350D vs 400D

[Glenn Wolsey]

As many of you know, I'm currently saving for my first digital SLR. I'm not sure when I'll be purchasing it, but the advice I get from this post might determine how much longer it will take me to save. My question is, 350D or 400D?

The RRP of the 400D in New Zealand is $1799.00, and the 350D, $1299.

Main differences (400D on left, 350D on right):

10MP - 8MP
27 continuous JPEG shots - 14 continuous JPEG shots
9 Point Autofocus - 7 Point Autofocus
Those are pretty much the main 3 factors that actually bother me. 99% of the photos taken with my DSLR wont end up printed, so the MP issue can almost be crossed out.

I plan to get into cricket photography, but I wont be taking "bursts" of more than 5 shots at a time at matches, so the continous shooting isn't to much of an issue.

Autofocus? I dont know enough about this to post my views.

So, is it worth saving at least $500 NZD by purchasing the Canon EOS 350D in order to get my camera quicker?

 

[flinstone]

Hi.
I have a 350. I am not that pleased overall. I think the raw output is a bit blurry (i use a ferry good L lens). The LCD is low res and not so clear (and that is important when you are shooting in daylight) 9AF points? i always use it manual focus or centre focus to be fast. I now that i should go for the eos 400d.

: Sensor cleaning sounds promissing to!

 

[j26]

Consider the other brands too.

I have a Nikon D70 (and love it) There's a D80 which is about 10mp, but I haven't been researching in depth since I have no inclination to change it.

Depending on how serious you intend to be, you might want to research teh lenses you can get. Both Canon and Nikon do great lenses, but I do know tat the kit lens that came with the D70 is far better than the kit lens tat comes with the 350D.

Get a feel for the cameras in a real shop before you buy. I was all set to get the 350D, but it just felt too small to me when I picked it up.

 

[Mydriasis]

j26 is right. The kit lense sucks on the Canon, but so does the Nikon (even if its a little better).

When starting into serious photography:
You need to make the decision which camera company you like best and want to stick with the next couple of years, because what you really need in a good lens.
Trust me, a good lens will make a huge difference, much more than the 350D or the 400D. So get a descent camera and a great lens to start out with. You'll change the camera for a better one soon enough anyways, but the life expectancy of that lens is much longer and will only fit on cameras of the same company.

There really only is canon and nikon to consider! Both have pros and cons, and when you come down to it they're both very similar.

I personally have canon but means nothing. My 2cents

 

[Abstract]

There really only is canon and nikon to consider! Both have pros and cons, and when you come down to it they're both very similar.

That really isn't true.

I don't think the 400D is worth the price difference over the 350D. Spend the extra $500 on a lens, or put it towards a lens that's good. Buy a 70-200 mm f/4 or something. It would be great for sports, and is much cheaper than the 70-200 mm f/2.8. It's also smaller and lighter, so more practical and you're more likely to carry it around with you.

 

[beavo451]

Hi.
I have a 350. I am not that pleased overall. I think the raw output is a bit blurry (i use a ferry good L lens).

RAW data is supposed to be soft or a bit "blurry".

 

[Mydriasis]

That really isn't true.

What isn't true? There are other serious camera companies out there? You mean Sony?

Or do you think I meant the 350D and 400D are the same, because thats not what I meant. I basically said the same thing as you did, get the cheaper camera now so that you can spend more money on a good lens, which you'll be able to use a long time on even bigger and badder cameras.

Sorry for the confusion, perhaps my english needs a little more work.

 

[extraextra]

RAW output on the 350D is fine, don't know what a previous poster was talking about.

The main selling point of the 400D for me would be the 9-point AF. Occasionally the AF on the 350D has trouble from what I hear, apparently the new one is way better. The AF on my 350D seems fine, it occasionally hunts in low-light or in situations where there aren't too many distinguishable colors.

I'd go with the 350D and use the extra money for a better lens.

 

[beavo451]

RAW output on the 350D is fine, don't know what a previous poster was talking about.

The main selling point of the 400D for me would be the 9-point AF. Occasionally the AF on the 350D has trouble from what I hear, apparently the new one is way better. The AF on my 350D seems fine, it occasionally hunts in low-light or in situations where there aren't too many distinguishable colors.

I'd go with the 350D and use the extra money for a better lens.

All RAW data from Canon or Nikon cameras will be "blurry". This is due to the anti-aliasing filter placed over the sensor. The filter prevents the moire that is inherent to the sensor design. This is why all pictures need to be sharpened to some extent in post-processing.

 

[extraextra]

All RAW data from Canon or Nikon cameras will be "blurry". This is due to the anti-aliasing filter placed over the sensor. The filter prevents the moire that is inherent to the sensor design. This is why all pictures need to be sharpened to some extent in post-processing.

Yeah, I know. That's why I said, "RAW output is fine, I don't know what the previous poster was talking about." By previous poster I meant the guy who said the RAW pictures were blurry, sorry if I wasn't clear.

 

[annk]

...

10MP - 8MP
27 continuous JPEG shots - 14 continuous JPEG shots
9 Point Autofocus - 7 Point Autofocus
Those are pretty much the main 3 factors that actually bother me. 99% of the photos taken with my DSLR wont end up printed, so the MP issue can almost be crossed out.

I plan to get into cricket photography, but I wont be taking "bursts" of more than 5 shots at a time at matches, so the continous shooting isn't to much of an issue.

Autofocus? I dont know enough about this to post my views.

So, is it worth saving at least $500 NZD by purchasing the Canon EOS 350D in order to get my camera quicker?

You say that those three issues bother you most. But since you also say you won't be taking bursts of more than 5 shots and don't need the extra MP, it sounds like the autofocus is really the only thing you need to investigate. At a $500 dollar difference, I would imagine the difference in focus would have to be pretty big to justify the extra expense.

 

[Mike Teezie]

From what you posted here, I'd get the 350D and a battery grip - so the body will be more holdable with a large lens.

 

[annk]

From what you posted here, I'd get the 350D and a battery grip - so the body will be more holdable with a large lens.

Oooh, I second that. I got the grip, and it makes a huge difference. The slight extra weight is easily balanced by the increased comfort. And you get longer battery life with two batteries.

 

[kjr39]

I don't think the 400D is worth the price difference over the 350D. Spend the extra $500 on a lens, or put it towards a lens that's good. Buy a 70-200 mm f/4 or something. It would be great for sports, and is much cheaper than the 70-200 mm f/2.8. It's also smaller and lighter, so more practical and you're more likely to carry it around with you.

Yeah, that. I have the 70-200 f/4 and it is an amazing lens!

(And, I would get a battery grip too. I don't like using the 350 without a grip and I wouldn't consider my hands huge...)

 

[ChrisA]

Hi.
I have a 350. I am not that pleased overall. I think the raw output is a bit blurry (i use a ferry good L lens). The LCD is low res and not so clear (and that is important when you are shooting in daylight) 9AF points? i always use it manual focus or centre focus to be fast. I now that i should go for the eos 400d.

: Sensor cleaning sounds promissing to!

My Nikon D50 has none of those problems and sells for a bit less too. But then We don't see many complaints like yours abou thte 350D either. Could be that you are just more critical.

About RAW images. They _can't_ be blurry. RAW files are NOT images they are just ensor data, not yet organized into pixels. You can't look at them without first converting them into image files. This conversion is done using software. You may need to apply some amount of software sharpening. A more fair test of the camera is to lok at the JPG files made by the camera, then you are looking only at the camera not a camera/software combo,

 

[ChrisA]

So, is it worth saving at least $500 NZD by purchasing the Canon EOS 350D in order to get my camera quicker?

The megapixel counts are not so differnt that it really matters. Print size is proportional to the __square root__ of the pixel counts. To compare the resolution of the two cameras compare 2.83 and 3.61 so the 400d will allow for about 12% larger prints Not much really.

About the burst mode: I doubt many god photos are done this way. Better to watch the action and press the shutter at the "right" time then to get 15 shots all taken at the "wrong" time.

Save more money? God lenses suitable for sports photography are expensive. Likely more expensive then either of these two DSLR bodies. One thing you can learn from these forums is that most people are hapy with whatever camera they have. So just get something. Plan up upgrading the DSLR body periodically. Plan on keeping the lenses but DSLR bodies become obsolite, so get something and shoot

Saving?? It's that why this make credit cards?

 

[wisredz]

well if you are willing to spend that much I think you should consider the D200... 10 MP, 11 focusing points, 30-ish continuous jpeg shots id I'm not mistaken. body only is $1700

 

[beavo451]

About the burst mode: I doubt many god photos are done this way. Better to watch the action and press the shutter at the "right" time then to get 15 shots all taken at the "wrong" time.

So that's why they make 8 fps cameras! So that you don't use it!

Never heard of "god" photos or lenses either. Are they holy?

 

[ChrisBrightwell]

About the burst mode: I doubt many god photos are done this way. Better to watch the action and press the shutter at the "right" time then to get 15 shots all taken at the "wrong" time.

You should try burst mode.

I think you'll be surprised.

 

[nutmac]

$500 NZ difference? Wow, that's over $300 US! In the US, the difference is more modest at around $200, although that is due to newness of 400D. In the coming months, I fully expect to see 400D at some discount.

I would have trouble paying $300 US more for 400D over 350D, but I think 400D have enough benefits to warrant at least half of that $300 premium. The auto focus system would be my number one reason. It's not merely 9-point vs. 7-point focus points difference, but significantly faster and more accurate sensor, particularly when fast lens (f/2.8 or faster) is mounted. Increased buffer and faster image processing are something anyone can benefit, even if you won't be filling the buffer often, there will be times when you might. The effectiveness of image sensor cleaning system is yet to be seen, but it's still a nice bonus.

And there are all the little things like high resolution 2.5" LCD, improved grip, sturdier paint, and improved viewfinder and menu. On the other hand, reduced battery life and missing info LCD are unfortunate.

 

[Abstract]

About RAW images. They _can't_ be blurry. RAW files are NOT images they are just ensor data, not yet organized into pixels. You can't look at them without first converting them into image files. This conversion is done using software. You may need to apply some amount of software sharpening. A more fair test of the camera is to lok at the JPG files made by the camera, then you are looking only at the camera not a camera/software combo,

Actually, RAW images can be blurry. The images themselves are blurry. The JPEGs made by the camera from this RAW data are less blurry, but only because the camera applies it's own sharpening when creating the JPEG.

Looking at RAW image files, or comparing RAW and JPEG output is hardly a fair assessment of image quality. Nothing has been done to RAW images like it has with JPEG images. One has been polished up, and the other has not, so they certainly shouldn't be compared by Flinstone.

But you're right about 8 MP vs 10 MP. Who cares, really? It would only be a noticeable benefit if you're coming from 6 MP to 10 MP, say if you're jumping from a D50 to a D80, and even then, I would probably wait to buy a 12 MP camera if upgrading. I certainly wouldn't be upset if comparing 8 MP to 10 MP.