Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 10, 2006, 11:36 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

I got a 30D about 4 months ago. They go and release this 10 Mp 400D and now Im really wondering, have i wasted my money? I love the 30D but I cant help wondering if I jumped in too fast and could have had more megapixels for a lot less money.
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Sep 10, 2006, 12:11 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
pj1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,914
Default

Aladyforty,

G'day. I see your post (and I'm sure a lot of other folk have the same thoughts and feelings as yours) but to be honest, I do feel the 30D is a superior camera despite the 400D having more megapixels.

The truth is that there is not a huge difference between 8.2 and 10.1 megapixels. Much more importantly both have very good low noise levels at high ISO settings, both have very good (top of the class!) autofocus, etc.

In fact personally I think the autofocus improvement is the most important thing from the 350D to 400D. I have the 350D and am very happy with it. Autofocus is very good, though sometimes a bit weak in very dim lighting. But the 350D is reportedly the quickest and most accurate focusing entry level camera, and yet the 20D was better. The 30D basically shares the 20D's autofocus with a few minor improvements, and the 400D gets that from the 30D.

However from what I've seen the 30D's body is superior (handling, durabilityand grip for most people), viewfinder brighter & larger, supports a few more features (faster burst rate, 3200 ISO and spot metering).

So I would not go on megapixels alone. In fact that is one of the LEAST important features of a camera to me.

For me, the 400D is also attractive (but I won't upgrade to it) because of the bigger screen also and the dust-removal system. (however I've never had a big problem with dust!) As I do a fair bit of camp and low-light work, the slightly superior focusing abilities of the 400D would be the biggest improvements. but I'd also like to have 3200 ISO which only the 30D has.

I don't know if you've read this quite useful review on imaging-resource, but I found it quite helpful: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/XTI/XTIA.HTM

It's true that it's a shame the 400D is released when the 30D in some ways is quite new and came out recently (but more expensive). However I do think you definitely have a superior camera in the 30D than the 400D. (For example I might upgrade to a 30D if my current camera breaks or is stolen!)

I hope I've been a bit helpful in providing some perspective or answers to your cognitive dissonance... at least that was the term we learned at university for such marketing delimmas and the thoughts (and feelings) you're facing!

Paul




pj1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2006, 6:01 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

Thanks for the reply, having read that link I feel a bit better. I got the 30D for the burst frames per second (although this new camera does do 27 jpegs at a time which is pretty good) The mega-pixels are not really an issue, what annoyed me was that I was under the impression that the 400D had all the same details as the 30D except the body. It comes close but for me what would turn me off the 400D is the size, I have never liked the small sized DSLRs so I would not have purchased the 400D anyway.
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:03 PM.