Thanks again, DaveEP. I may get it as a 2nd camera for event shoots & as a travel camera. Except for the 3-fps & user-interface & ergonomics this appears to be a great 2nd camera for the $.-Ben
Well between the 350D and 400D, the smaller informational top LCD display on the 350D turns on much faster (near instantaneous really) than with the 400D. However, you can start shooting already prior to the LCD display showing anything on the 400D. So I doubt functionally there's much of a difference.
As for shutter lag, the 400D comes in at approximate 100ms (according to Canon's specs) and I don't think that's changed from the 350D. Both are huge improvements over the old 300D. That was one of my biggest peeves about the 300D.
pothique wrote:
How does the startup time of 400D compare with 350D and 30D?
Also, how much is the delay between pressing the shutter and actual capture moment ? In my 300D it is pretty bad. My Elan II was instantaneous.
Hi!
I need a help. I will buy my first DSLR for my friends wedding shoot (later maybe take more wedding shoots). 400D/XTi or 30D, which one is good for me? The both DSLR is good enough for wedding shoots? or someone else? I ues Canon film camera before. Thank you guys!
I just picked up an XTi during my lunch hour, and I also own the XT (until I sell it),
does anybody want any comparisons? Like some tripod shots?
John64: What would you need during a wedding? All are really workable for a wedding. I would worry more on fast glass if you are going indoors. A couple of fast primes, maybe a fast zoom (2.8).
The 30d gets you spot metering which would help in some parts and a faster fps for maybe some action shots. But 3fps is enough most of the time.
The 400d and 30d does have more accurate AF, this could prove very handy when hunting in the dark. The 30d has a better viewfinder, which would make composing the shots easier, especially indoors.
I would say, make sure you can get the lenses you need if indoors first. And remember to get a decent flash, like a 430ex, 550ex, 580ex. You are going to need some power to bounce the flash off the ceiling for even lighting.
foghorn: Thank you so much! I know for the wedding shot, almost over 500 shooting every weddings, the 400D is strong enough? canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS is the best for 30D and 400D, how about tamron 17-50mm f2.8 or sigma 17-50mm f2.8 lens? Thanks again!
John64 wrote:
foghorn: Thank you so much! I know for the wedding shot, almost over 500 shooting every weddings, the 400D is strong enough? canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS is the best for 30D and 400D, how about tamron 17-50mm f2.8 or sigma 17-50mm f2.8 lens? Thanks again!
From what I here, the Tamron is better as far as the sharp/soft copies ratio.
I have shot some events with over 300 shots. Over half were unneccesary/expiremental.
I once went to a bird sanctuary and shot about 125 in 95 degree heat and high humidity.
I have studio sessions (can I say that? I'm not a pro) with over 100 because I'm not good at studio lighting yet.
The canon 17-55 2.8 is a great lens. Like L quality images without the L weather sealing and materials.
It really depends on what you can afford. You have to remember stuff like spare batteries, battery grips if you want one, a good flash, memory cards, etc.
The 20d/30d is great camera...the Rebel's are too. You just have to research some on what the upgraded bodies get you, and whether you need them or not.
You may want to buy a used 20d. Some go for around 900 dollars with a grip and spare batteries. If you need more money for a fast lens. Get a used 350d with grip for around 700.
And remember, it's up to you on how many shots you are going to take, maybe be more selective? Take that with a grain of salt...I'm new to event photography.
The 30D is a better camera than the 400D, in spite of having less MP. I've shot the 20D and 350D a lot. While the 350D is very usable, the 20D is more responsive and is more enjoyable to shoot. Similar comments will apply to the 30D vs 400D. Whether or not you want to spend extra for the 30D is a personal choice.
Here are some 100% crops.
This was taken at 4" f5.6 at 800 iso. I did 800 iso to get some noise going.
Shot at 75mm on a Tamron 28-75 2.8 XR Di (someday, I'll memorize the whole model name, but first I'll start with War and Peace to get warmed up)
Warning: SmugMug is doing some scheduled maint. from 11PM to 4AM tonight (Thur. 9/14)
I have noticed blacks are somewhat noiser with the 400d. However, other colors are similar, and contrast is better and snappier around the edges.
you can visit [url]http://cjkphoto.smugmug.com[/url] and look under the 'ignore this gallery' to download the 100% crops in full.
Here is the 350d.
I can't recommend this camera. It has a great control layout, is responsive, feels solid not cheap, but has one of the least accurate focusing systems I have ever tried to use. It does a VERY poor job indoors (and not much better outside) in low light even with fast L glass. I returned mine.
I got my XTi today. I finally upgraded from the original Digital Rebel that I bought three years ago. I am pretty amazed with it so far. I took almost 100 test shots and focusing is a lot faster and just dead on indoors and outdoors (I tried my Canon 85 f/1.8 and the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 from 1.8/2.8 to 4.0), startup time is much faster, the menu is improved, my images look sharp and well exposed, ISO 800 looks very nice, the buffer is bigger,... it really feels like photography is suddenly a lot more fun again.
sky_barker wrote:
I can't recommend this camera. It has a great control layout, is responsive, feels solid not cheap, but has one of the least accurate focusing systems I have ever tried to use. It does a VERY poor job indoors (and not much better outside) in low light even with fast L glass. I returned mine.You might try another example of the XTi. I have been very inpressed with the AF of my XTi. While it's no match for the AF of my 1 Series mine is very good. In fact it is faster than & as accurate as the AF of my 20D. I've only used my XTi with the Tamron 28-75 f2.8, the Canon 135 f2, and the 50 f1.4 however.
i purchased one and used it on a wedding last week. there were a few things that bothered me about it and i ended up returning it. i took about 700 photos with it. i shot mostly with a sigma 17-80 f2.8 (or whatever that lens is), and some with the canon 50mm f1.8.
here are the things that i didn't like about it:
1. seems like it was underexposing, although it didn't blow highlights. could be a change in design to be more conservative on exposures? i ended up using +1/3 or +2/3 most of the time.
2. too small for comfort. my hands were constantly tired from holding such a small grip. when on the tripod, it wasn't a problem.
3. not as sharp out of the box, but that could be adjusted, or post processed.
here are the things i liked:
1. battery life- i got about 500 shots before having to put the battery on a charger. at that point i just grabbed my old 300d for 20 minutes, then went back to the 400d.
2. shutter sound is very nice and quiet. sounds more professional, like a well oiled machine, rather than the thunk of the 300d.
3. 2.5" screen with data is very nice. found myself referring to it very often.
4. fast startup
5. fast shooting
6. fast auto focus
7. accurate auto focus
It is really a nicer camera, but I just cant stand the small grip. i'll have to get myself a 30d or 40d instead. I am coming from a 300d so this was quite an improvement. 10mp vs 6.3mp, 2.5" screen vs. something very small. 9 shot buffer vs 4. accurate af vs .
sky_barker wrote:
I can't recommend this camera. It has a great control layout, is responsive, feels solid not cheap, but has one of the least accurate focusing systems I have ever tried to use. It does a VERY poor job indoors (and not much better outside) in low light even with fast L glass. I returned mine.
It has the same AF as the 30d. Please don't tell me you prefer the 30d's AF. There are other reasons to upgrade to the 30d. AF shouldn't be the single reason.
I was about two clicks away from upgrading to an XTi when I suddenly decided against it in the end. Looks like it's a nice camera, but not worth the upgrade IMO. Many of the ills you guys are mentioning concern the old Rebel, which I would immediately upgrade from, but not this one. Many of the things you guys are mentioning, like shutter sound, startup time, shutter lag, etc. all come from the XT, which was a major upgrade from the Rebel. The only real reason to upgrade, at least for me, would be for the AF.
However, since I'm primarily a macro and landscape shooter, AF isn't too important for me, and I think my XT does a fine job during those rare times that I actually use AF.
But something some of you keep bringing up is the exposure...many of the XTi shots look slightly less exposed than the XT ones. Some of you may prefer the look of the less exposed shots, but in reality you do end up losing a stop (don't see why you can't just set negative EV for the XT).
I just came from the store. The grip of the 400D is larger and is much more comfortable to hold, even without the battery grip. The new screen is much much bigger than you may expect. Add the better AF and I'm glad that I sold my 350D. Unless Canon comes out with something really interesting by December, I'm getting a 400D for my next safari to shoot with a 300 + 1.4x.
sky_barker wrote:
I can't recommend this camera. It has a great control layout, is responsive, feels solid not cheap, but has one of the least accurate focusing systems I have ever tried to use. It does a VERY poor job indoors (and not much better outside) in low light even with fast L glass. I returned mine.
Hm, this is of utmost concern to me as a sports shooter. What camera are you comparing it to as far as speed and accuracy? (20D, 1D?)
.