Canon 30D or 400D

OnLooker

Heading over to NY in December but trying to get as much reseach done before I head over. Taking the jump into Digital SLR's. I was going to get the Canon 400D until someone I know recommended the 30D. I use my camera for sports action mainly GAA.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/457506-REG/Canon_1236B002_EOS_Digital_Rebel_XTi.html - $ 649.95

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/423708-REG/Canon_1234B004_EOS_30D_Digital_Camera.html - $ 1,008.95

Do you think the 30D is worth the extra $350? The reviews of the 30D are very good & they seem to hold their value.

I also intend to get the following len's:

http://www.adorama.com/SG70300DANKA.html - $199
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12142-USA/Canon_2514A002_Normal_EF_50mm_f_1_8.html - $79

Would the above len's be sufficient??

Paulw

The 30D is a wonderful camera. I have the 20D and love it. High quality camera, very sturdy, feels good to hold and is well built.

You should try both cameras. They feel very different. The 400D is a plastic body while the 30D is a magnesium alloy. The 30D is a larger body too.

For sport, you should consider the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L. A quality lens and great for sport.

Best of luck with your choice.

cyberspider

If you can afford it go for the 30 D along with a good fast lends like the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L, as suggested by Paulw.

As many people will tell you having good lenses are more important than a good camera body. However if you are planning on using it mainly for Sports photography I would recommend the 30d. It is a lot more rugged (also heavier) in addition the 30D can shoot 5 frames per second as opposed to 3fps with the 400d. This is a big bonus for sports photography. You usually have to shoot a number of rapid shoots to capture the best, split second action scene. You should also note that Canon will probably release a new 40D in October. When they do this the price of the 30d will drop quite a bit.

Coming back to lenses to capture the action during a match or other sports event you will need a telephoto lens. At a minimum you should get a 200 mm lens with 300mm being even better. Coming back to the 70-200 if you cannot afford the f2.8 version there is also a f4.0 version which is nearly half the price.

OnLooker

cyberspider wrote:

If you can afford it go for the 30 D along with a good fast lends like the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L, as suggested by Paulw.

As many people will tell you having good lenses are more important than a good camera body. However if you are planning on using it mainly for Sports photography I would recommend the 30d. It is a lot more rugged (also heavier) in addition the 30D can shoot 5 frames per second as opposed to 3fps with the 400d. This is a big bonus for sports photography. You usually have to shoot a number of rapid shoots to capture the best, split second action scene. You should also note that Canon will probably release a new 40D in October. When they do this the price of the 30d will drop quite a bit.

Coming back to lenses to capture the action during a match or other sports event you will need a telephoto lens. At a minimum you should get a 200 mm lens with 300mm being even better. Coming back to the 70-200 if you cannot afford the f2.8 version there is also a f4.0 version which is nearly half the price.

The camera I currently have shoots 5 fps. Its the Fuji S5000. I don't know much about lenes so going to start off pretty simple with the Sigma 70-300mm. What do you think? After a while I can upgrade. It will probably take a while to get used of the camera as well.

ladgie353

I don't know much about lenes so going to start off pretty simple with the Sigma 70-300mm. What do you think?

The 70-300 is a good lens for the price but it is also quite slow (focussing and aperture-wise). It needs a lot of light to perform, which means you wouldn't be able to use predictive autofocus to track the ball on a dull day in Croke park.

You could go for a 400d and get a better lens, Canon 70-200 F/4 L or Sigma 100-300 F/4 EX would come to mind. These would be much better at sport than the 70-300 and would more than make up for the loss of functions on the body (3fps sharp is better than 5 fps blurred in my book).

Paddy@CIRL

I'm in the same boat mate, although I've been using a 350D for the last two / three years, I had an S5000 before that for many moons, still have it in fact. I recently started looking for a new body, but still wanted to retain the 350D as a backup body so I needed to get another body that would still take EF-S lenses and all the other Canon bits and bobs I have.

You really ned to hold the 400D & 30D in your hand to feel the difference. I found that the viewfinder on the 30D was slighlty larger and brighter compared to my 350D, the body itself felt more like a camera in my hand, the 350/400D does need a battery grip to keep it balanced properly or even just to hold it properly if you have even average sized hands.

I've read that even thought the 30D retains the same sensor as the 20D & 350D (8.0mp) it delivers better quality images to that of the 10.2MP sensor in the 400D due to witchcraft and other associated mystics.

I ordered a 30D last night, I know I made the right decision before its even landed.

mathias

30D all the way , the secondary lcd , the one that shows the shutter speed , aperture , ISO , etc. is missing on the 400d , being replaced with software menus , my brother bought one and quickly traded up , I dont know about you , but not having that quick setup LCD would drive me nuts !!

Add to that the size and feel of the camera over the 400D , its way better and well worth the extra money.

Carrigman

I have both the 20D and the 400D. I purchased the 400D as a back up but it's getting as much use as the 20D, if not more.They are both excellent cameras. The different controls mentioned by Mathias don't bother me at all. I purchased the battery grip with the 400D and it makes a world of difference. The additional MPs on the 400D are very handy, I have to say. Image Quality wise I can see no difference between the two and so would have to disagree with Paddy@CIRL in that regard. The 20D/30D is a more rugged camera but for amateur use I don't think that is particularly important. Be aware also that a replacement for the 30D - the 40D - is imminent.

OnLooker

ladgie353 wrote:

The 70-300 is a good lens for the price but it is also quite slow (focussing and aperture-wise). It needs a lot of light to perform, which means you wouldn't be able to use predictive autofocus to track the ball on a dull day in Croke park.

You could go for a 400d and get a better lens, Canon 70-200 F/4 L or Sigma 100-300 F/4 EX would come to mind. These would be much better at sport than the 70-300 and would more than make up for the loss of functions on the body (3fps sharp is better than 5 fps blurred in my book).

The Canon 70-200 F/4 L (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183198-USA/Canon_2578A002_70_200mm_f_4_0L_USM_Autofocus.html) looks good from reading the reviews but I may not be able to afford to get the 30D & the Canon Len's. Has anyone here used the Canon 70-200 F/4 L ? I would like to see some photos taken with it.

When would you recommend? 400D & Canon Len's? I have been reading around and alot of people are saying that the 40D will be released in September. If this is the case, the 30D will drop sharply in price.

Paulw

I had the 70-200 F/4. Here's an image taken with it -

Getting Wet

I certainly wouldn't hold my breath for the 40D. It may or may not come out this year.