Around ~230 euros for the SD card, tripod, extra battery and bag. Nicely in budget.
Since I'm not ultra-excited about the 18-55 IS, from what I've seen and read, I was wondering what other options there are.
I came across this combo:
Canon 40D body: 685
Tamron 17-50: 328
= 1013
The extras would be the same here (Lexar 8GB 133x CF instead of SD, same price), so just 50 euros over budget, I can manage that.
Now I'm wondering, would the 40D + tamron combo be that much better to justify not getting the 100mm macro... I would be buying a longer focal macro lens eventually, and the 100mm just really appeals to me.
What drives me to this doubt is that I shot with my friends 30D a lot, as well as some shooting with a colleagues 400D, and I really like the xxD controls more. The 400D also feels a lot flimsier than the 30D. I assume the 40D and 450D have the same differences.
Of course, the 450D also has some advantages over the 40D.
I know it's comparing apples and oranges, but I would like some feedback on this decision :P
Hi there! Personally I'd sack the 18-55 too! A more interesting choice would be 10-22mm or the Tamron. The macro lens looks sweet, I'm considering that too, it looks like a great portrait lens as well as macro lens.
If I were you I'd go for the 40D (I'm biased as I have one I guess :P) but I've tried the 450D on several occasions and found it too fiddly and to be a plastic piece of crap (sorry 450D owners!).
My main argument against the 18-55 IS is from what I've read about it: Crappy manual focusing, not very wide (I like playing with DOF), rotating front element. I do plan to use a polarization and/or gradient filter.
The difference between the 450D kit and just the body is so small though (80 euros difference), that I would probably get it eitherway.
Perhaps a nifty fifty and some kenko tubes could satisfy my macro needs meanwhile...
Get the 40D. Take that from someone who has owned a 5D, 40D and an XSi. The XSi feels so, so cheap by comparison, and the extra controls and dials on the 40D etc make it a better long-term camera. And the 18-55 really is a piece of crap. The Tamron 17-50 is good! And yes, the 50mm is EF, and will be fine.
If it's your only camera get the 40D with a Tamron 17-50 and leave the macro for now (are you really going to do that much macro, the 100 f2 or 85 1.8 is a better lens for portraits and cheaper)
jvarszegi wrote:
Is the viewfinder appreciably larger on the 40D?
I have looked through them and am under the impression that the 40D's is somewhat larger... Appreciably... I don't know. I think that is subjective. But I will take any extras with these 1.6x crop VF's (they are so small to begin with)
All in all it comes out the cheapest, and I can drive there and pick things up. No need for my package to be tossed around by the mailman (no pun intended... at all)
Daan B wrote:
I have looked through them and am under the impression that the 40D's is somewhat larger... Appreciably... I don't know. I think that is subjective. But I will take any extras with these 1.6x crop VF's (they are so small to begin with)
Looks like it's a bit less than 10% larger in each dimension, according to DPReview-- dunno how the "eyepoint" may affect it, giving a little more to the 450D perhaps:
450D viewfinder:
• Pentamirror
• 95% frame coverage
• Magnification: 0.87x * (-1 diopter with 50 mm lens at infinity)
• Eyepoint: 19 mm *
• Dioptric adjustment: -3.0 to +1.0 diopter
• Fixed precision matte
• Proximity sensor disables LCD shooting mode information
40D viewfinder:
• Eye-level pentaprism
• 95% frame coverage
• Magnification: 0.95x * (-1 diopter with 50 mm lens at infinity)
• Eyepoint: 22 mm *
• Interchangeable focusing screen Ef-A standard (2 other types optional) *
• Dioptric adjustment: -3.0 to +1.0 diopter
All in all it comes out the cheapest, and I can drive there and pick things up. No need for my package to be tossed around by the mailman (no pun intended... at all)
Much as I'm a huge fan of the 450D (see the 450D v 5D thread) that is primarily for travel and when I want a light body, the 40D like all the previous xxD series is much better made, has a faster FPS, better viewfinder, rear dial etc etc so if it's to be your only camera I'd certainly go 40D
As for the lens, you really should consider the Tamron (see that thread again) it's fantastic for the price and the detail, sharpness & contrast available from it is superb
I have both the 40D and the Rebel. Both are good cameras. The build of the 40D is better. The weight is significantly more. Both have their place and their function. Buy whichever you choose. But I'm with the others: Ditch the 18-55 lens and go for a better quality piece of glass.
50mm is awesome, I have the 50mm f/1.4 and its a great lens, without tubes, not got tubes yet so I dunno about that.
40D is a bargain now as the 50D has been released, I paid £600 for mine in January and was happy with it, dunno how much it is now but I can assme its considerably cheaper.
40D has better Ergonomics. XSI feels like a kids camera and is made like one too! This is coming from a guy who went through 3-4 XTs and XTIs, then finally went to a 30D. No contest.
XSI uses SD Cards, are you serious? What a joke.
Those were enough reasons for me to get the 40D, and I got one coming to me this week
I just can't help feeling the OP is getting bad advice. Many of you are advising him to get the bigger camera because it's bigger, when he's upgrading from a point and shoot. You're advising him to get the bigger camera because of a nearly unnoticeable difference in viewfinder size, again to someone who's only used a point and shoot. He can probably reuse existing SD cards in the XSi-- anyone thought of that? etc. etc. etc. ... and you're advising him to get a more expensive camera when he's on a very limited budget.
