40d vs 400d: Opinions Needed

thewing

Hi,
I'm getting a few quid to purchase a 400d for xmas. But now that i've been researching I see that the 40d is a better camera if you have big hands(I do), faster, better viewfinder etc. I'm wondering if anyone can share opinions. Bear in mind, i'm pretty much a total beginner, with a present of classes beginning in the new year coming from someone else.

This isn't a whim either, i've been interested in photography a long time and have come close to purchaseing 400d on a few occasions. Now that I am finally getting DSLR, I want to make sure i get the right one.

Thanks in advance

helios

If you're a total beginner, I'd say the 400D. It's a brilliant camera, and you'll get great results from it, and it also won't break the bank. It will let you test the photography waters as well before you take a plunge. Take a look at my Flickr (link in sig) to see 400D shots.

thewing

I forgot to include that another consideration is that if I get a 400d, find it inadequate and then want to upgrade, with the impending release of the 450d, I won't get the same value on resale...

helios

True, but it's the same for any electronics. You might find though them when the 450D is out, the 400D will go down, or that the 450D won't have enough insentive to make you go for a more expensive body...

thewing

If money wasn't a consideration, what would do?

Excellent pictures btw, oh to have as keen an eye.

helios

If money wasn't a concern I would consider the 40D for sure, but I've already made the investment (lens's, tripod, etc..)knowing that I'll be staying with this for a while. I love my 400D and it does nearly everything that I want but at the moment I'd be more keen on getting lens's than upgrading the body. The 400D will let you try out photography and let you decide how much you want to get into it. The body can be had for €400 off eBay so the cost isn't massive.

leinsterman

I went through the same issue years ago with the 20d and 300D ... at the time I was a newbie in boards ... people here advised me to get the 300D and spend my extra cash on decent lenses (which don't age) ... this is good advice, you should listen to it really ... but I totally ignored it and went for the 20D ... no regrets ... even though now I have a few bodies including the 1D MkIII abd 20D ...

The 20d is still usful .... if a bit dated ... It will be replaced next year with whatever Canon do to the 5D to upgrade it ...

My argument to myself for ignoring the good advice of the other boardsies was -

• I (like you) have big hands (and a warm heart:o) ... the 400D is very fiddly compared to the 40d ...
• I can afford good lenses anyway without having to scrimp on bodies to do it
• I needed a camera which is resilient for travel shooting ... the 400D is OK ... but the Magnesium Alloy cases on the 40D will serve you better ... also I was shooting in a damp misty field recently along side someone with a 400d that kept shutting off ... while my 1D (which is weather sealed) shot away happily ... I think the 40D while not sealed is better protected from the elements ...

thewing

I think those reasons would be the way I'm thinking at the moment.

I can afford the lens I want (sigma 10-20mm) along with the kit lens for the 40d (17-85).

40d it is.

thanks Lads.

feileacan

get the 400d and the battery grip for your big hands but if money isnt a massive problem, go the 40d route.

i spent the pennies on a 5d as i was tired of having to replace smaller digital cameras. at least i know this will get me through several years before i even have to worry about replacing.

however getting the 40d may mean spending the mula on some decent lenses and they dont come cheap.