First DSLR: 20D or 400D?

[www.camcorder-battery-shop]

l'm planning on making my first purchase of a DSLR in the next month or so, and

I have it narrowed down to the 20D and the 400D.

Money aside, which camera is the best choice for a first DSLR?

 

 

Lance

[www.camcorder-battery-shop]

For me, build quality is important. I've never been a fan of the cheap plastic construction of Canon's consumer series of DSLR's nor have I liked the absence of a command dial on the Rebel's.

[www.camcorder-battery-shop]

a guy tell me :

 

"20d, if that's your budget. absolutely. "

 

is that right , thanks for your answer.

[edd_nava]

im in the market for my 1st dslr aswell, i was curious to know why you are not considering the 30d? its not much more than the cameras ur interested in.

[www.camcorder-battery-shop]

re:EDD,

 

30d for the larger screen.

 

but I think I would go for the 30D Later.

[chriss1]

If you are advanced after using film SLR you will need 20D (or 30D) but when starting with serious cameras, I would recommend something simplier. 400D is newer construction even than 30D and remember that lens is more important than camera. I have similar dillema but my budget doesn't allow me to buy much more expensive 30D body. Great photo.net users gave me helpful advices not to buy kit lenses. So, if you aren't new in photography and have enough money, go to 20D (30D).

[edd_nava]

battery guy, u do know about the canon rebates right? well, im in the states so i dunno if the rebates are limited. and if ur gonna buy a camera y not make it one that will last and do u good, rather than buy the 400d this year then wanting to buy a 30d or maybe even the 40d in 2007. i am debating 30d and 5d at the moment, but everyone is telling me to worry about the lenses more.

[raymond_black]

Lens, CMOS and the processor are the key to quality of the camera in taking a pic. Unless

you are using the camera in tough condition, there is no reason to buy 30D instead of 400D.

400D has simply more pixel and more updated processor (DIGIC III if I remember well). You

won't take a better pic because of the metal body.

 

I am not saying build quality is not important but it really depends on yr use.

[bueh]

Get a used EOS 20D. The built quality, ergonomics and viewfinder are better than the few more pixels in the 400D.

[cnhoff]

The 400D has a Digic II processor.

[yakim_peled1]

Handle both in the store. The 400D is much smaller. Which is more comfortable to you?

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[ronaldo_r]

"...DIGIC III if I remember well)."...

 

No you don't. Still the same Digic II in the 400D.

[alan_krantz]

I would go with the 400D. First it has better focus system than the 20d as well as a few other features. Second, while we would like to believe our camaer will last 20 years (as htey did in the old days) chances are that even if the electronics held out that long (not real likley but possible) it would be so radically obsolute in 5 or 7 years you will want to replace it (if not before then).

 

Lets face it electronics are rapidly changing - not just the sensor but also the media for storage and there is a very good chance that in 3 to 5 years it will be time for an update. The 400D should be able to last that limited life span.

[robin_sibson1]

Surely the 400D has (apart from any silent 'fine tuning') the SAME 9-point AF system as the 20D and 30D, but better than the 350D? Whereas the 9-'visible'-point system on the 5D also incorporates some 'hidden' points.

 

"Money aside" the answer is "neither of the above". The 30D is clearly preferable to the 20D (although not by enough to tempt me as a current 20D user), and the only advantage of the 400D over the 30D as far as I can see is the extra resolution - tests don't show much if any advantage from this - whereas the 30D has a hatful of genuinely significant advantages, not least the use of a pentaprism rather than a pentamirror.

 

Or you could wait for Canon's 2007 announcements. Well, of course, you can always wait rather than act now and take pictures! But you don't need to believe any rumours to think that this is a point in Canon's product cycle where some interesting developments may be in the offing.

[gdanmitchell]

<p>There is no one right answer to this question, though your description of it as a "first

DSLR" suggests that you are new to this sort of photography.

 

<p>Much of what I wrote in a post on my web site (<a href="http://

www.gdanmitchell.com/2006/05/26#a515">Why I Chose a Canon 350D</a>) is probably

relevant - so visit that link if you are interested in why I chose it over the 20D a year and a

half ago and how I feel about the decision now.

 

<p>In terms of image quality the 400D is going to be at least as good as the 20D and

arguably at least a little better. Admittedly, the dpi difference in prints between

photographs made on an 8MP sensor and a 10MP sensor is smaller than you might expect,

but in real life the difference still favors the 10MP sensor.

 

<p>There are physical and functional differences between the two cameras (e.g. -

differences in areas other than sensor-based image quality), but I believe that they are a)

irrelevant for many purchasers, b) often very subjective, and/or c) vastly overstated. Let

me give you an example of each:

 

<ul>

<li>a) Example: It is true that the 20D has a slightly faster burst mode - if memory serves,

4.5fps or 5fps instead of 3fps on the 400D. Two points here... First, the burst mode

speed on the 400D is <i>the same as that on the excellent 5D</i>, and few would choose

the 20D over the 5D. Second, 3 fps is plenty fast for almost all users except possibly

those whose main use is action sports, etc.

<li>b) Example: The body size of the 20D is larger than that of the 400D. Some users feel

that the 400D is too small. On the other hand many 350D and 400D users <i>prefer</i>

the smaller, lighter camera body and don't find it to be a disadvantage at all. (I'm in the

latter camp, and I have large hands.)

<li>c) Example: There are differences between the interfaces of the two cameras. The 20D

has a selection wheel that accesses a large number of parameters while the 400D uses a

wheel in conjunction with buttons. Arguably the 20D system is "better" than that on the

400D, but in actual use and once you learn your camera well there is little difference in

how fast you can operate either camera.

</ul>

 

<p>In addition, the 400D incorporates much of the technology of the 20D and adds new

features that are not found on the older camera design, including the sensor dust

management features, larger LCD, etc.

 

<p>Finally, if you would have to pay more for a new 20D than a new 400D, the difference

in cost would probably be better spent on glass. Better lenses <i>will</i> improve the

quality of the images you take with any camera. So, better lens and 10MP? Or less

expensive lens and 8MP? Which do you think will produce a higher quality image?

 

<p>Dan

[leopoldstotch]

If you have a chance to get a cheap 20D, get it, you won'y be dissapointed. The 20D is the hands-down winner.

[dyor]

To Dan Mitchell:

 

You forgot one thing: 30D has true spot metering, 20D and lower do not.

This single thing is enough to choose 30D and much better than messing around with exposure compensation calculations for partial metering and playing with curves in software even if you shoot RAW.

 

Larger preview/menu screen is good too, but I don't believe any LCD displays at all anyway, preferring my hardware-calibrated CRTs.

[gdanmitchell]

<blockquote><i>"You forgot one thing: 30D has true spot metering, 20D and lower do

not. This single thing is enough to choose 30D and much better than messing around with

exposure compensation calculations for partial metering and playing with curves in

software even if you shoot RAW."</i></blockquote>

 

<p>Again, if this is a feature that you use <i>a lot</i> then the 30D may be worth the

extra cost and giving up the 10MP sensor, dust reduction, and other features.

 

<p>The fact is that most people don't really use, much less need, spot metering on a

DSLR. ("The Zone System? Is that the title of a new horror film?") It is <i>possible</i> that

the original poster cares about spot metering, but I

suspect that this is not the case. As <i>batteryguy batteryguy</i> wrote in his original

message: "l'm planning on making my first purchase of a DSLR in the next month or

so..." (He also only asked for advice relative to the 20D vs. the 400D.)

 

<p>Frankly, with the camera's histogram display the need for spot metering - even by

those who are familiar with its use - is greatly decreased... especially for those of us who

shoot RAW.

[ronaldo_r]

30D is better than 400D. Period

 

20D if you can live with a smaller LCD

[yakim_peled1]

>> You forgot one thing: 30D has true spot metering, 20D and lower do not.

 

IMHO a spot metering that can not be linked to the active AF point and constantly stays in the middle is of very little use. I can't even begin to imagine why Canon did this.

 

>> 30D is better than 400D. Period

 

Not if you prefer a small DSLR (my wife does). Not if you are a MP geek. Not if the price difference will cause you to compromise on lens quality. Not if you value the dust reduction system (I do). Not if.....

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[markonestudios]

Hey there Lance

<p>Allow me to jump into the fray, if I may. When I just started shooting, I believed that the body is the be all and end all of a photo. So I would always look to get a more up-to-date body. However, my experience has now taught me otherwise. I've shot a wedding (as second shooter) for someone whose main shooter had the Sony F828. Their photos were below par (to put it mildly) and the couple asked for mine. I gave them 5x7 prints. They were blown away...

<p>A bit of background is in order here: I still use a humble film SLR. The EOS 500N. After shooting with it for about 3 years now, I believe I have pushed it as far as it will go. I am thus planning to get a DSLR. I will still shoot film for weddings and use the dSLR for backup. My hands-down choice was initially the 350D, but when the 400D was announced, I changed my mind. Dust is a major factor for me. I live in a dusty place (Nairobi, Kenya). 10MP wouldn't hurt either ;) I could use the res for larger prints as often requested by couples. I also like the light weight (I've handled the 350D) to carry around along with the rest of my gear in my Trekker backpack. I would rather spend more on glass. At the end of the day, to a large extent, it's not the tool but the user that determines the outcome. That's my philosophy anyway :)

<p>Verdict? 400D. Spend the savings on glass. And IMHO, avoid the kit lens (18-55mm). The *17-85 IS* lens looks a lot more promising from what I've read and seen.

<p>Mark

[phule]

<<30D is better than 400D. Period>>

 

Absolute nonsense.

[ryan mcgill - trm photo st]

If you get the 20D are you going to be able to get some decent glass? Glass is more important for image quality. Personally I would get the XT and spend moeny on decent glass.

[rkr]

I own a 20D since its appearance in autumn 2004. Last week I had the chance to compare it to the 400D:

* build quality of 20D clearly better, rather robust

* 400D is really tiny altough it has alomst the same functions

* 400D has sensor clean feature (which is a strong plus)

* 20D has clearly better noise features (especially at 800/1600 ISO)

* 400D has slightly better resolution

* 400D shutter is more quiet (20D is really loud, too loud in theater or so)

 

Anyway, I like both. Reinhard