Anyone go from 300D to 400Xti?

[robert_thommes]

This is the plan based on several comments read both here and elsewhere. So

just before making the leap I'd like to hear from any others who have gone this

route(maybe even with a 350Xt in the middle). Kindly list your likes and

dislikes, pros and cons, etc of your upgrade. Maybe you might recommend that I

keep my 300D in good repair and not to even make any upgrade. Whatever.

Thanks for your remarks.

[joewoo]

I wouldn't do it... The difference isn't worth it to me...better glass will "improve" your shots more than the body..

[robert_thommes]

I wouldn't do it either if I didn't have to; as I'm quite pleased with my current 300D. However, it's starting to act up a bit, and I'm afraid that one of these times it will let me down and not start up. So I pretty much need to be looking around and the 400D is what I thought would be a logical AND affordable(important) way to go.

Maybe I'd be wiser to have my 300D serviced and not upgrade at all. I would do that in a heartbeat if it weren't for a $200-plus service fee.

[phule]

What about your 300D do you find to be limiting your photography? What about the 400D do you think will improve your photography?

[robert_thommes]

Rob,

 

See my second comment. The 400D offers additional megapixels which, for my wildlife/nature shots allows me to crop with less sharpness loss. And the 400D allegedly responds with greater accuracy when using faster lenses such as those with 1.8 and 2.8 apertures.

[carnagex_carnagex]

As I see it it the major differance is high ISO noise.

[arie_vandervelden1]

I made the switch from 300D to 400D about 6 months ago.

 

Noticeable differences: The 400D is a faster, overall more responsive camera. Faster startup, faster playback, USB2. Bigger brighter screen. Better AF with my Tamron 17-50/2.8. Selectable AI servo, no need to go into sports mode and lose raw capability. Better high iso performance - the noise is less "clumpy", more scattered, and blends in better with dithering patterns. A few more megapixels.

 

Also, my old 300D had started to develop lots of hot pixels on time exposures. My old 300D had a flaky hotshoe connection and wouldn't fire the flash sometimes. The upgrade solved these problems.

 

The neutral: the 400D has the dust removal. I never had much of a dust issue with my 300D even though I change lenses a lot and shoot in some hostile envoronments. Dust removal? Meh.

 

The downside: I had to upgrade from CS to CS3 because CS doesn't read the .CR2 files. This upgrade cost me extra $$ that I hadn't budgeted for. Also I'll need to buy new set of spare batteries, the batteries are different.

 

I sold my 300D for a good price so my upgrade wasn't very expensive. The 400D is a fun camera, and I think the upgrade was worth it even though on 95% of my prints you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

[adam_gifford]

the rebel XSI(450d) has allready been announced, and is coming out soonish (1-2mo

supposedly). You might want to wait for full reviews of it to come out, before buying a

XTI(400d).

 

Of course it uses SD i think instead of CF, which is kind of a pain, although sd is really cheap

so it doesnt matter that much.

[kin_lau]

If you're shooting wildlife/nature, then by all means go for the 400D.

 

I went from the 300D to 350D, and the difference in response and speed was tremendous. Battery life is also much better. Shot to shot speed is much better, and RAW is usable now without have to wait 3-4 secs btwn shots.

 

The 400D also has the same AF system as the 30D, but it doesn't take much to be faster/better than the 300D.

[robert_thommes]

I don't know folks. Maybe the 400D isn't enough improvement over the 300D to warrant the additional expense. Maybe the 350Xt would do just as well. If I could save a few bucks in the move, I'm all for that. That's why the new 450Xsi is out of the question. Expense matters. And, I just got back from taking lots of floral shots at a conservatory with my (off and on again)300D AND my fast lens--Tamron 28-75 2.8. All shots were as sharp as I was hoping for. So it seems that my 300d(at least)does auto focus just fine with my 2.8 lens; rendering the "need" for the 400D"s new/improved AF unnecessary.

[lamoine_einspahr]

I have both the 300D and the 400D. The main reason for the upgrade was the faster startup time and the super fast shutter release time. I missed so many good swan,Eagle, and sand hill crane photos with the 300D. A very good side benefit is the larger back screen, dust removal, and a very fast write to card speed. Much, much faster than the 300D. I liked the 400D's fast shutter, fast card write, and the dust removal. The down side is a noisier image especially in RAW, a few hot pixels, and a small body that makes my hands cramp on long bird shoots with the 100-400L IS attached. I don't carry a tripod. My images tend to lean left and require Photoshop straightening. Advice would be to wait a few months and try the XSi to see if the Digic3 and live view would be of significant help. My first objections without handling one would be the SD card, and size.

[robert_thommes]

Lamoine, But isn't the Canon 350Xt just about as "fast" as is the newer 400Xti? I've been told many times just how much faster the 350 is over the 300. Is the 400D that much faster than the 350Xt? Knowing this could become my deal maker. And what about the card write speed, too?

[peter_j2]

There is one advantage in upgrading from a 300D to a 400XTi. You can use the four Lens Aberration tools in Canon's Digital Photo Professional Version 3.2.0.4. Otherwise, you can use Adobe Photoshop CS3 to achieve equivalency and more.

[bob_king2]

Hi Robert

 

I upgraded from a 300D to 400D about 15 months ago and have not regreted it one bit.

As others have said the 400D is faster all round and writes to fast CF cards much faster. It

also has better AF and custom functions. For many of the shots I take, the 300D would

have missed too many. The extra mp is worth it and I find no noise penalty. Having said

that I've kept the 300D as a second body and have not regreted that one bit. I will often

use them together on the one shoot rather than keep changing lenses all the time. There

is nothing wrong with the IQ of the 300D though later cameras such as the 40D and 450D

might handle high ISO noise better.

 

Depending on money the 450D might be worth a look, otherwise go for a 400D. On

upgrading I would rather skip a generation or two rather than upgrade to the following

model. My next upgrade, if any, would probably be a 50D, bought mainly for its handling

and features rather than better image quality.

 

But in the end, it all depends on your shooting requirements - if your current 300D does

the job then just keep it. If not, then one of the newer models would be worth a look.

 

Cheers, Bob

[robert_thommes]

Bob & Co., So basically you folks are telling me that there is no real reason NOT to go for the 400Xti(even though the 350Xt wouldn't be all that bad of an alternative either)? I've got "X" number of dollars to spend on this "upgrade"; which pretty much rules out any cameras other than the 350 or 400(maybe).

Again, thanks for the conributions.