40D or 400D

[eric_lawson1]

If you do get an XTi, consider getting a grip to help it fit your hand and give your pinky a place to land. That should be a slogan for Canon.

[colinsouthern]

"Your question implies if a Mercedes SLC (Canon 40D) would be able to drive faster than a Toyota 1.6GL(Canon 400D) on a road with a speed limit of 60mph. No real diference, the speed (image) is going to be the same. But - wich one would you rather drive?"

 

Since I like to use driving analogies: People like to say "It's the photographer" that makes the difference, not the camera" - to me that's a bit like "It's the driver that makes the difference, not the car". Trust me - if Michael Schumacher were to drive a mini in a Formula 1 race, he'd still finish last.

 

In my opiniated opinion, it's both the camera AND the photographer who make/break the shot. I've shot with many digital cameras, but at the end of the day I'm getting my best results with the 1D series - it just has so many tools that make my life easier, leaving me free to "focus" on other aspects.

[richygale]

I would go with the 400D and buy a top end lens for it, the 40D has lower noise at higher iso and faster frame rate but below 400 iso I recon you probalby could not tell the diffrence in images quality.

The Handling is the big diffrence if you shoot a lot in manual the extra control wheel may make big diffrence to you but is it worth the extra $. Remember that 2 years down the road 40D will probably be replaced by an even better model and you will still have great lens if you upgrade.

[markonestudios]

>>Buy once, buy as best you can.<< - WW

<p>I couldn't agree more. I happen to own a 400D. It was a gift. Love it, would have no problem with putting expensive glass on it. I DO put expensive glass on it. Come to think of it, I regularly put the same expensive glass on my 100 dollar(?) Rebel G film camera. So Dan, I must respectfully disagree with your rationale on that point. It's the user, not the tool.

<p>Both the 400D and 40D will allow you to capture moments for posterity. The 40D is necessarily more finely tuned. Canon has had time to tweak its processors, lower noise at high ISO, fix bugs in the firmware, etc.

<p>Personally, I think that lenses are a much more important factor than camera body, so don't splash out on a 40D and then go cheap on the glass. It is, after all, the longer-term portion of your investment... You'd rather spend more on the lenses.

<p>However, if I were in your shoes and had the cash to spend on the 40D, I'd definitely get it, provided I could still afford some decent lenses with it :)

[jo7hs2]

"But I will also say, most people telling you that the 400D will take pictures as good as the 40D probably own the 400D. You picking up what I am putting down?"

 

What you are saying is that the issue is envy, or dilusions. Simply isn't true. I've owned my 350D for three years now. I can afford to upgrade. When I bought my camera, the price difference between the 350D and the 20D was nowhere near as wide as the difference now between the 400D and the 40D. I held both and decided on the 350D, because I didn't feel that any of the improvements of the 20D were worth the extra money FOR ME. If I expected a 40D to improve my photography at all after this much time, then I'd be dilusional.

 

"Buy once, buy as best you can." -WW

 

I agree, but not in the context of bodies. Buy the best lens you can afford. Digital bodies come and go with the technology, so don't spend more than the technology you need costs.

 

Dan Hall,

 

The 350D and 400D both come/came with the DPP software as well. You make it sound like a 40D exclusive.

[dan_hall4]

In the first quote, I am right as it is a owner of a 350D responding to the comment. You are making this way too easy.

 

As for the DPP comment, you are just picking a fight. Plain and simple. I never implied that this magical free software only came with the famous Canon 40D. You are making crap up as you go.

 

"What you are saying is that the issue is envy, or dilusions. Simply isn't true"

 

You are not making a good case for this!

[chiefkeefe]

Unique situation here. I'm also an amateur and I bought the 350D as soon as I could get it for less than $1000. I swapped it at a local dealer for the 400D for the extra megapixels and faster startup time. I wanted the 40D (and could have afforded it), but I couldn't let the wife know that I had spent more money on another DSLR camera. I even had to wait for a silver 400D so that it would look as much like the 350D as possible. Everything was going fine until I added the battery grip. That led her to question the larger viewfinder and I was busted. Long story short, I now have a 17-55 EF-S lens and a 10-22 EF-S lens and love the 400D...but I still wish I could have bought the 40D.

 

 

Good Luck!

[KenPapai]

There are several things / features the 40D has the Reb 400 lacks that will help you produce "better" photos; the primary and obvious one is the 40D's 14-bit Raw. However, 99% of your pictures shooting Raw will probably not matter here, there is a slight gain when post processing in 16-bit mode in PS or similar. Also, the 40D focuses MUCH better and the viewfinder is MUCH better than the Reb.

<p>

Other ergonomics and body build aside, you certainly get what you pay for here between these two 10MP DSLRs. <i>Quod erat demonstrandum</i>, yes, it is worth it!

[socaljake]

"...but I couldn't let the wife know that I had spent more money on another DSLR camera." Ha ha! I know the feeling.

 

I certainly didn't intend to cause a battle between the respective loyal owners, so STOP with that. While I posted here to get good feedback, that crap doesn't qualify as such. To all the helpful folks that replied, thank you.

 

I'll go and work my way around the 40d one more time tonight... maybe I'll see the value then. Although I do like the battery grip option as a backup plan.

[phule]

[[but I will also say, most people telling you that the 400D will take pictures as good as the 40D probably own the 400D]]

 

This is such a silly statement. You could hand a 400D and a 40D to 100 different people and get results across the board from each. You're making overgeneralized arguments out of very specific examples. It's a failure on all fronts.

[arie_vandervelden1]

Mark Anthony wrote: <I>Personally, I think that lenses are a much more important factor than camera body, so don't splash out on a 40D and then go cheap on the glass. It is, after all, the longer-term portion of your investment... You'd rather spend more on the lenses.</I><P>

 

Well said. This is also my advice.<P>

[dan_hall4]

Either way you go, I am sure you will be pleased. As far as the attitude, it is all in fun (I hope). I am sure if I had got the 400D, I would be happy to own it as well. And as much as I would like to disagree with Joshua again, he is right about the lenses being more important than the camera. A very valid point there and one of the guys told me that here on the forum recently. I listened and now have some better glass. It is a noticible improvement. There are some people on this forum who could piss off a stop sign. Just ignore us. Ha ha.

[keith reeder]

"<b>the primary and obvious one is the 40D's 14-bit Raw</b>"

<br><br>

And <b>Digic III</b> Ken, which I'm <i>convinced</i>, together with 14 bit, makes a difference in what I get from my 40D (particularly in the colours) compared to my 30D.

<br><br>

By logical extension, it seems reasonable to assume that if they make a difference <i>cf</i> the 30D, they probably will where the (12 bit/Digic II) 400D is concerned too...

[jo7hs2]

"There are some people on this forum who could piss off a stop sign. Just ignore us. Ha ha."

 

Now that is a statement I can agree with. ;)

[dan_hall4]

"Now that is a statement I can agree with."

 

What do you mean by that?

 

smiling...

[jo7hs2]

Jason,

 

Seriously, you will be happy with either camera, provided that the features of the one you choose jive with your needs. You CAN take excellent photographs with either camera, owning a cheaper camera probably won't hinder your success, and owning a better camera probably won't make you any more successful unless you either physically have an issue with the cheaper camera, have specialized photographic needs, etc...

 

Just to illustrate that I hold no actual animus towards the 40D or 40D owners, I should mention that my next camera will probably be a 40D. Why? I already OWN a 350D, and plan on keeping it, so why in the world would I replace with a slightly upgraded version of itself unless it broke? My big point here is that beginners, first time dSLR owners, and even budget-minded serious amatuers shouldn't think they NEED to have a 40D to take excellent photographs.

[KenPapai]

I have to agree w/you Keith, fine case of Q.E.D. there.

 

I forgot about the DIGIC III in the 40D.

[jo7hs2]

Dan,

 

Double meaning... ;)

[dan_hall4]

Since everyone is being nice now and giving you solid advice, I will do the same. I started off wanting a 400D or Nikon D40X. They have great reputations and either would certainly be more capable of taking nice pictures than I would. I picked them up and held them and they felt like toys. But I am 6'6 310 lbs. I have the same problem with everything else in my life, so why should I expect a camera to be any different. I got the 40D largely because it felt better in my hands. Particularly the shutter release. Only after getting the camera and watching the DVD I bought about 5X, did it sink in just how fully featured it was. I bought two books on the camera as well. I am learning something new all the time with that camera. It is a wonderful camera and in hindsight, I can see I clearly got the right camera for me. Either way you go, you will have a nice camera.

[jo7hs2]

The funny thing is, being a pretty big guy, I've never had a huge issue with the smaller camera. I think it suits my stubby fingers. ;) But keep in mind that a lot of the things that have come up here really are ergonomic issues, and that emphasizes the point that you NEED to hold the camera. Everybody has different sized hands, fingers, different eyesight, etc..., and all that plays into which consumer camera you should buy as much, if not MORE than the differences in technology. There is no point in buying a camera that is uncomfortable to use.

[emptyspaces]

Jason, your pictures won't look any different on the 40D over the 400D. I think they even use the same sensor. The differences are mainly in build quality and some features, maybe better focus or something like that. Just remember that you are the most important piece of equipment in your camera rig.

 

<p>You'll get a LOT of bad advice from people who get hung up on camera stats, specs, prices, etc. You gotta hold one and see how it feels for you. Just don't expect the pictures to be any better for your extra money.

 

<p>In fact, if you have to ask about the difference, you're probably better off getting the 400D (after the PMAs, as someone pointed out) and using the rest of the 40D money on a nice lens. The lens is more important than the camera body (and a much better investment).

[socaljake]

<em>In fact, if you have to ask about the difference, you're probably better off getting the 400D </em><br><br>

 

So the fact I'm asking the question means I'm not worthy of the 40d? Thanks. You've made my decision so simple.

[JDMvW]

If you are thinking about a 30D, also consider a 20D. It's almost the same camera, but has a smaller LCD preview screen on the back. There are some other minor differences, but the 40D was a major upgrade, but the 30D was not, and you can get 20Ds even cheaper in good condition.

 

Do wait to see what is announced before the end of this January.

[dan_hall4]

Jason,

 

I got the same responses when I was looking into the 40D. Just wanted to remind you that there are several possible reasons why someone would tell you what you quoted above. To my way of thinking, it just made me want it even more. Call it a character flaw.

 

That is what I was talking about in my initial post when I said...

 

"Take what everyone says with a grain of salt. There will always be a certain amount of projection with comments on these forums"

[William Michael]

>>> I think that lenses are a much more important factor than camera body, so don't splash out on a 40D and then go cheap on the glass. It is, after all, the longer-term portion of your investment... You'd rather spend more on the lenses. <<< (MAK)

 

 

 

I agree 100%.

 

 

 

>>> "Buy once, buy as best you can." -WW I agree, but not in the context of bodies. Buy the best lens you can afford. Digital bodies come and go with the technology, so don't spend more than the technology you need costs.<<< (JS)

 

 

I agree with the general philosophy of JS: I disagree in the application of this philosophy to this thread.

 

Taking into account the two cameras mentioned (400D vs. 40D) taking into account the profile (of Mr Young):

 

There are too many differences in the two bodies. (No need for me to articulate them).

 

It is likely that Mr Young will keep either camera for 5 or more years, irrespective of technological advances and the fact that both will be `out of date` by techno geek standards, in 12 months, perhaps less.

 

IMO, the fact that bodies will be superseded and Mr Young can `update` if necessary was NOT a value or route I interpreted Mr Young wanted to pursue: my interpretation of the post, however might be incorrect in this regard.

 

 

***

 

But even if my above interpretation is incorrect, just returning to the EXACT question posed and answering it ONLY:

 

`can it be said that given the same lens that a 40D will take better images than the 400D/XTi? Would they be twice as good (as the price implies)?` (op cit)

 

IMO, it is unarguable that there WILL be shooting scenarios in which the 40D will render better pictures than the 400D (apropos Low light work for one example)

 

And some scenarios, the 40D will capture some `everyday images` impossible to get from the 400D (given the same skill level of the photographer).

 

As a practical example: a young child playing indoors, available light, no flash, to capture the essence of the emotion on the face as the water spills from the glass and hits the face, I would rather have 6.5fps available and a menu and ergonomics set up on the camera to get it out and functioning more easily in the first place.

 

***

 

This thread IMO, has wandered from the basic premise of the question, which is fine by me, but I think it is most relevant to note that a camera body is much more than a list of technical data: it is a tool and as a tool for the average guy, with a no nonsense attitude, who wants good results and who will most likely take advantage many of the technologies embedded in the 40D: the 40D is the better of the two choices.

 

The meanderings of the thread to isolate various sentences and to argue minute points around those sentences, to me is interesting and stimulating to a degree, but mostly irrelevant in regard to the thrust of the question posted.

 

In this regard Colin Southern`s summary (with his usual flare) is quite an accurate 2008 technological review of the two cameras being discussed, and quite applicable for the purpose of the actual question posted and the profile Mr Young has given:

 

`In my opinion, the 400D is to cameras what the "space-saver" spare wheel is to wheels ...` (op cit)

 

WW