Canon 10D vs. 400D for first dSLR; Viewfinder?

heya,

 

I currently have a Minolta 800si. Anyway, I do quite a bit of darkroom work

(mainly b/w), and, may God forgive me, but I'm getting sick/lazy/etc. and want

to move into digital =).

 

So, this is my first dSLR, I'm been looking at the Canon 10D - basically, what

issues should I consider in comparing one of the older Canon bodies (e.g. 10D),

to one of the newer Canon's (e.g. 400D)?

 

I suppose this is one of those highly controversial topics, and a bad question

to ask, but basically, I do a lot of low-light photography, so the Canon's

reputed good high-ISO performance would be nice. But are there any other

recommendations? The Minolta/Sony's are also an option, with their Anti-Shake,

but they are quite pricey, as is every other dSLR I can find with stabilisation.

 

And to be honest, I'd rather save money on the body, get one second hand, and

plug the money into getting a better lense. So, 10D versus 400D (or anything

else you can recommend), and how much should I expect to pay?

 

Thanks,

Victor

 

PS: Should probably mention this - I had a quick 2-second glance through a

friend's 400D and the viewfinder looked tiny, at least compared to my Minolta

800si. Is the 10D much better in this regard?

Pentax K100D. Image quality just as good as the Canon 10D, better build quality than the Rebel series, built-in image stabilization, and great price ($500-$600 for the body+lens kit).

The 10D is ancient history in DSLR terms and may not have much shutter life left if buying s/h. You will not go wrong with the K100D - much better viewfinder too (than entry level Canon or Nikon offerings or s/h gear on same price bracket). Having said that, my Nikon D80 is excellent (better viewfinder than entry level models plus other useful features).

I traded my 10D for a 400D, so you know where I stand. The 10D is heavy, abominably slow and has poor low light performance. The only thing that I dislike about my 400D is that it might be a little too small. And maybe the fact that overriding exposure is a little more difficult (there is no wheel on the back so you have to depress a button.)

I wouldn't even think seriously about a 10D at this point in time. Get a 20D if buying used or

the 400D if buying new.

I think you are right in most of your thinking by putting your money into glass rather than the body, so long as you can find one which has not bee thrashed. I found myself a D60 with only 8000 exposures through it awhile back for a quarter of the new price of only four years previously, when the model was released, camera probably younger.

 

So long as you get yourself a good editing programme, Paint Shop Pro or proper Photoshop, you will find it much easier to do absolutely SO MUCH more in ediitng than you ever did in that fume room. So con yourself that you are lazy and step up into the digital darkroom :-)

 

I do have three digicams/pro-sumers which I prefer to use in preference to a DSLR, which simply means you do not HAVE to go SLR to DSLR to get into the digital world. The Prosumer has definite working advantages over the DSLR except for it's performance at higher ISO ... the question I have is ... do you shoot your low-light stuff at 100ISO or on faster film? If the first is your modus than you may not need the high ISO advantages of the DSLR. I bought my D60 out of curiosity as to what a DSLR was like, and it doesn't measure up favouably for the work I do with my pro-sumers ... a lot of which looks like B&W even if actually a color shot :-)

 

That is a maverick's point of view :-)

Even if the shutter is nearing its EOL, it's only $200 to replace it.

 

The 10D is great. It's a heck of a lot quieter than any other SLR that I have ever used.

Get the 400D - better noise performance, better imaging engine and better LCD. Also, it responds faster than the 10D.

I have 2 10Ds; to me a good used one appears to be an excellent value. Sure they have their

difficulites (AF isn't the best, have to wait sometimes when shooting lots of raw files, and

they like to nap a lot) but they offer a lot for the money if you can put up with those

shortcomings. The files at ISO 1600 aren't bad--very usable. The 20D addresses these

problems and may be the best used value around, but of course you're going to pay more for

one of them. And either model gets you into the Canon lineup--a good place to build from.

"Also, it responds faster than the 10D."

 

Well, it turns on faster and shows images faster. But it has more shutter lag.

I totally disagree about the 10D being usable at ISO 1600.

I often use my 10D at 1600 and 3200. Looks a hell of a lot better than any color film at

those speeds. Especially with some judicious noise reduction.

 

Heck, the 10D at 1600 / 3200 is better than a lot of current generation non-Canon DSLRs at

those speeds.

If you want your large APS sensor with some real good glass already attached, for less than $700.00 you might want to consider the Sony R1. And with it you get some non-DSLR features like flexible angle live LCD viewing, and completely silent shutter.

Hi,

I believe you are debating the wrong two cameras, being that the more recent 20D is more similarly priced to the Rebel 400D than the 10D. The 20D is currently going for less than $700 on ebay, so that seems a better debate. With that said, the 10D can be had for so cheap its almost unbelievable, and its the same great camera it was when it was released. A semi-pro 6mp camera for the price of a flash, wow. If you can't afford the 20D or Rebel in lieu of getting better glass, I certainly think the 10D would be just fine for now. With a camera of this magnitude, any of the 3 could help a good photographer take great photos. I think at that point its about the artist, not so much about the latest and greatest. Many spectacular photos have been taken even with digital point and shoots. You can use Noise Ninja or similar for low light/noisey photos.

Between the 20D and Rebel there are some interesting differences, new vs used, bigger LCD, more megapixels, though that is almost irrelevant, and perhaps a warrantly, however, the 20D is a better built, more professional camera with many other features. If you're not running around shooting a wedding or using it "under pressure", I would think the Rebel could suit you fine. I shot a wedding, concert and fashion shoot with the much older, first generation Rebel, needless to say, the 20D and Rebel 400D are leaps and bounds superior.

Any of the aforementioned cameras will have the smaller 1.6x crop factor viewfinder, in regards to your PS.

I handled the 400D recently. Too small for me and build quality a bit cheap. I would go for a secondhand 10D or save and get the 20D or 30D. The 400D is more of a girl's camers, light and snappy for wedding events or girlie nights out.