[MonkeyHugger]

Hello everyone,

Thinking about these two as an option. They seem extremely simular, espically in image quality, with a few more hardware features on the 400d. Is it worth the extra £100 on the 400d over the 350d? From what I can see, and espically short on cash it seems disagreeable.

Also as a quickie. For a tele lens, the 75-300mm, is the sigma DG or Canon version better? And does 55-200mm carry adaquete zoom?

Cheers, bit of a noob at this so any help is appreciated

[jonnypb]

i too am in the same boat. Having played with the 400D I'm saving up for that and IMO it's worth the extra bit of money, i'm going to wait a month or two and see if the price comes down anymore plus i need to save a bit more!

Main differences are

400d has an extra 2 megapixel
400d has larger lcd
and also has a self cleaning lens system which could be very useful

personal choice at the end of the day and if money is a limitation then i'm sure the 350d would do the job very nicely.

[senu]

Originally Posted by MonkeyHugger

Hello everyone,

Thinking about these two as an option. They seem extremely simular, espically in image quality, with a few more hardware features on the 400d. Is it worth the extra £100 on the 400d over the 350d? From what I can see, and espically short on cash it seems disagreeable.

I own the 350D ( and 30D) and have played for a week with my nephews 400D.
Whilst I don't think it is a significant 350D upgrade. It is an improved camera.
The marginal 2Mp increase may ( rightly) not impress you but it is faster in use ( bigger buffer) , Has a bigger, brighter LCD,
9 point auto focus ( like the 30D): more accurate and faster AF
Has the integrated sensor cleaning system ( which may suffice for simple dirt)

In short, there are no disadvantages over the 350 and to be fair its launch price was much lower than the 350s despite these improvements

If buying new I would shop around .It is not £100 costlier more like £70-80

Also as a quickie. For a tele lens, the 75-300mm, is the sigma DG or Canon version better? And does 55-200mm carry adaquete zoom?

The Sigma is better See here

I'm not sure of the 55-200mm Zoom range TBH but remember that in non full frame DSLR terms all these lenses have a 1.6X factor

[jonnypb]

Been reading various forums and a lot of people are saying the 350D produces better images than the 400D. This was a post from the following link regard the 400D

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...hp?product=306

Speaking of 10Mpix introduction on 400D. Isn’t it achieved at the costs of photo quality?

It is a common knowledge that Image quality doesn’t depend on X number of megapixels but sensor size. The larger the sensor, the larger size of individual pixels. The pixel's larger area is more sensitive to light, resulting in better image quality. Evidently, reducing size of pixels we are automatically sacrificing quality of pictures. Lets compare statistics of some of the common Canon DSLR.

Model FOVCF Sensor Pixel Size Pixels/Megapixels
400D 1.6x 22.2 x 14.8mm 5.7µm 3888 x 2592 10.1 350D 1.6x 22.2 x 14.8mm 6.4µm 3456 x 2304 8.0 30D 1.6x 22.5 x 15.0mm 6.4µm 3504 x 2336 8.2 20D 1.6x 22.5 x 15.0mm 6.4µm 3504 x 2336 8.2
1D IIM 1.3x 28.7 x 19.1mm 8.2µm 3520 x 2336 8.2 1D IIN 1.3x 28.7 x 19.1mm 8.2µm 3520 x 2336 8.2 5D 1.0x 35.8 x 23.9mm 8.2µm 4368 x 2912 12.8

I suppose we can tell why 350D might take better shots than 400D with the same lenses on. I was so looking forward to buying my 400D but now considering upgrading to 30D instead.

Anyone any views on this?

[senu]

I think the quest for the ultimate goes on

Having got to use all 3
There is no doubt the 30D is the best of the bunch (as it should be: it costs a bit more)

However all the theory aside: With identical lenses you would be hard pressed to see any difference in Picture quality from all 3 taking the same scene on auto
( note that they each have a different sensor but they commonly share the same DIGIC 2 processor )
In the real world They cannot be distinguished solely by outputted Image quality

Also the cameras have to be learnt. At first use you may not get pictures that are any better with the 30D ( compared to 350 or 400)

On the other hand, Canons High End non-DSLR The 8Mp PowerShot Pro 1 which seems better specified than the entry level older DSLR 300D or 350D does not produce images that are as clean and detailed even though it sports a very decent L lens.
The reviews make for interesting reading but in the real world all the cameras are capable of taking great pictures in the right hands

[pixelpixel]

I am finding myself going back towards the 350D. It was the 350D then the 400D and then I moved to the A-100 and even a few nikons.

But after thinking about it, I have a sony dsc-w17 compact and pictures on that are fine they lack a few bits I just dont know but it just lacks something. I once had an early nikon (twist) camera that was around 4mb. Last week I found some of my images from it and was amazed at the difference, how clear so to me image size does not count.

To me the image sensor is what makes my magic come true and the 350D is what first made me go ohhhhhhhhh. So I think I will go for that in a few months and miss the 400D (But if I get a bargin for it, I will pick it up.)

[MonkeyHugger]

Originally Posted by pixelpixel

I am finding myself going back towards the 350D. It was the 350D then the 400D and then I moved to the A-100 and even a few nikons.

This is what I'm doing! I'm going back and forth between the e-500 and the 400d now. The e-500 has a few more hardware features, but the 350d better image quality but lacks things like dust reduction!

Arrrrgh. I just can't make my mind up.

[jonnypb]

so has the 350D got a better image sensor than the 400D? Would be suprised as the 400 is replacing the 350

[RobDickinson]

IMO my 350d doesnt take any better a pic than a 300d. It does have more pixels and is a better camera...

Two reasons to get the 400d IMO are the sensor cleaning tech & the better AF system. Rest is fluff.

Theres definatly an ideal photocell size, mebe the 400d is pushing it too far.

[senu]

Originally Posted by bubble502

so has the 350D got a better image sensor than the 400D? Would be suprised as the 400 is replacing the 350

The sensor sizes are the same but the 400D has more pixels than the 350D

In theory each of these pixels has less light gathering abilities than the 350Ds pixels which are bigger

As such although an 8Mp, the 350Ds pixels are more efficient at light gathering

However in real life Im not convinced the differences are glaring enough to say the 350D has a "better" sensor as Image quality depends on the Image processing ( same in this case) and Lens.

As I stated in an earlier post, The image quality from 350/400/30D on a well taken picture with the same lens on Auto will probably be near identical

The 300D does have a DIGIC 1 image processor and that may make a difference but I wouldnt go so far as to say that it is as good as the 30D ( 8Mp) but it certainly is better than the Powershot Pro one High end prosumer ( also 8Mp)

[RobDickinson]

Does DigicI or II make any difference when shooting RAW anyhow, I dont think so?

For image quality I'd have been happy with a 300d (up to a certain print size), its just slow to start up & shoot.

[senu]

Originally Posted by RobDickinson

Does DigicI or II make any difference when shooting RAW anyhow, I dont think so?

For image quality I'd have been happy with a 300d (up to a certain print size), its just slow to start up & shoot.

Digic does make a difference to camera responsiveness, battery life ect
So though RAW is unprocessed, you can take more, in a shorter space of time with Digic II , over Digic I. The actual effect on RAW itself (if any) is probably less pronounced than with jpeg

As such the 350D and 400 have a lot more over the 300D than pixels.
They start up much faster, Have better burst rates ,are more responsive in use , and there is a lot more controllable in the menu shooting parameters.This is even more so with the 30D

It is now gennerally accepted that a well captured 6Mp image is a "standard" minimum image "size" and the marketing pixel race has slowed down in favour of other image enhancing features

[MonkeyHugger]

Hello guys,

What's the general opinon on the k100d? It looks like a good camera, the only thing lacking is the burst mode. But for the price, I've been looking at it more and more lately against the 350d. With a tele lens it only works out at £450...

[RobDickinson]

If you never ever want to shoot more than one shot at a time then go for it.

If you ever want to photo kids, animas or sport forget it.

[jonnypb]

Quite alot of people are saying the 400d has an under exposure issue - is this true or is it down to the handler? can you not get round it by shooting on +1/3. on one of the other forums someone connacted canon and appartently canon have acknowledged the problem so is this something that can be fixed in a firmware update?