The problem with the silver version is that Canon used a bright silver. On the XT the silver was more of a titanium. It coordinated with the titanium rings on the EF-S lenses and overall looked understated and nice. A good option to the black. But, on the XTi Canon went with a bright silver that does not fit in with anything else in their system. Big mistake. Yes ... the bright silver leaves a bad impression (at least with me). It is almost like someone in Canon marketing forgot that the company had a style and design for these components.
hkitty ... even if you just use the center AF point ... it is now a higher precsion point on the new XTi.
is the new silver like the silver from the original 300D rebel?
anyway, i just ordered my 400D, black. i should get it by Monday. i'll post a quick review, in comparison to other canon bodies i have used (D60, XT, 1D Mk II). hopefully i'll be able to live with the viewfinder. if not, i'll look into the olympus and nikon magnifiers.
UCSB, I am sure it has higher precision on the 400D. I just can't see much difference realistically (not quite noticeable). And I am not saying the 400D is not a good camera. It certainly is better than the 350D in many ways. All I was saying is that I didn't think it is such a big improvement over my 350D for me to justify the upgrade.
hkitty wrote:
UCSB, I am sure it has higher precision on the 400D. I just can't see much difference realistically (not quite noticeable). And I am not saying the 400D is not a good camera. It certainly is better than the 350D in many ways. All I was saying is that I didn't think it is such a big improvement over my 350D for me to justify the upgrade.
I understand where you are coming from with these comments. I use my XTi and XT interchangeably and this has increased my respect for the XT (solid ISO noise performance, solid exposure performance, sharp images). XT support in software is excellent and the XTi support is just coming together. I can understand sticking with the XT until a bigger upgrade comes along.
Thanks to all who have posted their opinions thanks, im tempted to get a 400d as my little travel camera as carrying the 1dii around all the time gets bloody annoying.
To all who use this as their travelling camera what lenses do you find offers the best median of performance/size of glass.
I have a decent set of lenses but using them ont he 400d kind of defeats the object of being portable.
I am looking at the 17-55F2.8IS/17-85IS/10-22/75-300DO / IS
chris78cpr wrote:
Thanks to all who have posted their opinions thanks, im tempted to get a 400d as my little travel camera as carrying the 1dii around all the time gets bloody annoying.
To all who use this as their travelling camera what lenses do you find offers the best median of performance/size of glass.
I have a decent set of lenses but using them ont he 400d kind of defeats the object of being portable.
I am looking at the 17-55F2.8IS/17-85IS/10-22/75-300DO / IS
What do you guys think?
Chris
Chris,
I don't have them yet but when I think 'travel' or 'lightweight' I think of the following kit:
400D
10-22
17-55 IS *or* 17-85 IS
70-300 IS *or* 70-200 f/4 IS (+ 1.4 TC)
(1) fast prime
Can't really think of anything that isn't covered with that setup. Great focal length coverage, lightweight, and very portable.
chris78cpr wrote:
I am looking at the 17-55F2.8IS/17-85IS/10-22/75-300DO / IS
What do you guys think?
Chris
If you are not "heavy dury" shooter, go for Tamron 17-50/2.8. It had a perfect balance on 400D (even without grip. And a good copy IQ would outperform Canon's 17-55 for all excpet 55mm wide-open.
Frankly. you'll need a battery grip for any of mentioned Canon's glass.
An I would warn you againgst 70-300 DO. I have used mine on trips for about 18 months and will sell it in heartbeat when first 70-200/4L IS would arrive in Moscow.
My travel kit is the 400D, the 17-85 IS, the 70-300 IS, and the 15mm fish. I leave the heavy stuff at home.
And as soon as the new Sigma 18-200 OS starts shipping I'm going to order one of those and see how it measures up. I had the non-OS version and liked it a lot except for the lack of IS.
vyanush wrote:
If you are not "heavy dury" shooter, go for Tamron 17-50/2.8. It had a perfect balance on 400D (even without grip. And a good copy IQ would outperform Canon's 17-55 for all excpet 55mm wide-open.
Agree. The 350D or 400D and Tamron 17-50/2.8 is the Ultimate Light Travel Kit. It's an unbeatable combination of size, weight, and quality. I sold my Tammy but now I regret it, will probably buy it again.
SMALL (coming from a D60 + grip)
LIGHT
better quality than reviews would suggest; nice plastic
made pretty well, feels sturdy
mount and doors are pretty tight, probably due to the newness
AF is fantastic
LCD is good, not as high resolution as i expected
ISO performance is really good. but i've never had a camera with ISO1600 before
grip is a little on the small side, but manageable
viewfinder is tiny. very small. it makes it pretty difficult to manual focus.
status LCD shared with the playback LCD is kind of annoying. i just leave it off.
i miss the rear dial, especially for changing ISO.
all in all, i think after i get used to its quirks, i'll be very happy with it. the image quality (so far, out of my 5 snaps) is very good.it does underexpose slightly, with a lot of whites, but it's not a big deal. maybe -1/3.
i've tried it with my sigma 30 and canon 135L, and it's very portable with the 30 prime.
Does the 400D focus accurately with fast lenses such as the 35mm f1.4?
I had the 400D for a week and sold it. One of the reasons is that the focus is often slightly off the mark.
I've been using fast lenses with narrow DOF on the 1Ds and seldom encounter such focus problem.
loudtiger wrote:
i've noticed that the camera is more susceptible to mirror slap and hand shake.. i can't handhold as well as i could before
I was wondering the same thing yesterday since it has such smaller pixils. I would think maybe IS lenses would work better. I have the 16-35 I plan on using as a walk around lens, but am considering the 17-55 IS.
