DaveEP
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #18 · •Hands-On• EOS 400D/XTi Body | |
susslaps wrote:
DaveEP:
Thank you for your exhaustive analysis. I notice in your gear list at bottom you have a 20D. I have a 20D also and I wonder if you can tell me how the overall quality of the 400XT compares to the 20D. I realize you haven't had it long obviously, but does your gut analysis say the the 20D is worth ~$300> than the XT?
Thanks, Ben
Well, what ever I write here is going to be totally subjective, and "someone' would always disagree, so I don't think I want to get it on to "400D is better than 20D" or visa versa.
Clearly for me, the 400D had enough advantages that I have chosen to buy it, and will likely sell my 20D (because I no longer use it for the only purpose I bought it). That does not mean it is better or worse, just that "for me" it is more suited to the task.
I don't think it would help to go through each feature one at a time, comparing and deciding which is best. The 20D is a VERY good camera, always was, always will be, but in the end, the size/weight difference of the 20D from a 1 series was not enough for me. The small LCD hampered me in some instances (as it continues to do on the 1 series), the shutter sound was a bit loud (though rarely a problem), and I always had the concerns about changing lenses in the open air (e.g. when there was a slight breeze etc).
I simply don't need the 5 fps of the 20D. When I want "fast" I have a 1D2, so 3 fps is plenty on what is for me only a travel / walk about camera.
Could I have gone on with the 20D? Absolutely. Does the 400D wipe the floor with it? Not a chance. Does the 20D wipe the floor with the 400D? In my opinion, no.
The extra MP don't really mean that much (an extra 10.9% or 3888 vs 3504 on the long side), but the extra LCD size, the dust busting and the ability to go smaller and lighter were big things to me. Everything else is 'comparable'. The only places where the 20D may win are the user interface and shooting at high ISO. But for me, when I am looking at a printed photograph taken at high ISO, I am looking at the 'picture' and not the 'noise'. I just don't walk up close enough to see the noise. As for ISO 3200, I don't use it that much on a "walk about" camera, and so am unlikely to miss it. If I need it, I will adjust the exposure comensation and push it in the raw converter. If I know ahead of time that I am going to need it for shots that are 'not for personal use' I would take the 1D2 instead (which in my experience is better than the 20D anyway).
I have said all along (on many posts) that the anti dust feature is the one thing that would make me consider changing any one of my bodies. So, here it is, and that's exactly what I have done. When Canon put it on a 1DsX in the future, that's the time I will probably change the 1 series bodies, and not until.
So is the 20D worth $300 more than the 400D? Sorry guys, that's for each individual to decide based on what they want it for, and as much as anything else, the physical size of the thing. If you want the top LCD, 5 fps, better ergonimics (size), rear control wheel, and (IMO) better user interface, then the 20D may well be worth the extras money. However, I would say that on the technology side, the edges are really starting to blur a little 
What I would add is that the advances made in the 5D, 30D and now the 400D bode well for future Canon bodies.
|
. My observation though, regardless of what it is, Canon is pretty fast in making this camera available. Something like 2-3 weeks after the announcement? I am impressed....