What's better 400D or 30D?

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by kellie, Jul 19, 2007.

  1. Looking into purchasing one of these cameras and just wondering what's better?
    Will be using it for internal shots with a sigma 12-24mm lens.
    Thanks :)
  2. No way to answer that without a bunch more information about your use and shooting
  3. except for size... the 30D in probably all respects.
  4. I had it's predecessor (the 350D) - I sold it (at a loss) to buy the 30D's predecessor (20D).

    Best thing I ever did. 20D felt far more solid & rugged, with easier to use controls. Wasn't even close.

    400D is a souped up 350D - 30D is a souped up 20D.
  5. 400D is lighter and cheaper. It has sensor cleaning and a 10Mpx sensor, neither of which are significant. I have a 30D, it has a metal body, feels better in my male hand, should be more rugged, can set aperture with one button press, its shutter may last longer. I wouldn't swap it for a 400D + cash. Travellers/climbers may like the lighter 400D or you may wish to save money to buy good lenses 9which will probably make more of a difference to your photography) - both cameras are excellent.
  6. Image quality 400D by a little. Ergonomics 30D by a lot.
  7. depends on what you want. are ergonomics your priority?... well the 30d.. .. do you not care about how many buttons you press .. but have a high priority on saving money? .. well maybe the 400D
  8. kellie, for the business of inside shots with a Sigma 12-24mm, as you state, you need a 30D (or 20D) to get the higher ISO (3200 as opposed to the 1600 on the 400D), and a decent tripod. Your on-camera flash won't cover the lens at its widest, so if you mean to use flash, you'll need a wide-angle unit of some kind.
  9. Yes. . but isn't the 3200 setting on the 30D just a digital boost of 1600? Something that is done equally well in Post Processing?
  10. Yes, 3200 ISO on these Canon cameras is actually "pushed 1600" - like you could do in post processing. So the 30D provides not advantage over
    the 30D here. (I agree with the tripod advice.)

    If you don't have really specific "high end" photography needs (e.g. - spot metering, higher burst rate) there is little to recommend the 30D over
    the 400D in terms of final image quality. In fact, the balance is probably slightly in favor of the 400D here, given the slightly higher MP count
    (which could make a small difference*) and the dust reduction system. Keep in mind that the 400D has picked up more of the 30D features than
    the 350D had - for example, the 400D has the 30D autofocus system.

    The slightly higher MP count generally does not make a huge difference, especially if you aren't making giant prints. However, it is possible
    (though I wish you'd tell us more...) that you'll want to do some post-processing perspective correction and so forth in software. In this case, the
    slightly large pixel dimensions of the image from the 400D might give you a bit more wiggle room.

    The value of the larger body is highly subjective - some can't live without it, others prefer to avoid it. I fall into the latter camp. Same with the
    operating interface. I use a 5D and I used a 350D for a couple years. The 5D (with an interface like the 30D) is different from the 400D, but not
    necessarily better in all cases. For example, the 30D/5D have a display on the top of the camera body, which some regard as an advantage - the
    400D only has a rear display. However, if you shoot from the tripod a lot (like I do, and like you probably will for interiors) you can't see the top
    display when the tripod is in a fully raised position, but you can see the 400D rear display.

    Don't fall into the "if it costs more and is bigger it must be better" trap. Each camera (400D/30D) has features that may be more or less
    appropriate for your use. Consider the _features_ in light of your needs - not the positioning of the camera within Canon's model line-up.

    I suspect that high ISO, burst rate, spot metering are not features that will provide much value to you for interior shots, if by that you mean
    interior shots of static subjects shot using a tripod.

    For my particular approach to photography (http://www.gdanmitchell.com/) my choice would be between the 400D and the 5D. If I were
    purchasing a new crop sensor body today it would be the 400D, not the 30D. YMMV.

    Good luck.

  11. I would wait to consider this question until you see where the 30D is priced after the 40D is released.

    At that point, I would venture to say that the 30D would be the better value, if you plan on getting a camera that you will be using heavily for a long time.

    At this very moment in time, with no consideration for the future, and based on features alone, I would buy a Rebel over a 30D.

  12. "I would wait to consider this question until you see where the 30D is priced after the 40D is released."

    A decent used 20D is $250-300 under a new 30D and for all purposes the same camera (same chip, same processor, same AF system). The added 2MP in the Rebel is insignificant until you're above 11x14 and then a good uprezzing plugin and you'll never see the difference to 20x30 or more. The biggest downer to the Rebel IMO is the cruddy viewfinder, it's way darker than the 20/30D. The biggest upper is the weight. It's like comparing a brick to a Twinkie.
  13. One feature not mentioned yet is that the 400D accepts a wireless remote trigger. The 30D cannot and only uses a wired cable release. This may or may not matter to you.
  14. Regarding remotes, the 30D accepts LC-5 wireless setup as well as (wired) TC-80N timer remote, whereas the 400D does not. But there is no cheap and simple wireless remote for the 30D, like there is for 400D. Again, that may or may not matter, depending on what one does.
  15. This might be of help:

  16. For image quality, 400D... slightly better sensor plus a dust removal system.

    For ergonomics, most prefer 30D.

    For ruggedness, 30D.

    So, make your choice: better technical quality in your photos or better hand-feel and longer camera life.

    Oh, and the 400D is less expensive.

    As for ruggedness, in five years both cameras will be obsolete anyway, so who cares if either of them have the lifetime of a Leica?
  17. Thanks guys, what i will be using it for is for real estate photos for the net and sign boards so i will be using it every day. And what the hell are twinkies? I know they are food and we dont have them in Australia!
  18. Twinkies are a kind of packaged cake with a sort of creamy filling. The cake is like a sponge cake. They come two in a package, and they are, according to my crude estimation, about two inches wide and six inches long. Some say that Twinkies have an infinite shelf life and zero nutritional value or less.

Share This Page