- This topic is empty.
Which canon body gives bang for buck
-
hey guys goin to upgrade from my canon 300d soon either goin to go for the 400d or the the 30d any of you have any views on this.Is the 30d worth the extra couple of hundered yoyos over the 400d from what i have researched the only pro for the 30d I can find is sturdier build quality. Even dancing with idea of buying a secondhand 5d (always said I would like a full frame body bring me back to my film days). the way my mind is swinging is toward the 400d from the value point of view alone leaving me more money for glass.Thanks in advance for any views or advice
Just on a minor point of order, you’ve got the “D” in the wrong place! :wink: I know it may sound pedantic, but someone might think you’re talking about Nikon instead of Canon, or think that you are talking about the Canon EOS D30 when you really mean the Canon EOS 30D (two entirely different cameras!)
So, which is it to be, a 400D, 30D or 5D? Well, I have the 30D and it’s a fine camera. But I really do want to get my hands on a 5D! If I were in your shoes right now, I would seriously be thinking about getting a 5D. Of course, you may have to re-evaluate your lens collection in order to account for the fact that you will be using full frame and depending on what you shoot and how you shoot, that may or may not work against you. I don’t know enough about the 400D to talk with any great authority on it, but I have handled it and it is a very small camera, which is something that would put me off using it as I found it awkward to handle as a result.
I just mulled over the same question. 400D or 30D? For me the 5D is out as I don’t think I’ll get enough out of the camera before it’s out of date to justify paying twice/three times as much when I’m still learning. I’d rather spend the money on lenses at this point.
The plusses for the 30D are ISO3200 (there are amazing sports photos on here that seem to be shot at ISO400 so it seemed to me that, perhaps, not having ISO3200 might be good discapline) and a less dense sensor (which theroretically should produce better quality pictures — although most comparisons i’ve read struggle to find much (any) differentce). Perhaps a 30D owner can confirm what the situation is with controlling external flash? On a 400D the only option is to connect up to the hot shoe.
In the end I plumped for the 400D basically on the grounds that there seems to be very little difference in picture quality between the two cameras, which is what counts to me in the end. I’m not the only one. Turnes out a friend at work came to the same conclussion too (he’s now got a 5D mind!).
In terms of moving from the 300D, which is also what I’ve just done, the camera is a little smaller, particularly on the left but the improvement in button ergonomics more than makes up for it. It took me about half an hour to get used to it. The 400D does still feel plasticy but it feels like a better built camera than the 300D.
thanks thorsten edited my message and corrected the deee issue god knows I would hate anyone to think I was a nikon user :D :D :D thanks for the advice I kinda have my mind made up anyway to go for the 400d at this stage
rm wrote:
I just mulled over the same question. 400D or 30D? For me the 5D is out as I don’t think I’ll get enough out of the camera before it’s out of date to justify paying twice/three times as much when I’m still learning.
I strongly suspect that we will see the 30D replaced before we see the 5D replaced. I can’t imagine Canon cannibalising their 1D market just yet with the release of a better 5D.
rm wrote:
I’d rather spend the money on lenses at this point.
Actually, that’s a very smart decision. A good lens is for life, whereas a camera… well, you should get at least 5 years out of a decent digital body.
The viewfinder on the 400D is disgracefully small. It’s like looking into a black tunnel with a tiny rectangle of light at the end. Get the 30D if only for the better viewfinder.
i’ve got the 20d and 350d.. i prefer my 20d over the 350d mainly because of ergonomics. the 350d is a tiny bit small in my hands and if i’m shooting full manual rather than av then changing the aperture can be a hassle. with the 20d theres a large rotar button in the back and a smaller one under the thumb that allows for quick changing of both the aperture and shutter speed.
in normal shooting i don’t see much of a difference in quality, but i do at higher isos.then again, bodies will become obsolete long before good glass does.
bethI am biased towards 400D because thats what I have.
I thought its more than sufficient as a first digital camera, and I thought the size was alright. One can always make it feel more substantial by adding a battery pack anyway. I am always on a tight budget, so my next few photography spending would be on good glass – 300/4L, 70-200/2.8L IS, 1.4x TC etc. (I was thinking about 24-70/2.8L but I think its a bit of a rip-off, and may be an IS version is coming (may be not..), so I think I will get a Sigma 17-70, but thats another discussion..). Even if I had the funds, I would consider upgrading to a 30D as a waste of money – 30D is already some two years (?) old, I will wait for its replacement.
Just my ?0.02
I must say
I have a 350d and a 30d
started with the 350d last august, and then bought the 30d
and the difference in my images is huge. The 30d the auto white balance i find is much more accurate so dont end up colour balancing images as much and just the ammount of keepers i get is much higher than when using the 350d
mind in saying that the 350d is a great camera, and for the price you can pick it or the 400d up for.
interesting to see to see the comments on the entry-level canons v’ the lower-mid range ..
I’ve been considering upgrading the camera I’ve currently got a Minolta Dynax 5D .. obviously there isn’t a pro-sumer variety in Minolta/Sony as yet, so I’m considering the switch to Canon. I’ve used a Canon EOS 300D and I hate it with a passion, in comparision with the Minolta the 300D is a lucky-bag toy for quality, feel & results.Is the 30D that much better than the 300/350/400D ??? Please say yes as I don’t think I could bear using something from the same family as the 300D, and i really need the justification for spending the couple o’hundred extra euro.
lahinch_lass wrote:
Is the 30D that much better than the 300/350/400D ???
That depends very much on your definition of “better”! I have the 30D and I like it. But I also have the extra grip with it and this combined with the alloy body, makes the camera a bit heavier, which is something I look for in a camera. I couldn’t use the 300D, 350D or 400D simply because they are too small and light for my taste. But they will take just as good an image as the 30D, with one caveat – camera ergonomics and handling can have a significant impact on the quality of your images. If think if you feel confident with the camera you’re holding in your hands, then that’s going to translate to feeling more confident about your shooting and by implication this is bound to have an impact on your images.
Would you like the 30D’s handling? I don’t know! Only you can answer that. Best thing is to see if you can actually get hold of one and see how it handles.
I know that Canon is Uber Alles and unbeatable, but unless you have Canon lenses, look at other brands as well, I’d say. I found the Pentax cameras very nice for example, and I use a Nikon D200, of course I praise it. I didn’t want to steal the thread, just a thought.
thanks for the input ..
I did get my hands briefly on a Nikon D200, and a Canon 30D earlier this year .. to me both are a little too big. Bearing in mind that the Minolta I’ve got right now is absolutely ideal, but the spec just isn’t sufficient for my needs .. or rather I can’t get lenses for that mount that will be sufficient. I’ve got little hands so anything that’s a step-up is going to feel big compared to what I’m using at the moment.
I’m trying to break into sports photography and from what I’ve observed the majority of sports photographers in this country at least seem to use Canon.
I can’t make the leap to the top end Canon anytime soon so I’d like to get something about the 30D spec that would allow me to progress the photography and start building up a collection of lenses. I’ve also accepted that I’m going to end up using a monopod permanently when I step up simply because any of those higher-end DSLR bodies are too big for me to hold comfortably once i’m at a 300mm lens.Sports photography? Then 5fps from the 30D should be a big persuader. If you’re happy shooting JPGs rather than raw and post-pro-ing every shot painstakingly, the 30D will fire off 5fps for a very long burst indeed. It even does 10 or so raws without clogging up. Also, I find the rear control wheel invaluable for tweaking settings on the fly (mine’s permanently set for instant EV compensation). It’s just better built all round and pretty damn near a pro camera at prosumer price.
If you’re not especially brand-committed though, do have a look at the Pentax K10D. Not as fast as the 30D but it does have some very groovy features that Canon and Nikon are missing (e.g. in-body IS, intelligent auto ISO) and reputedly a nice viewfinder (do not underestimate the value of a good bright finder?after a long day’s shooting a small pokey finder like the 400D’s will leave your eyes screaming for the Optrex). Plus it’s the best for using old manual focus Pentax K lenses which can be got on fleabay for silly cheap money, retaining open-aperture metering with auto stopdown. And it’s more compact than the 30D and D200, but built to work with weatherseals etc. Downside is it doesn’t have a serious equivalent to Canon/Nikon’s range of rocket-focussing fast pro lenses available to it, yet.
SteveFE wrote:
Sports photography? Then 5fps from the 30D should be a big persuader. If you’re happy shooting JPGs rather than raw and post-pro-ing every shot painstakingly, the 30D will fire off 5fps for a very long burst indeed. It even does 10 or so raws without clogging up. Also, I find the rear control wheel invaluable for tweaking settings on the fly (mine’s permanently set for instant EV compensation). It’s just better built all round and pretty damn near a pro camera at prosumer price.
If you’re not especially brand-committed though, do have a look at the Pentax K10D. Not as fast as the 30D but it does have some very groovy features that Canon and Nikon are missing (e.g. in-body IS, intelligent auto ISO) and reputedly a nice viewfinder (do not underestimate the value of a good bright finder?after a long day’s shooting a small pokey finder like the 400D’s will leave your eyes screaming for the Optrex). Plus it’s the best for using old manual focus Pentax K lenses which can be got on fleabay for silly cheap money, retaining open-aperture metering with auto stopdown. And it’s more compact than the 30D and D200, but built to work with weatherseals etc. Downside is it doesn’t have a serious equivalent to Canon/Nikon’s range of rocket-focussing fast pro lenses available to it, yet.
That’s a pretty big downside for me. One of the sports I shoot is surfing, and unless you’re going into the water you need seriously long lenses, and in ireland they need to be pretty damn fast as well due to the light & lack thereof.
10 or so RAWs sounds like a pretty decent rate for me .. remember I’m coming from a consumer DSLR, though one that’s a damn sight better than it’s canon equivalent.
One question I do have about the Canon 30D – does it have a dust protection mechanism for the sensor ? Just from a note I saw someone else make about a possible successor made me think maybe the 30D doesn’t yet have such a feature. And I have to admit a dirty sensor on my current camera is one of the motivating factors in the upgrade plan. The blasted Minolta doesn’t even have a straight forward mechanism to allow cleaning of the sensor. I’ve found a workaround, but it’s risky as hell, and not something I want to be attempting on a more expensive camera.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
