Jay S wrote:
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.
Hmm, according to DP and the comparison pictures, the 400D is built almost exactly the same as the 350D. What body were you comparing it against?
Jay S wrote:
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.
I agree. The ergonomics on the 20D/30D are superior to the ergonomics on the 350D/400D, in my opinion. The extra dial on the 20D/30D makes adjustments much quicker and easier. I actually prefer the user interface system on the 20D/30D over the 1D MKII, where you have to push and hold 1-2 buttons to make adjustments (iso, shooting mode, etc).
Look again at the hands-on preview at DPreview. The grip of the 400D is slightly larger than that of the 350D. I felt a difference when holding the 400D in my hand. Best thing is for you to try for yourself and see how it feels in your hand rather than relying what others say on the net. The 400D is still not as comfortable to hold as the 30D if you have larger hands.
I am currentally using a 5D. I tested it with a 24-70L, 50 compact macro, 24L.
There is a lot to like about the camera but I do a lot of PJ type work indoors witout flash. In that environment, I found it very unreliable.
Jay S wrote:
Look again at the hands-on preview at DPreview. The grip of the 400D is slightly larger than that of the 350D. I felt a difference when holding the 400D in my hand. Best thing is for you to try for yourself and see how it feels in your hand rather than relying what others say on the net. The 400D is still not as comfortable to hold as the 30D if you have larger hands.
Oh I see, in the side-by-side comparison with the 350D, the 400D's grip bulges out a bit more. However, since it still uses the BG-E3 vertical grip, the actual grip size itself should remain about the same, and not really any wider or taller. Although I'm sure it's noticeable in use though, as the slightest changes in ergonomics normally are.
Whats missing on the XTi, so far, I can find .....
1) point exposure control, on the 30D, NOT on the 20D or XTi
2) 3fps on XTi, 5 fps on 30D and 20D
Are there any more things missing on the xti that are not on the other canon cameras? The origional rebel didn't have mirror lockup, near as I can tell, the xti does ....
the thumbwheel for exposure compensation/aperture, magnesium body, larger handgrip for hamhands like mine, and the joystick for selecting the AF point.
Simple question: in terms of image quality alone (this being the only factor I'm concerned with), how much of an advantage does the 400D have over the original 300D?
why do we compare a $800 camera to a $1200 camera.
and bashing the $800 camera saying that it is too cheap? not enough features? not enough buttons? no wheel?
they are not in the same class!
they are not in the same price point.
one is entry level and the other is not.
one is for small hand and the other is not.
each is marketed to different group.
each is designed for its purpose.
I'm an .... advanced amature. The 20D had many more features and was clearly better than the origional 6mp rebel when I made my purchase decision.
Today, I'm not sure which one is better for me. The spot meter I've already been living without on the 20D ...... and the XTi has more MPs, and better dust control ...... I like the 30D controls better, but don't think thats worth $400 ..... the fater FPS I think is the biggest loss if I go with the XTi .......
I need to purchase a new camera body, my 20D is ... gone .... and both the 30D and XTi appeal to me, I want to make sure I understand all the differences.
So far we have
1) spot meter
2) ISO 3200 and 50
3) 5 vs 3 FPS
4) generally accepted easier controls on the 30D
5) better ergonomics holding the 30D
6) more ... durable ... body on the 30D
The XTi is obviously missing the built-in 4-stop IS, the titanium build, eye-controlled focusing, 22MP cleaner than the 5D at ISO 3200 with push to 6400, 88-point AF system, instant AF with lenses f/1.8 or faster, a 3200mHA Li-Ion battery that gives approx 7200 shots per charge, a bounce-swivel pop-up flash with a guide number of 208ft @ 50mm, and not to mention it's not available in annodized lime green and hot pink.
Cmon guys...be happy with what you get for $800...
*Thumbwheel
*Joystick controler
*Pentaprism viewfinder
*Spot meter
*ISO 50
*ISO 3200
*Metal body
*5 f/ps vs 3 f/ps
*Larger body
*Better hand grip
*Top panel LCD screen (400D has a single screen).
*No ISO in viewfinder
*Better battery life from 30D (higher capacity batteries/no dependence on 1 colour LCD).
It's missing a full-frame sensor, a proper pentaprism, and 100% viewfinder coverage at 1x "magnification". Oh, and a button to toggle RAW/JPEG, and another to toggle MLU, and a little button beside the shutter release that would toggle flash on/off (including hotshoe mounted or off camera), and a built in ST-E2 type function to remotely trigger flashes. Oh, and ISO in the viewfinder. And magnesium construction with weather seals. And a pricetag of $300.
jmranew wrote:
Simple question: in terms of image quality alone (this being the only factor I'm concerned with), how much of an advantage does the 400D have over the original 300D?
First, define your idea of image quality. Ours may be different from yours.
Personally I think the question by the OP was very valid. It is not a complaint about the XTi, simply a valid comparison as he states when trying to make a decision. Actually, given what has been listed I think rumours about the death of the 30D are premature. A lot of folks have been saying they is no reason to consider a 30D anymore now that the XTi came out, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
EOS20 wrote:
*Thumbwheel
*Joystick controler
*Pentaprism viewfinder
*Spot meter
*ISO 50
*ISO 3200
*Metal body
*5 f/ps vs 3 f/ps
*Larger body
*Better hand grip
*Top panel LCD screen (400D has a single screen).
*No ISO in viewfinder
*Better battery life from 30D (higher capacity batteries/no dependence on 1 colour LCD).
I think thats just about everything.
No, the classes above consumer/entry level have more durable swithes and buttons, and a shutter/mirror mechanism that is designed to withstand many more shutter releases.
These factors alone are more than enough to pick above entry level.
mrvile7734 wrote:
Cmon guys...be happy with what you get for $800...
You're not helping out here with that attitude. My question IS what do you get for $800. I am not complaining about the lack of features in the XTi, nor the price / value of the XTi.
I AM TRYING TO FIND OUT THE REAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE 30D AND XTI SO I CAN EVALUATE THE RIGHT PURCHASE DECISION FOR MYSELF.
And most of the other posts have been pretty helpful, trying to point out for me the differences. I have not seen much " bashing" of the $800 xti.
my bad
you didnot bash the XTi, sorry if i offended you
are the extra features worth the $400 difference?
the decision is based upon what you shoot, what are your requirements for the photo shoot, what is your timeline for upgrading.
each photog's situation is unique, only you can make that decision.
