40D or 400D? Cannon

stewiegriffin08

Hello all,
hope to be getting a new camera . I have the money for 40D and i am willing to spend it... I want to know about the 400D, What differences are there between them, and is it worth the extra money, well I know its worth the money but tell me why? What extra features has the 40D got, and tell me what I have to try out when I get it, Definatly the 6.5fps, compared to the 3fps Bang,Clickikcikcikcikclickclick! Thanks guys.

City-Exile

If you've got the money & think you'll get the use out of it, get the 40D!
No contest.
It's a far superior camera!

stewiegriffin08

Thats what I wanted to hear, I got te impression that they were equal...dont know why, the way it was layed out on the websites... so the 40d, cool:)
What should I try out first?

5uspect

The 40D has been called a mini 1D. Thats a pretty good compliment.
The 400D would be entry level, the 40D midrange or a pros second body, the 5D professional and the 1D professional top of the range.

The 40D would be considered the ideal upgrade from the 350/400D for many here. new features like live view, better build quality etc would make me reccommend it.

I have the 350D and its a very capable camera but the 40D offers more bang for your buck.

City-Exile

The 40D makes the 400D feel like a toy!

City-Exile

Set it to take multiple images, hold your finger on the shutter release & listen to it pur!

Paulw

Depending on budget, 40D. Much better than the 400D (but the 400D is still a great camera).

There is actually a good bit of difference between them.

kensutz

Should have my 40D ready for the start of the pre-season friendlies next month.

PeakOutput

grrr i got the money together finally for a 400d today and now you all have me thinking about waiting for another few hundred and getting a 40d im such a gadget whore arrrrggggh

City-Exile

The 400D is a great entry level camera.
It really is.
The 40D is a different animal though.
It's of benefit to people who need higher fps & high image burst.

If you're chosen subject is still life, kids, scenery, etc. then the 400D is perfect.
If you want to cover action, the 40D is a better buy.

PeakOutput

City-Exile wrote: »

If you want to cover action, the 40D is a better buy.

ugh nails in the coffin i wana do sports ah ill more than likely get a 400d and im sure itl be grand for starting of with sports

City-Exile

There was a thread about the 40D on here somewhere.
I posted a link to the sound of the shutter.
It's awesome, for a camera in that price range.

sasar

You will find answers to all your questions here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_eos40d%2Ccanon_eos400d&show=all

newbusiness

Remember - the lens is the most important part by far.

Better with a €400 camera and a €400 lens than a €700 camera and a €100 lens. The 50mm f/1.8 being one of the very few exceptions.

IT'S NOT LIKE BUYING A POINT N' SHOOT.

Borderfox

The 40d has to be picked up to feel the quality compared to the 400d, no offence to the 400d its a great camera and will produce super shots also. The frame rate on the 40d will make it easier in sport to get the right shot.

City-Exile

Not strictly true, newbusiness.
My 300 f/2.8 would be wasted on a 400D.
The 40D is the minimum spec. to take real advantage of a lens like that.

PixelTrawler

City-Exile wrote: »

Not strictly true, newbusiness.
My 300 f/2.8 would be wasted on a 400D.
The 40D is the minimum spec. to take real advantage of a lens like that.

What are the technical reasons for this?

I have a 400D and am mulling over what lens to buy next and its interesting to hear that some lens may be wasted on it, or perhaps may not be to their best on it...

I presume thats an L series lens you are talking about.

What part of the 40D spec over the 400D spec makes the difference here

Placebo

i think ive settled for a 40D, my post is on page 2. although im still contemplating a nikado d300. i dont know. Flickr doesnt have many good examples for 40D, its filled with 400D, damn amateurs !!! [jkn]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_eos40d%2Ccanon_eos400d&show=all

this makes them seem identical ! minis extra iso

Ricky91t

Make sure you have a nice bit of money for some good glass too.Dont make a mistake and skimp on that.Iv done that and now im saving for some "L" glass:D

sasar

It depends on what you need the camera for.
I have 400d and planning to upgrate to 40d.

I have a few mates who have 40d and haven't said a bad word about it. Reduced noise, faster shutter speed, more fps, larger lcd, and larger body - which to my mind is a step up from 400d as it is too small for my hand.

And of course the live view!!!

PixelTrawler

Be interesting to see what features the 450D will have - shouldnt be too much longer now til the details are revealed...

For anyone thinking of buying a 40D it might be worth holding off - u might get some of these features for less yet.

Rumour site http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_450D.html

Paulw

Or wait for the 1D MkIV.

Rumours abound. I wouldn't hold my breath.

But, either way, PMA is end of Jan, so any new releases will be announced the last week in Jan.

Fionn

the EOS 400D with a Battery Grip BG-E3 and for instance the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and whatever you could afford in the EF 70 -200mm range, would make a very nice starter kit, maybe include a Canon Speedlite too, and the nifty 50.

But if money is no object - yeah go for the EOS 40D. Remember you still need to get good lenses to get the most out of it plus all the other things like tripod, filters, cards, camera bag etc. etc.

Placebo

Joebloggs4817 wrote: »

Be interesting to see what features the 450D will have - shouldnt be too much longer now til the details are revealed...

For anyone thinking of buying a 40D it might be worth holding off - u might get some of these features for less yet.

Rumour site http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_450D.html

surely u mean 400D? right?

stewiegriffin08

This is great! Thanks for the responses...;)

Canon 40D camera body
Canon EF-S 17-85mm IS lens 947 EURO

Yeah about the extras.... They are dear, so its not just the camera and lens i have to buy .... Ill b out a fortune, It would be a hell of an upgrade, from a powershot S3 IS, to a 40d ... Is that price ok above, and is the lens ok for the moment.... because afer i spend say 1300euro, getting a flash and bag.... I wont have a bit of money for a wee while.... So would that lens be okay for me... just general shooting would be required at the start.... and as for the 6.5fps...Cannot wait :rolleyes:

Placebo

where u get that price boy?

stewiegriffin08

Kea - photo on ebay, Looks ok, and i was recommended there by someone on this site before, It has 100% and is a power seller. extended 3 yr warranty is an extra 45 euro, and anout 65 postage.. all works out for about 1,049, or close to that

5uspect

Kea is great. Have a look at flash camera on ebay for getting a flash. I fould the guy who runs it excellent to deal with.

murphy_j

I bought my 40d off an ebay shop in Hong Kong called Digitalrev. Very price, great service and lots of stuff like cleaning kit, carry bag etc thrown in.

Little less than 1100 Euro incl p&p etc and arrived in less than 4 days post order.

newbusiness

City-Exile wrote: »

Not strictly true, newbusiness.
My 300 f/2.8 would be wasted on a 400D.
The 40D is the minimum spec. to take real advantage of a lens like that.

That is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE.

The auto focus sensor is identical in both cameras.
The resolution it the same on both sensors (slight difference due to anti dust).

What possible other technical difference would make using a 300 f/2.8 any different?

I am not saying that the two cameras are comparable, no way. The 40D is a superior camera. But if money is tight then spent the money on the glass - always.

PS - as somebody mentioned the 450d is due out in the late summer.

stewiegriffin08 wrote: »

This is great! Thanks for the responses...;)

Canon 40D camera body
Canon EF-S 17-85mm IS lens 947 EURO

The 17-85 is a very versatile lens. But it's not as sharp as say a 17-55 f/2.8.

See experiences here : www.dpreview.com and tests here www.photozone.de

To prove it try a €100 50mm f/1.8, it's an animal lens for the money.

newbusiness

ALSO - buy a portrait grip, you wouldn't believe the difference this will make to your people photos. Both candid and studio. Plus it takes two batteries.

iamnothim

newbusiness wrote: »

That is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE.

Agreed

Paulw

newbusiness wrote: »

That is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE.

The auto focus sensor is identical in both cameras.
The resolution it the same on both sensors (slight difference due to anti dust).

Maybe you should tell Canon that, because their documentation and details give differences.


40D has a DIGIC III sensor. The 400D has a DIGIC II sensor.
40D 9 cross-type AF points (f/2.8 at centre)
400D 9-point AF (No f/2.8 at centre)

Better ISO functionality in 40D, and much faster fps.

So, the 40D is able to get a lot more out of the 300mm f/2.8 lens than the 400D ever could, especially with AF/focus.

Please do some research before you disagree with someone who knows what they're talking about.

elven

My main reason for going for a 40D from a 350D is build quality, bigger LCD, and I had hoped there would be a big difference in the noise at higher ISO. Looking into the difference between the 400D and the 40D sensor brought a few interesting links...

From here:

Camera technology and software
Is the 40D sensor the same as the one in the 400D / Rebel XTi?
Quote from Amazon.com's description of the 40D: " ... Although it is based on the image sensor used in the EOS Digital Rebel XTi, the EOS 40D Digital SLR's 10.1-megapixel CMOS APS-C size image sensor has been significantly improved thanks to the use of larger microlenses over each pixel to reduce noise and expand sensitivity up to ISO 3200. ... ".
There are other differences in the sensors used by the 40D compared with the 400D / XTi, such as the fact that the sensors for Rebel / XXXD series and the higher end XXD models are never made in the same plant, and only 2-channel sensor readout in the Rebel / XXXD series vs 4-channel readout in the 40D.

Also a thread here, and someone did a side by side comparison here.

Placebo

Hey elven, thanks for that.
If your reg on that forum could you direct link the pics/ or upload/attach here?

thanks

iamnothim

Paulw wrote: »

Maybe you should tell Canon that, because their documentation and details give differences.


40D has a DIGIC III sensor. The 400D has a DIGIC II sensor.
40D 9 cross-type AF points (f/2.8 at centre)
400D 9-point AF (No f/2.8 at centre)

Better ISO functionality in 40D, and much faster fps.

So, the 40D is able to get a lot more out of the 300mm f/2.8 lens than the 400D ever could, especially with AF/focus.

Please do some research before you disagree with someone who knows what they're talking about.

These points have nothing to do with the lens though. You suggest with a 400d, the 300 f/2.8 is not an option, when it completely is. Of course the 40d will get more out of it. The 5d and 1d will get more than that again. A 400d with a 300 f/2.8 is a lot better than a 40d with a non L telephoto no?

Paulw

iamnothim wrote: »

You suggest with a 400d, the 300 f/2.8 is not an option, when it completely is. Of course the 40d will get more out of it. The 5d and 1d will get more than that again. A 400d with a 300 f/2.8 is a lot better than a 40d with a non L telephoto no?

Incorrect. I never said a 400D with a 300mm f/2.8 is not an option.

Yes, the 40D will get a lot more out of that lens. The 5D will get less from the same lens (lower fps, not as good AF, etc), yes the 1D MkIII will get more than the 40D.

You need the right combination of body plus lens. There is no point in having a good body with a bad lens, or a bad lens with a good body.

The remarks in the thread were that the 40D is superior to the 400D and will get much more from the same lens than the 400d would.

City-Exile's comment about the 300mm f/2.8 being wasted on a 400D is quite accurate, especially when you consider costs and return.

The comments about it being absolute nonsense is in itself nonsense, and the claims of newbusiness about why have no factual basis.

newbusiness

Paulw wrote: »

Maybe you should tell Canon that, because their documentation and details give differences.

Fair cop. I hadn't realised they'd changed it after the 20/30D - but if you think those cameras or the 400d wouldn't benefit from a 300 f/2.8 over a cheaper lens then you're sorely mistaken.

Your points about the FPS and ISO fall by the wayside, the very fact that the 400d is cheaper means he can afford to spend the money on faster glass.

stewiegriffin08

Nice! I understand about the lens now, I might buy a 50m f1.4 and a 580ex flash while im buying it... Ill let you all know... lol at the small disagreement about the sensors

Paulw

Sorry, maybe you should reread exactly what was said.

You won't get the full benifit of a 300mm f/2.8 IS L lens on a 400D, but it will have much better effect on a 40D. Simple fact. Ask anyone who has used any of those combinations (I have, and city-Exile has).

Of course the 300mm lens will work on a 400D and give good results. There was nothing said to disagree with that. But, again, the 40D will give superior results.

Clearly, the better the body the better the results from superior glass.

As I said, you need the right combination of body and lens.

Yes, if money is the issue, buy a cheaper body, but you still can't expect the same results.

Placebo

stewie let us know ur total, theres alot of other places on ebay giving 2 extra lenses and tripods and bags, all under 1,5k

stewiegriffin08

sure will I am hoping to keep it under 1.5k , its all i got at the moment...:o
I agree with that though, if you have a better body, the results will be better! 40D With a certain lens, and 400D with the same lens.... The 40d Produce better picture..... Surely this is correct? I hopefully will be buying soon, Ill just give jessops a quick ring....

Placebo

http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-EOS-40D-Digital-SLR-Camera-2-Canon-IS-Lens-8GB_W0QQitemZ140195014133QQihZ004QQcategoryZ43454QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-EOS-40D-Digital-SLR-4-LENS-4GB-FREE-SHIP_W0QQitemZ290195228144QQihZ019QQcategoryZ43454QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


ARE those extra LENSE ones any good? obviously 3rd one in 2nd link is merely a cap

Paulw

You should certainly check out Kea-Photo on ebay for prices on cameras and lenses.

newbusiness

Paulw wrote: »

Of course the 300mm lens will work on a 400D and give good results. There was nothing said to disagree with that. But, again, the 40D will give superior results.

Clearly, the better the body the better the results from superior glass.

What affects the subjective "quality" of a photo primarily stems from the photographer. There have been pro photographers for years using gear that was cutting edge at the time but far below even a simple modern point and shoot. I'd advise the OP take a course.

Then comes the lenses, you can't fake bokeh (out of focus effects) very easily. Fast fast glass (lower f number) generally allows a photographer to get better images and/or images in lower light/ fast moving subjects.

Then comes the film/sensor. The 40D and 400D both have 10MP sensors, the 40D sensor is slightly (couple of percent) better. The ISO figure also affects the speed at which you can shoot in low light, I'd argue that if ISO 800 was good enough for a sports photographer 10 years ago then ISO 1600 on the 400D is more than you'll need.

Look, I appreciate that the 40D is a better camera, but the camera body WAAAY down the food chain of things that affect the quality of a photo.


/ edit as pointed out earlier, the difference with VERY HIGH quality glass in VERY PARTICULAR circumstances (ie sports photography) of the 40D's better auto focus and faster FPS may make a difference.

5uspect

stewiegriffin08 wrote: »

sure will I am hoping to keep it under 1.5k , its all i got at the moment...:o
I agree with that though, if you have a better body, the results will be better! 40D With a certain lens, and 400D with the same lens.... The 40d Produce better picture..... Surely this is correct? I hopefully will be buying soon, Ill just give jessops a quick ring....

I remember reading that the 350D produced almost similar image quality to the 30D but the 30D was a superior camera. Basic things like the magnesium alloy construction to essential ommissions from the 350/400D like spot metering make the bigger camera simply better.

Of course the 40D is a serious reboot of the 30D and the 400D is essentially a modified 350D. The 40D seems to occupy the sweet spot for a new SLR these days

iamnothim

Paulw wrote: »

There is no point in having a good body with a bad lens, or a bad lens with a good body.

Well said

stewiegriffin08

Placebo wrote: »

http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-EOS-40D-Digital-SLR-Camera-2-Canon-IS-Lens-8GB_W0QQitemZ140195014133QQihZ004QQcategoryZ43454QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-EOS-40D-Digital-SLR-4-LENS-4GB-FREE-SHIP_W0QQitemZ290195228144QQihZ019QQcategoryZ43454QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


ARE those extra LENSE ones any good? obviously 3rd one in 2nd link is merely a cap

http://cgi.ebay.ie/Canon-40D-Digital-SLR-Camera-17-85mm-lens-NEW-44_W0QQitemZ200188333474QQihZ010QQcategoryZ31388QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItem

I was looking at the above, But would I be better with one of the quoted links? I will buy a 580ex flash seperate,... But what about them links?

stewiegriffin08

the Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 EF USM IS Lens, that comes with the quoted links looks ok... About all the filters and cheap flashes with it, would i still not be cheaper buying that kit? ... Please advise, cheers!

Paulw

Your link looks very good. Nice price and a good general lens.

The other links ... personally, I get suspicious when a seller throws loads of things in to a bundle, and many items that are either questionable quality/brand or you may have no use for.

When spending a lot of money, the sellers rating is key.

Placebo

not to go offtopic much but tbh 400D vs 40D wise, i think main thing us buyers would mostly be looking for is better picture quality, i will more than likley be paying double for a 40D, better built isnt really enough.
Only major difference i can see is the extra ISO setting, which might come in hand in dim situations, which is what i need i guess.