography with the 350D and I'm very happy with many of my pics - especially since I invested in some good glass.

My advice to you, especially if you are on a budget, is to go for the 400D, leave the kit lens in the box and buy a decent lens in the focal length you are likely to need. If you decide that you need or want the 40D later, you can always upgrade, but my guess would be that's at least a year down the line, and the new 50d may be out by then .

Although before buying anything, I would suggest go and have a "feel" of each in store if you can, because I got my first "fondle" of the 40D today and it is very different to the 350/400D.

gjl711 wrote in post #3923733
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.

I know we are in a gear forum and I KNOW people love their cameras otherwise we wouldnt be here BUT pretending to go outside in the freezing cold to have "special time" with your camera including the exchange of bodily fluids is starting to push it...

hey Nicko your not the only one from Perth on this early

racingsafetyman wrote in post #3923793
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

Now that you mentioned it, I have heard, and used, the phrase "chock full" of something. Interesting bit of etymology. Thanks for the further clarification.

Now, off to look up "antipodean." This would be a lot easier if you guys would just speak English!

(I kid. Between all the camera talk, one of my favorite things about this forum is its international flavor, which makes reading some of these posts all the more fun and enlightening. Cheers.)

Dekka wrote in post #3924007
Now that you mentioned it, I have heard, and used, the phrase "chock full" of something. Interesting bit of etymology. Thanks for the further clarification.

Now, off to look up "antipodean." This would be a lot easier if you guys would just speak English!

(I kid. Between all the camera talk, one of my favorite things about this forum is its international flavor, which makes reading some of these posts all the more fun. Cheers.)

Like maybe "Chock Full O' Nuts Coffee"?

VladDracule wrote in post #3923509
well im still struggling with the decision.

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

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

Spot metering is just another, even more "accurate" way of metering (for a given value of the word "accurate"). What it actually does is meter an even smaller area from the centre of your viewfinder than the centre-weighted type metering.

As for filters: you will almost certainly want a polarizer (make sure to study how they work and how to buy one) and you will probably end up wanting ND and ND Grad filters too.

I will stir the pot by adding my two cents; if I can mix my metaphors. To say I dislike the Rebels is an understatement. They are small, light, cheap feeling, have bad organization of controls, small viewfinder etc. The 40D is much better in these areas: larger brighter viewfinder, better AF system, faster fps, highlight protection mode (whatever it's called), in camera NR, 14-bit color, live view plus many others.

I'm like the other person who mentioned that they don't like getting something only to realize that it did not meet their needs and then having to get what they really wanted. I did that by getting a Rebel XT and quickly realized that I disliked it.

My advice to you is that if you have the money to spend, get the 40D and good glass. If you plan to stick with photography get the 40D. If you can afford little else than the 40D get it and the EF 50 f/1.8. Don't get the 40D if all you plan to do is get it and the cheapest lens possible, EF 50 f/1.8 excluded. BTW, IMHO any lens cheaper than $300 new, previous lens excluded, is a waste of money (please don't comment on this and explain to me that x lens is great etc; I don't care).

And finally if you don't follow any of this advice, before you get a 400D, get a 30D or even get a 20D. I use a 20D and I would get a 20D any day over a 400D. The 400D has not one feature that is in anyway superior to any feature on the 20D.

I purchased a 400D with the E3 grip (large hands) about 2 months ago and just could not get comfortable with holding it especially when I had the 70 - 200 lens on, then I had the opportunity to use a 40D with a E2N grip for a couple of days and I found it to be a lot more comfortable to handle than the 400D and my fingers seem to find and use the buttons/nobs/dials a whole lot easier.

I'm not that good a photographer to see for myself if the 40D images are a big improvement over the 400D (hell I'm a happy bunny if the subject is still in frame and in focus after the press of the shutter buttonops but I have upgraded to the 40D (got it yesterday) purley for the better feel, If I feel more comfortable using the 40D then that will surley have an impact on my picture taking abilities because I'm feeling more at ease holding the camera, now I'm looking for a cheap E2 grip to give that extra feel of depth to the camera (and somewhere for my little pinky to go )

Got told yesterday that the BG-E2 has been discontiued and we will only be able to get the BG-E2N (and pay the premium for a new product that has a strip of foam added to it over the existing model )

wont the 30d be godo enough?

Probably.

Dekka wrote in post #3924007
(I kid. Between all the camera talk, one of my favorite things about this forum is its international flavor, which makes reading some of these posts all the more fun and enlightening. Cheers.)

Totally agree Dekka, one of the reasons i too enjoy this forum and interacting internationally!

gooble wrote in post #3927077
My advice to you is that if you have the money to spend, get the 40D and good glass. If you plan to stick with photography get the 40D. If you can afford little else than the 40D get it and the EF 50 f/1.8. Don't get the 40D if all you plan to do is get it and the cheapest lens possible, EF 50 f/1.8 excluded. BTW, IMHO any lens cheaper than $300 new, previous lens excluded, is a waste of money (please don't comment on this and explain to me that x lens is great etc; I don't care).

And finally if you don't follow any of this advice, before you get a 400D, get a 30D or even get a 20D. I use a 20D and I would get a 20D any day over a 400D. The 400D has not one feature that is in anyway superior to any feature on the 20D.

totally agree... with the glass and with the 20d/30d/40d different sort of cam

FUBAR247 wrote in post #3927165
I purchased a 400D with the E3 grip (large hands) about 2 months ago and just could not get comfortable with holding it especially when I had the 70 - 200 lens on, then I had the opportunity to use a 40D with a E2N grip for a couple of days and I found it to be a lot more comfortable to handle than the 400D and my fingers seem to find and use the buttons/nobs/dials a whole lot easier. Got told yesterday that the BG-E2 has been discontiued and we will only be able to get the BG-E2N (and pay the premium for a new product that has a strip of foam added to it over the existing model )

I just got the BG-E2 and its great. Im sure there is still some of these available for purchase somewhere! It isnt better than 5D+GRIP. I find the 5d and grip to be even more comfortable and just a bit bigger.

this is the lens i bought w/ my rebel xti. http://www.adorama.com …aspx?sid=118978​4956484298
sorry dont know how to post a quicklink!

does anyone have experiance w/ this lens? ive searched everywhere for reviews but have found literally nothing

sorry heres a real link for the lens http://www.bestbuy.com …=product&id=112​7507945894