400d V 30d

podge018

I'd like your opinions please. I read tonnes of reviews and was pretty sure I wanted to get a 400d, I had a chat with a photography instructor just to confirm it was a good camera etc and he recommended that I go a level further and get the 30d, his reasoning being if I intended getting into photography in a big way that I'll outgrow the 400d quickly and will want the 30d a lot sooner than I think due to the controls being on the body, rather than in the menu.

So, I checked a few sites and even came across a great little 'head to head' of the 2 cameras on dpreview, and to be honest, I can't see much in it. So I went into Berminghams on the quays and I asked the guy there about the two and he seemed dead against the 30d. He specifically said the 400d was a better camera! I asked about the difference in price etc if that's the case, he kind of rambled about how the 30d is out longer or something.

The dust-cleaning function on the 400d seems a big deal to me. It's also a 10.1 megapixel compared to the 8 of the 30d. The biggest plus for the 30d seems to be the 5fps compared to the 400d's 3fps.

So, should I shell out an extra 500 quid or so when that's money I could put into a good lens.

City-Exile

The 400D is a great camera but it's not a pro model.
The Frames Per Second rate is only important if you want to shoot action. I'd get the 400D, with the battery grip and save for a 5D.
The 400D will do everything you want it to do.

mathias

So I went into Berminghams on the quays and I asked the guy there about the two and he seemed dead against the 30d. He specifically said the 400d was a better camera!

The 400D is a good camera but ,

Your instructor is right , and Ive yet to meet a camera shop assistant in this country that knows what hes talking about ( Except Gunns ..they are excellent)

The 30D is better built , it is much more comfortable to hold and to operate and if your going to spend any amount of time with a camera the 30D is definitely the superior model.

I have the 20D ( there is almost no difference between the 20d and 30d ) and everyone that owns a 400d and holds the 20d for second wishes they had spent the extra money.

As far as the megapixel count goes , the extra 2 MP on the 400D makes no difference to image quality whatsoever.

The Dust thing is a gimmick , your going to need to be careful changing lenses regardless , they will all get dusty sooner or later , there is no fully working solution to the problem of dust on Digital SLR's in existence yet.

The Dust mechanism in the 400D relies on all contamination that gets into the camera being dry , that way it will shake off , In practice , the real world throws damp goo in there that glues itself to the sensor and you will need wet swabs to clean it. So thats where most anti dust systems fall down.

To Sum up , the 400d is a very good camera , and if your on a budget thats the one to go for , however if money is not so tight , the 30D is a better camera to use than the 400D in almost every way , its a far superior model and if you have the money go for it !!

positron

I think it all depends on your budget and how you are going to use the camera.

400D is a newer model, hence has some of the good features from 30D. 30D would feel more substantial and grown up pro in your hands, but I personally prefer the compactness of 400D. It also has a larger LCD etc too.

The controls are def better in 30D. But 400D is perfectly usable, especially with a battery grip.

If you are planning to give a go at shooting sports etc, the 30Ds' 5fps is important. But I think (not sure...) 400D has a larger and faster buffer.. (less time between bursts of shots when the buffer is actually full)?

I would say include the cost of buying a good lens as well to your total budget. Depending on your style, you might want to get a 10-22 (about €500) or 17-40L (about €500) or 24-70 2.8L (about €1000) and filters etc. No point spending whole load of cash on 30D if all you have is the kit lens.

Paulw

I have a 20D, and my girlfriend has the 400D. While both are great cameras, there is no way I'd swap mine for hers.

The 400D is made of plastic and everything is menu driven.

The 20D/30D is a magnesium alloy body, larger, firmer and is a proper prosumer DSLR.

I would totally ignore the megapixel count. You won't notice the difference here unless you're printing very very large images, and even then you'll do well to spot the difference.

The sensor cleaning is a toy. There are many reviews online about camera sensor self cleaning and ALL reviews say that no matter what, your camera sensor will still gather dust and will still need to be properly cleaned. http://pixinfo.com/en/articles/ccd-dust-removal/

Bottom line - go to a shop, and feel both in your hands. The 30D is a much better build of camera and is not lacking in technical quality either. I'd certainly recommend it, if your budget can afford.

Carrigman

I bought a 400D body as a backup for my 20D. Both are excellent cameras. The 20D is more robust but I doubt if that is going to make one whit of difference for the vast majority of non-professional photographers. There is little to choose as regards image quality but I reckon the 400D, because of the higher megapixel size, has the edge. Those two additional MPs DO make a difference - they give you greater room for manoeuvre when cropping. The battery grip that I purchased with the 400D makes a world of difference expecially if you have biggish hands.

I would advise you to go with the 400D and spend the money you will save on good quality glass.

deRanged

what about the sort of lenses you'll be using?

I was in town asking about long (400-500mm) lenses for my 400D and the salesguy was mentioning that the likes of the Sigma 50-500 might be too heavy for the plastic body. I've seen that mentioned online too and it is a bit of a concern.

I find the 400D a bit small and light - I've been thinking about the battery grip but if I'm going to end up wanting/needing a bigger stronger body like in the 30D then I don't want to put money into the 400D.

Anyone have opinions on 'lens limitations' with the 400D?

ThOnda

Just mount a tripod on the lense, not on the camera.
Be aware that more "zoom" factor do you have, the worse is image quality.

positron

deRanged wrote:

.. the salesguy was mentioning that the likes of the Sigma 50-500 might be too heavy for the plastic body.

Yet another sales guy who don't know how to hold a camera!

Fajitas!

Actually, I have seen the strain marks on the plastic around the mounting ring of a 350D from the Sigma 50-500.

rabbitinlights

While I was in bangkok I was talking to a professional photographer who owned a shop there, I asked him about the 400D and the 30D and he said something along the lines of, A person who needs a 30D would never even look at the 400D and a person who cant make up their mind between the two should buy the 400D, basically saying the difference isnt in the specs its in the build quality and design.

S.

City-Exile

Fajitas! wrote:

Actually, I have seen the strain marks on the plastic around the mounting ring of a 350D from the Sigma 50-500.

That's strange! I lift my 300mm f/2.8 by the lens, so the light camera body of the 400D means that there's very little strain on the mount.

The lens has a magnesium body and is very heavy!

Fenster

I moved from a 400D to a 30D in April; it's a huge step up in terms of what you can do, with few sacrifices. If anyone just points at the 400D's megapixelage and uses it to tell you the 400D is better...they probably work for Dixons. I kid.

Pros:

High-speed burst
Spot metering
Higher ISO, better quality at higher ISOs, more ISO options
Easier access to various functions
Better integration with various flashguns
Larger, more solid body

Cons:

More expensive
Lower megapixelage (although the 30D's sensor is slightly larger)
No built-in sensor cleaning
You lose the great big rear display. The smaller top display is just as handy except at night/in the dark

Roen

Fenster wrote:

I.......<snip>
The smaller top display is just as handy except at night/in the dark

There is a little light for that.

elven

Aye, but the little button for the light doesn't glow!

I think build quality & spot metering are the two main plus points of the 30D. I'm interested to see what happens with its successor next year...

I feel like I'm outgrowing the 350 now, a year or so after I got it. Depends quite a lot on your glass, too, though.

311

Is the viewfinder on the 30D much bigger than the 400D ?
I've not got my hands on a 30D .

Fenster

It is, but I've found the display in the viewfinder much harder to read with glasses on than with the 400D.

mathias

regarding the megapixel thing , heres a quote from Dpreview,

There's really no advantage in moving from eight to ten megapixels, the additional 432 horizontal pixels and 288 vertical pixels produce no more detail that can be seen. Indeed if anything the eight megapixel (EOS 350D) image looks slightly sharper 'per pixel' than the ten megapixel image from the EOS 400D.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/page24.asp

There are sample images on the page and also , having used both , I would agree 100% with this. Indeed , as plenty of web pages will point out , for there to be a worthwhile difference in this quality of camera in relation to megapixels , you need to jump to full frame , ( or bigger frame ) and there needs to be at least a 25% increase in horizontal and vertical values.

So from an 8mp camera ( 3504 x2336 ) you would need to jump to a camera with 4380 x 2920 res. ( 12.7mp ) and a bigger frame to have any really usable and noticable increase in quality , and that is the res with an EOS 5D.

Borderfox

deRanged wrote:

what about the sort of lenses you'll be using?

I was in town asking about long (400-500mm) lenses for my 400D and the salesguy was mentioning that the likes of the Sigma 50-500 might be too heavy for the plastic body. I've seen that mentioned online too and it is a bit of a concern.

I find the 400D a bit small and light - I've been thinking about the battery grip but if I'm going to end up wanting/needing a bigger stronger body like in the 30D then I don't want to put money into the 400D.

Anyone have opinions on 'lens limitations' with the 400D?

Dont stick the Sigma 50-500 on the 400d. I use a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 on my 350d and its fine. The handling alone of the 20/30D is so much better than the 350/400d also faster autofocus too. I know a lot of places will tell you to spend money on glass and that bodies come and go but get to a good starting point and go from there. Only thing to think of is what will Canon do to upgrade the 30D?

positron

mathias wrote:

So from an 8mp camera ( 3504 x2336 ) you would need to jump to a camera with 4380 x 2920 res. ( 12.7mp ) and a bigger frame to have any really usable and noticable increase in quality , and that is the res with an EOS 5D.

With all the Nikon D3 rumors (1.1x sensor, 18mp?) around, I wouldn't be surprised if Canon tries to take on that with their next model up from 30D or 5D. That would leave 1D Mk III kinda top of the league. Kind of revenge for Nikon's attempt to undercut 400D with 40D, 40Dx etc.

JMcL

For me the main difference would be size. I just find the 350/400D just too small to hold comfortably. The battery grip does seem to help a bit with making it feel more solid, but it's still got a teeny handgrip.

For now, I'm still using my 300D which was just that bit bigger, and still serves me OK for most things (though I'd have outgrown it long ago if it wasn't for the hacked firmware), but I'd be looking at the xxD for an upgrade,most probably the successor to the 30D, as I fancy the cleaning and Digic III

Calina

I'd like to weigh in, if I may, particularly with all this talk of the big Sigma and stuff you need and all that.

Noticeably absent from the OP's post is any detail on what he photographs or what he wants to photograph. Someone made the point that if he wants to shoot action photography, then the 30D is the way to go. But speaking personally, the 30D is only a stop gap measure on that front. 5fps, whilst sounding a lot more than 3, isn't. The 1D MKIII which we've all heard a load about, has 10fps and a massive cache. I think one of the Nikons is up as far as 12.

If this is important to the OP, he will still wind up wanting to upgrade from a 30D in a year's time anyway. I strongly considered the 30D and decided that the fps was not sufficient.

I can't remember the figures for the 400D but action sequences can be dragged out of the 350D - I'd assume the 400D is not any worse than it. I've a couple of 11 and 12 frame sequences. It's a learning experience to do them, and demands a lot of time. You'll wind up doing sequences of 5 and 6 shots first off (I started off with 2 iirc). When you're buying your first camera, some kind of an fps and cache is good for learning purposes, but the only way of really getting sufficient is going all the way up to a 1D or equivalent Nikon.

Regarding whether to put a 50-500mm lens on a 400D - ultimately a lot depends on how you hold the lens. I stick it on the end of a 350D and almost always attach a monopod to the lens, not to the camera. It's very clearly a heavy lens but with some care and attention, it doesn't need to damage your camera.

That being said - I would not advise anyone to buy huge zoom lenses for the sake of it. Know what you need to reach for. It's a great lens and I love it. Didn't get much use out of it for the weekend courtesy of the fabulous totally unwindy weather.

_________________

In short - OP - tell us where your interests lie and we'll have a better feel for what advice to give you regarding which camera to buy. Alternatively, if you can wait that long, come along to the Dublin Zoo outing on 30Jun which I intend to go to and pick brains, have a feel of, have a chat to.

podge018

Looks like I'll stump up the extra cash for the 30d so. Thanks for the replies everybody.

il gatto

I faced the same problem a while back, choosing between a 350D and a 20D. After doing alot of research and thinking, I realised I didn't need the extra robustness of the 20D and apart of locations of a few controls, the 20D didn't do anything special over and above the 350D. I bought the 350D with the intention of buying a 5D or 1D (secondhand) down the line, but so far, I think the 350D is more than good enough. If you go for the 400D, the battery grip is a fantastic extra. It has the same controls as on the hand grip on the right, so it's great for portrait format shots, obviously holds a second battery, and makes the camera comfortable to hold (and looks cool, like a 1D:) )