Canon 350D vs 400D

sosgal

I need some help

I need to buy a camera for use on a student newspaper. Requirements are for good images in poor lighting situations and decent sports shots.

I'm looking at Canon because that's the 35mm SLR I use myself but not without some frustrations in low light situations. I find I avoid certain situations coz the image quality tends not to be great.

Can someone tell me what the main diff is between 350D and 400D apart from the price.

Or should I be looking to Nikon?

All help really appreciated as I have a budget to buy something but need to use the money fairly livley before it's given elsewhere

eas

hi sosgal

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/

Summary of changes (compared to the EOS 350D / Digital Rebel XT)

10.1 megapixel CMOS sensor with improved microlens array, fill factor and lower noise
EOS Integrated Cleaning System
Anti-static coatings on sensor surfaces plus anti-dust materials in the camera body
Separate low pass filter with ultra-sonic vibration
Software based dust mapping / removal
Nine point Auto Focus sensor (same as EOS 30D) with F2.8 support
Continuous shooting burst up to 27 JPEG and 10 RAW images
Single large, bright, 2.5" LCD monitor with 160° viewing angles (horizontal and vertical)
Camera settings and adjustment on LCD monitor
Proximity sensor below viewfinder eyepiece to disable the LCD during composition
New viewfinder view includes 9 AF points as well as EOS 30D style status bar
Picture Styles, larger range of image parameter adjustment (same as EOS 30D)
Improved user interface
Image magnification available in record review
Histogram available as brightness (Luminance) or RGB (Red, Green, Blue)
Three settings for long exposure noise reduction (adds Auto option)
Auto rotation with three options (not recorded, record don't rotate, record and rotate)
Additional custom functions (magnified view in record review, LCD display at power on)
Up to 9999 images per folder on storage card
Automatic storage of setting adjustments (no longer requires a press of the SET button)
Improved print / share / direct print features
Lower introductory list price ($100 lower)


http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Nikon/nikon_d40.asp

hope that helps

DotOrg

for low light stuff, the 350 or 400D won't make any difference from your film camera if you don't have a decent lens with a very wide aperture

dazftw

I honestly dont think you can go wrong with the 350D I bought mine awhile after it came out for 1200... I saw it in pc world the other day for something like 699 or something! Its worth it!

DadaKopf

DotOrg wrote:

for low light stuff, the 350 or 400D won't make any difference from your film camera if you don't have a decent lens with a very wide aperture

Not sure what you mean here.

sosgal

but is there something better i should look at with my budget of e800? is it a wide lens or an add on flash i need for my low light sits?

please help, supposed to bring my findings to a committee meeting this eve.... and try to keep my funding...

i'm grateful for any and all ideas at all.....

cheers

kuroino

Recently bought 400D, own 300D for three+ years, tried 350D on multiple occasions. So here is my subjective opinion on why to buy 400D, not 350D:

1. I like the screen. It is much better. And the idea to show all shooting info on it (instead of small low-contrast separate LCD) is great IMHO.

2. The grip is slightly better, and that is important, as it is generally poor on both, so any improvement is easy to feel. The body feels generally better too.

3. The AF sensors are good. I personally don't care about different number of them, as I use the central one all the time, but the sensitivity of them is somehow better.

4. The third autorotation option, when it store the rotation of the picture for computer, but does not rotate it on LCD, is great.

All other improvements and changes don't seem too important for me.

DadaKopf

You need a lens with a wide aperture if you want to avoid slow shutter speeds and flash. Anything lens with minimum aperture of f1.2 (expensive) to f1.8 to f2.8. Bigger aperture means more natural light can hit the film/sensor.

Flash isn't evil or anything. Some people prefer to take flash shots even in the daytime.

rabbitinlights

What do you mean by low light? Can you use a flash or must it be natural light?

DotOrg

sosgal wrote:

I need to buy a camera for use on a student newspaper. Requirements are for good images in poor lighting situations and decent sports shots.

good images in poor lighting conditions means you have to use a good lens, the camera body makes little to no difference on image quality

sosgal wrote:

I find I avoid certain situations coz the image quality tends not to be great.

do you understand iso, film speed, aperture? you'll need to learn about these things whether you use your old film camera or a new digital camera

kuroino

> you have to use a good lens, the camera body makes little to no difference on
> image quality

Why? 400D allows me to make shots at ISO 1600 almost at the same level of noise as 300D at ISO 800. That means that I can use twice as short shutter speed at the same apperture.

BTW, the lense should not be necessarily good, but just have to be bright enough. One of the cheapest Canon lense - 50/1.8 is absolute must in low budget photographer's bag, if he wants to shoot in poor lighting conditions without flash.

DotOrg

the original poster is currently using film. if they think that changing from a high speed film to a similar iso on digital will make a massive difference to their pictures they are in general, wrong. they need to look at what specifically is stopping them getting good photos in low light conditions.

and to answer their original question, there is very little difference between the 350D and the 400D in final image quality terms

for good sports & concert shots in low light they may prefer the 20D or 30D which has a higher frames per second rate along with a lenswith a wide aperture

a 50mm f1.8 lens won't be good for the vast majority of sports shots as it's not long enough

Biro

Basically, 350d or 400d or equivalent Nikon won't make a difference to your pictures in low light on their own. While there are advantages of one over another, they don't affect what you're looking for.
Can you describe the type of picture you're trying to take that is giving you problems? That way someone would be better able to offer a solution.

kuroino

DotOrg: I just meant that type of digital body does affect capabilities of the camera to shoot in low light conditions. I did not mean to compare it with film.

Although, I am not sure how say ISO 3200 film compares to ISO 3200 on some particular digital cameras (say 30d) in terms of noise. Because on digital you can always underexpose and then bring your exposure up during post-processing. In that way you could achieve reasonably short shutter speed if the noise allows you to do so.

In the case of a negative film underexposed images loose in quality too much for such manipulations.

At the end Biro is right: let discuss some particular sitation and see the pictures

eas

kuroino wrote:

. Because on digital you can always underexpose and then bring your exposure up during post-processing. In that way you could achieve reasonably short shutter speed if the noise allows you to do so.

Underexposing and correcting in PP is not a solution to a noise problem. If you can't expose properly with the lens you have on, then use a flash or get a faster lens.

kuroino

> Underexposing and correcting in PP is not a solution to a noise problem. If you
> can't expose properly with the lens you have on,

It's not a solution to a noise problem. It's a solution to motion blur problem.

Basically if you are going to take the same picture on 3200 film and on 3200 ISO on digital and the noise level on digital is noticably lower, then on digital you could underexpose one stop, get twice as fast shutter speed and then bring "the exposure" up during RAW processing, then you have an equivalent of 6400 ISO at the similar price in terms of noise. You could not do the same with 3200 film, because the film is much more sensitive to underexposure.

eas

kuroino wrote:

Basically if you are going to take the same picture on 3200 film and on 3200 ISO on digital and the noise level on digital is noticably lower, then on digital you could underexpose one stop, get twice as fast shutter speed and then bring "the exposure" up during RAW processing, then you have an equivalent of 6400 ISO at the similar price in terms of noise. You could not do the same with 3200 film, because the film is much more sensitive to underexposure.

Your not comparing like with with like. The amount of noise you get at 3200iso with a proper exposure and 3200iso with 1 stop underexposure would be completely different. The underexposed shot would have much more noise. Then pushing the exposure up in PP would only exaggerate this again. I think what your suggesting is a catch 22.

You're also making a sweeping statement about the quality of film vs. digital. I'm not 100% sure on this, but I believe there are still 35mm films that have better spatial resolution characteristics at 3200 iso. So saying that underexposing a shot on digital gives the same results as 6400 film is probably generalizing to quite a degree.

In any case, I think it's a fairly logical conclusion to say that if you find yourself having to consider this while shooting, you should get a faster lens or a flash.

kuroino

> The underexposed shot would have much more noise.

I guessed you meant not noise itself (because it will be less noise in fact due to shorter shutter speed), but noise/signal ratio.

If you are talking about one stop underexposure and keep in mind that the shutter speed will be twice as short (and the noise level is affected by the shutter speed), it may not be <b>much</b> more noise.

> I'm not 100% sure on this, but I believe there are still 35mm films that have
> better spatial resolution characteristics at 3200 iso

That is very likely, I agree. I just meant that in terms of underexposure trick, digital sensor gives a bit more flexibility. I did not mean that I know that 35mm and smaller sensor digital cameras overcame film in this respect, sorry.

> So saying that underexposing a shot on digital gives the same results as
> 6400 film is probably generalizing to quite a degree.

Of course not. It will be the same result only in terms of shutter speed/apperture pair. The noise level may be either appropriate or not.

Say I used 300d on iso 1600 with that underexposure trick. For most cases the noise level on this camera is innapropriate on iso 1600 even without underexposure. But for some situations and requirements it's fine. For example (IMHO) just to register a nice moment, such as:





> I think it's a fairly logical conclusion to say that if you find yourself having
> to consider this while shooting, you should get a faster lens or a flash.

I guess if you can use flash for some shots you have to use it, it is no question at all. Just a different setting alltogether. We were discussing no-flash photography.