I don't buy into what Olympus is doing with their 4/3 systems. Noisy little sensors with expensive lenses. I don't like the fact that they try to sell telephoto's at twice the actual focal length. A 400mm is really a 200mm with the field of view of a 400mm..
I do not believe most consumers buy a DSLR with the idea that they will stick with what comes with the kit. Why bother with a DSLR? Why not just get a point and shoot? Most new yet to be educated consumers are drawn to DSLR because of the idea of interchangeable lenses...
Hands-on eos 400d/xti. That's the title of this thread. Cough.
(oh , and just so I'm not a hypocrit: I tried the xti at best buy and I didn't get the feeling from it that I would be all that excited moving from my trusty xt to it. the 30D on the other hand...)
I really like the compact size and balance with the BG-E3 base and I have just ordered an L bracket to complete the specification. I have already fitted the Canon E1 leather handstrap which makes it look like a shrunken mini-1DMkII!
I see it as a real alternative to the 1DMkII when I want to travel 'lighter' or more discreetly yet still have the luxury of using the same lenses as the 1DMkII. In fact, I now sometimes carry both bodies to avoid lens changes and the 1.6 crop of the 400D may well make it ideal for tripod-mounted telephoto shots as my 300mmf4IS will now become a 480mm on the 400D instead of a 375mm BEFORE adding an extender!
Comparing the autofocus snaps me back into reality and reminds me how great the 1DMkII AF really is but for less demanding tasks, the 400D is a good performer.
The ISO performance looks good on the 400D but i hsven't really investigated this further to date.
In summary, the 400D is an ideal backup body with real benefits from the 1.6x crop yet is totally competent to be used as a main camera when conditions permit......
Suba wrote:
I really like the compact size and balance with the BG-E3 base and I have just ordered an L bracket to complete the specification. I have already fitted the Canon E1 leather handstrap which makes it look like a shrunken mini-1DMkII!
I see it as a real alternative to the 1DMkII when I want to travel 'lighter' or more discreetly yet still have the luxury of using the same lenses as the 1DMkII. I
I'm thinking about replacing my 20D with a smaller 400D when I want to travel light.
What's the point of buying a small 400D body and making it big by adding a grip? Seems like going back to the same thing, but sacrificing some features in the process. Is the battery life not sufficient or is it done for the camera to somehow look more professional like a mini 1DMkII?
The grip is a nice accessory and to some degree defines why the XTi is such a great camera. I like the camera without the grip ... it is light and easy to take with you. But, you can add the grip and get some added convenience with portrait oriented shots and a different feel and balance. It just adds to the flexibility of the overall system.
In answer to MikeZ, the visual effect of a mini 1DMkII was the end result of adding the base and grip, not the reason for adding them!
With most L-glass and longer lenses, the body only plus glass can be remarkably nose-heavy and, if you have reasonably large hands, can be uncomfortable to hold in use as it is quite shallow in height so it is quite an unbalanced combination.
Experience with the 1DMkII has taught me that even a heavy camera can balance very well and be comfortable to hold even if heavy.
In the case of the 400D, the base grip performs two functions other than additional battery capacity which I see as a by-product. The increased depth makes it far more comfortable for me to hold and it also provides a bottom mount for the E1 hand grip which I wouldn't be without.
I often use an Optech Pro-loop strap to travel then unclip it and use the handgrip for walkabout with either camera - YMMV.....
The other two responses hit the nail on the head - it is reversible so that you can have the best of both worlds. I would leave it off with a small prime lens, an option I don't have with the 1DMkII!
I did have a 20D but I gave it to my son to replace his D60. As you can see from the rest of my post, I sometimes missed the advantages of the 1.6 crop on longer lenses so I am now gaining the best of both worlds. For me, I wouldn't have replaced the 20D with a 400D as I feel the nett gains would have been marginal for the additional outlay hence my comment that my 400D is in addition to my 1DMkII providing me with more flexibility.
Yes, Suba has it right. The battery grip really balances the camera out. Without it the camera is too small for my hands, and even the 50f1.4 is too large for the camera alone, but with the grip it's just perfect. The same is true for the Sigma 30f1.4. Perhaps it's experience with the big pro-SLRs, but the weight of these cameras is less important than the feel (ergonomics I suppose) for me.
cheers,
loudtiger wrote:
does anyone have a photo with a 400D + grip? i'm thinking of selling my D60 for one...
In page 24 I have one of mine(pic taken with p&s)
"With most L-glass and longer lenses, the body only plus glass can be remarkably nose-heavy and, if you have reasonably large hands, can be uncomfortable to hold in use as it is quite shallow in height so it is quite an unbalanced combination."
I read this a lot, often as evidence that the larger body cameras a better or that one should not think about using larger lenses on the small camera bodies.
I'll be polite and describe this as "subjective rather than objective." :-)
In almost every way I prefer a smaller camera body, even with larger lenses. It is lighter and easier to handle and manipulate, and it fits more easily into my (many and various) bags and packs.
If you use a really big lens on any of these cameras you are probably going to mount the whole assembly on a tripod or at least a monopod anyway. Even when you hand hold, you likely support the lens with one hand - and its not like you are going to hold the whole mess up and think to yourself, "Darn, this would be so much easier to hold if the camera only weighed a half pound more!"
I had an XT and sold it because of focusing and picked up an XTi about a week ago. I like the menu very much,the focusing is great,the flash is very weak but the worst is that the underexposure is driving me nuts. I have to dial in a +1\3 or+2\3 to get a correctly exposed photo. Some scenes it does just fine ,but on most ,for me, it underexposes and this seems to drive up the noise. I've compared it to a couple of other dSLRs that I have and the XTi simply gives underexposed shots in comparison. Maybe a new XTi or a 30D for me.
kanji41 wrote:
. . . but the worst is that the underexposure is driving me nuts. I have to dial in a +1\3 or+2\3 to get a correctly exposed photo.
kanji - - I have a 20D with a 420EX flash. You should have similar options to what I am describing below on the 400D - - but it may be in a different place. I have set my camera (in the custom functions ETTL II - CF #14 on the 20D) to use AVERAGE rather than EVALUATIVE in the flash exposure section. I think I have the options correct, but I don't have the camera in front of me to make sure.
I think that when a portion of your image has a "hot" or very white portion, when using "evaluative", the camera will dial down the exposure so that it doesn't blow out that highlight. "average" will let it lose the highlight, but give you a better overall exposure.
Also, if you have set your "contrast" setting above the mid-point (that is somewhere in "settings"), then a bright spot will also tend to be blown out. So - - try playing with the ETTL II, and see if that improves your results.
