[Fudgie]

Hi All,

I've been using a 400D over the past year or two and thinking of upgrading.

I have bought several Canon lens's so keen to stick with Canon, but not really sure what the next step up would be from the 400D.

Is the 450D really a step or, or should I look further up the range, not keen to shell out more then £550 - £600.

Like I say, I will be sticking with Canon and would be interested in any views on their range above the 1000D.

Thanks

[senu]

40/ 50D are likely candidates although they are bigger than the 400D

The 450D is better but what have you found limiting in the 400D? Image quality wise you might struggle to justify upgrading to a 450D
The 40D has rather a bit more
The 500D seems like 450D with HD video

[jonnypb]

400d to 450d isn't worth it imo

40d or 50d would be your best best and for value for money i'd go with a 40d

[JagoPlasma]

whichever you go for, get one with micro AF adjust.

my next dslr will be the 5d mk II i think. unless they release something better

[weetsie]

why do you want to upgrade?

is a 2mp increase, liveview, spot metering and a 3" LCD really all you want from an upgrade?

also you will be unable to use your CF cards with the 450D

like JagoPlasma, my next body will probably be the 5D mk2 because its full frame and has 21 mega pickles.

[senu]

There is a huge jump from 400D to 5DmkII though in all aspects, money not being the least.. A 40/50D is enough of a significant upgrade unless the OP can afford it. The 40D is VFM IMHO
Also all the EF-S lenses will become redundant and the EF ones which are " Ok" on the 400D may not be able to take advantage of the 5DMkii 21 MP sensor resolution and become " redundant
As for micro AF adjustment.. Isnt it a case of what you dont have you dont miss?

[Martin.D]

As per Senu's suggestion - 40D or 50D is the way to go - I too want to upgrade next year to a full frame (5D Mk 2 ) but it's a heavy price to pay..

but going from 400D to 450D is hardly worth it unless you have money to burn - I would invest in a bigger jump..

[HotblackDesiato]

Originally Posted by senu

As for micro AF adjustment.. Isnt it a case of what you dont have you dont miss?

There are very few new bells and whistles on the 2009 generation of cameras that do much for me but Micro AF adjust is something i would not want to be without. It works very well on primes, on zooms it could benefit from some added functionality, but all in all a big step forward in improving keeper rate for me, without the hassle of shipping bodies and lenses to and from Canon.

[senu]

Originally Posted by tyefi

There are very few new bells and whistles on the 2009 generation of cameras that do much for me but Micro AF adjust is something i would not want to be without. It works very well on primes, on zooms it could benefit from some added functionality, but all in all a big step forward in improving keeper rate for me, without the hassle of shipping bodies and lenses to and from Canon.

I dont doubt its usefulness but coming from a 400D , would you discount upgrading to a DSLR because that doesnt have it?
That would mean 50D would be the least of the bunch, then 5d MKII ect..
Im sure it would be a life saver but I havent needed it on the D300 yet

I realise that it makes sense to aspire for best bang for buck but I just wonder where one draws the line..

[Fudgie]

Thanks All,

Reason for upgrading is just greed.

My brother in law has seen my photo's from the 400D and wants a DSLR and has offered to buy mine off me. He gets a decent 2nd hand camera and I can get a newer toy.

I've really got into photography over the past couple of years so wanted to get some better kit.

[JagoPlasma]

one other thing for the OP, you may want to hang fire a little while longer as the 60D may *cough* be on the horizon

As previously stated, AF Micro adjustment is going to be a must in any upgrade i make. id also prefer SD slot and possibly higher ISO than my 450d too (tho im not keen on even using 200 iso on my 450d)

the reason i want AF Micro adjustment is because when you click on a thumbnail of a fantastic looking shot then open it to 100% to find its out of focus its very frustrating! when its in focus its a corker, but slightly out of focus and its a huge disappointment

[noisemonger]

i too have been looking at upgrading from the 400D probably to a 40D or possibly a 1D depending on how things are going.

for me the main considerations are frame rate, af and low light ability as i'm getting quite into sports photography at the moment.

also i don't know if you're aware but there's a firmware hack which adds some features like spot metering and iso3200 to your 400D which you might want to check out.
i've only been using it for a day or two but so far i've found it quite handy.
you can find the details here
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=742806

[senu]

Originally Posted by JagoPlasma

one other thing for the OP, you may want to hang fire a little while longer as the 60D may *cough* be on the horizon

As previously stated, AF Micro adjustment is going to be a must in any upgrade i make. id also prefer SD slot and possibly higher ISO than my 450d too (tho im not keen on even using 200 iso on my 450d)

Why SD? ...
Im not sure any of the XXD and above use SD slots..allCF AFAIK
ISO 200 is actually fine ( especially shooting RAW) and some DSLRs dont use ISO 100 in Auto ISO mode
I read somewhere that ISO 200 has a great lasitude for wider dynamic range.. may have been a lot of t**h TBH, Im happy to be corrected.

Saying that I found that ISO 800 on the 400D was way more noisy than on the 30D shooting identical scenes with Similar lenses .. nothing a bit of NR would not sort in software though

the reason i want AF Micro adjustment is because when you click on a thumbnail of a fantastic looking shot then open it to 100% to find its out of focus its very frustrating! when its in focus its a corker, but slightly out of focus and its a huge disappointment

Isnt that called pixel peeping?

[HotblackDesiato]

Originally Posted by senu

I dont doubt its usefulness but coming from a 400D , would you discount upgrading to a DSLR because that doesnt have it?

It's a shame as microfocus adjust wouldn't be needed if Canon lenses worked out the of the box. My experience, maybe i've been unlucky, has been that when wide open they can leave much to be desired. I sent my old 20Ds/lenses in 3 times in the 4 years i used them, to fix back or front issues when i added new lenses. With the 5Ds i spent a couple of hours dialling the lenses in, and the keeper rate is almost as good as i used to get after Canon "fixed" my 20Ds. For zoom lenses they need to add the ability to calibrate at different focal lengths though, as a lens calibrated at say 200mm might still be off at 70.

Anyway to answer your question, all other things being equal in terms of PQ then, yes i'd take a camera with microfocus adjust over one that didn't. With a 40D/50D i've not used either but have read noise maybe higher on the 50D than the 40D, there's a difference in price, so it comes down to a compromise i guess. In the context of say the live view discussion elsewhere i'd happily lose that before i gave up microfocus, but recognise it's an individual preference.

[JagoPlasma]

Originally Posted by senu

Why SD? ...
Im not sure any of the XXD and above use SD slots..allCF AFAIK
ISO 200 is actually fine ( especially shooting RAW) and some DSLRs dont use ISO 100 in Auto ISO mode
I read somewhere that ISO 200 has a great lasitude for wider dynamic range.. may have been a lot of t**h TBH, Im happy to be corrected.

Saying that I found that ISO 800 on the 400D was way more noisy than on the 30D shooting identical scenes with Similar lenses .. nothing a bit of NR would not sort in software though



Isnt that called pixel peeping?

SD card, purely selfish, i have invested in a 8gb sandisk extreme III which is doing me well, and i have a nifty usb adaptor it goes into.

ISO isnt a big concern tbh, i just find the noise a bit off putting

pixel peeping it may be, but i dont see a problem with that, id rather have a sharp picture at 100% than having to downsize to make it acceptable

[senu]

Originally Posted by JagoPlasma

SD card, purely selfish, i have invested in a 8gb sandisk extreme III which is doing me well, and i have a nifty usb adaptor it goes into.

With SD you would be limiting yourself in upgrade choice ( at least for Canon and even Nikon)

ISO isnt a big concern tbh, i just find the noise a bit off putting

There should be little or no noise at or below ISO 800 and what there is tends to be easily sorted in the likes of DPP NR that of LR or even Neat image

pixel peeping it may be, but i dont see a problem with that, id rather have a sharp picture at 100% than having to downsize to make it acceptable

I agree
Without a doubt. seeking perfectly exposed, and focused images is not a bad thing
My point being that very minor focusing errors dont show up in Standard size images , which are rather more forgiving
I tend to do a low of RAW processing at 100% and many images dont look very pretty at that but get them down sized ..voila!