# 400D or 450D



## Jonsen (Aug 12, 2007)

Right, got myself a 400d from Sainsburys cheap. What should I do?

Keep it and buy a decent (something up to near 300mm for mid range photography) lense with Image Stabilisation (not going to be using a tripod much)

Sell it and buy a 450d which comes with the 18-55 lense with IS already then just cope with the 55mm lense for a while?

Cheers 

P.S. What is 300mm / 250mm equivalent to on a "standard" digital camera? I've been told 55mm is approx 3x zoom.

P.P.S. Havn't thought about the 1000D how does this compare to the 400D, only difference in spec I can see is fewer amount of focus points. It does ship with the better 18-55 IS lense though.


----------



## Mat430uk (Sep 17, 2007)

i have a 400d and a friend got me a tamron 28-300mm from the states and the image quality now is far better than with the standard lense think it was 180 ish 
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=1003299 fantastic quality


----------



## Mat430uk (Sep 17, 2007)

here is a shot from the lense and camera in the grand canynon it was taken on full quality just in auto i think i have compressed it as the original kept failing to upload


----------



## tmclssns (Dec 28, 2006)

I have the 70-200mm f4 L IS USM and love it! Great lens, as usual with all L lenses. The only thing I'd replace after a while is the kitlens with the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM. Far better lens than kit or the one listed above. The only reason it doesn't get the L mark is because of the EF-S connection but if you never plan on going to a full frame...

I bought the 70-200 first and plan to replace the kitlens with the EF-S variant somewhere in the near future. I've been thinking about going full frame (running the EF-S useless) but ... I'm not that much of a purist


----------



## IGADIZ (May 21, 2006)

Definitely invest on good quality glass.
There is always going to be a better camera coming along every year. But is the bit in front and behind the camera that makes the images. The 70-200f/4L is a fantastic piece of glass, I've got the f/2.8( I.S) version and a friend has the f/4, there really is no difference (unless you need to shoot in really low light, or like a very diffused background) with hindsight, I would have gotten the f/4 as it is much cheaper and lighter which makes it easier to carry around all day. :thumb:


I hear rumours that canon is planning on dropping the crop factor sensors and that soon all their cameras will be full frame. If this happens your EF-S lenses will be worthless... so I'll advise you not to get them.. if not true.. you can always change to the full frame format and ALL your lenses will still work. 

Ps: I hear these rumours and I report them ... so don't shoot me If it turns out not to be true.


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

simple answer is check the differences in the specs and go for it IF you need the extra bits. Ignore MP's though as that is largely irrelevant unless you print BIG!

Lenses is so subjective...its like the wax debate in many ways. Should I get an L lens is like should I buy expensive wax? If your skills and composition are good enough then why not, but for 90% of people its a total waste of money :lol:

if you NEED a 300mm lens for what you shoot - sport, nature, wildlife etc then you need the lens and a 55mm will be no use whatsoever. It is really only necessary though if you plan to shoot that type of stuff, as they are typically fairly big lenses.

A 28-300mm walkabout zoom is a good place to start. They are a bit of a jack-of-all-trades but get a decent one and it will serve you well. You can then spen more in future when you find the limits of that lens.


----------



## tmclssns (Dec 28, 2006)

@Bigpikle: while I agree to a certain extend with your opinion on the expensive part - lots of people around are unable to tell the difference in shine between an expensive wax and a moderately priced wax. However, looking at the sharpness of L lenses compared to the normal lenses, even someone not into photography notices the differences in sharpness.

Take a look for instance at this page: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx and hover over the images to see the difference.


----------



## IGADIZ (May 21, 2006)

Sorry Bigpikle... but if you really are into photography, sooner or later you are going to get the expensive glass. To me, getting the "normal" glass is a waste of money; I know I am going to get the L class lenses anyway. L lenses are built to last, and the image quality they produce (assuming you know what you are doing) is unchallenged. you may not see the difference, but I certainly do.
So if you are serious about your photography, invest on good quality L class glass, it will last you a life time and, should you decide to give it all up or change brands, they will hold their value really well.


----------



## tmclssns (Dec 28, 2006)

@Igadiz: thanks for your note on the FF Canons. I might keep the purchase on hold then


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

IGADIZ said:


> Definitely invest on good quality glass.
> There is always going to be a better camera coming along every year. But is the bit in front and behind the camera that makes the images. The 70-200f/4L is a fantastic piece of glass, I've got the f/2.8( I.S) version and a friend has the f/4, there really is no difference (unless you need to shoot in really low light, or like a very diffused background) with hindsight, I would have gotten the f/4 as it is much cheaper and lighter which makes it easier to carry around all day. :thumb:
> 
> I hear rumours that canon is planning on dropping the crop factor sensors and that soon all their cameras will be full frame. If this happens your EF-S lenses will be worthless... so I'll advise you not to get them.. if not true.. you can always change to the full frame format and ALL your lenses will still work.
> ...


I agree with this as far as the advice on get a good lens and don't go chasing the latest body.

However i can't see any of the big players such as canon and nikon dropping the crop factor any time soon, not only would they royally **** off their consumer customers but also their nature photographers who rely on the crop factor to get that little bit og extra reach out of their lenses!

Also a lot of people who shoot macro prefer crop sesnor because it gives them a wider depth of field.


----------



## Jonsen (Aug 12, 2007)

What are Sigma lenses like? Is it worth getting a lense which has image stabilisation for hand held shots at 300mm in daylight?

Tempted by the Canon IS 55-250MM lense @ around £180 on eBay. Not 300mm but I think 250 would be enough for amateur sports photography etc.

Complete newbie here, sorry 

Forgot to mention but all help is 100% appreciated, it seems that shops just want to sell you whatever they have most stock of.


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

sigma are ok, i used to have the 70-200 2.8 which was a £600 lens in its day, the nikon/canon equivalent was nearer £1k.

The reviews all showed the sigma to be as sharp as the nikon/canon equialents, but in reality the sigma never gave quite as much "punch" to the images! It's because other things (such as microcontrast and how the lens deals with stray light hitting the front element) that aren't easily quantifiable in controlled tests have a big impact.

So moral of the story always buy original lenses if you can.


----------



## Jonsen (Aug 12, 2007)

So on my budget (tight!) would the IS 55-250MM lense be worth purchasing?

I think I have decided to stick with the current 400D body. Shame the 400D didnt ship with the 18-55 IS lense the 450D ships with as that is much better. May put my 18-55 lense on ebay (probably worth feck all?) and get a 18-55 IS one.


----------



## IGADIZ (May 21, 2006)

tmclssns said:


> @Igadiz: thanks for your note on the FF Canons. I might keep the purchase on hold then


Don't hold on it .. if you want to buy a lens then do it... waiting will only make you miss on shooting now.
Besides, as Rmorgan says... it is unlikely they'll drop the crop factor. If Canon decide to go FF only, it will take at least 5 -6 years, and even then, they will have to add a crop setting on the FF cameras just to keep the 1.6 crop constituency happy.

Then again Canon flipped the finger at all their costumer base when they brought out the EOS system... anything previous to that became redundant.. so I would not put it pass them to make radical changes.


----------



## IGADIZ (May 21, 2006)

Jonsen said:


> So on my budget (tight!) would the IS 55-250MM lense be worth purchasing?
> 
> I think I have decided to stick with the current 400D body. Shame the 400D didnt ship with the 18-55 IS lense the 450D ships with as that is much better. May put my 18-55 lense on ebay (probably worth feck all?) and get a 18-55 IS one.


Give me a more accurate idea of how tight your budget is. I can't advice you if I am in the dark.
Also what's your intended target (I.E. what are you going to take pictures off).
The 55-200mm is quiet a compromise, versatile yes... but I doubt the image quality will have the WOW factor.


----------



## Jonsen (Aug 12, 2007)

Up to a MAX of £200 on a lense really. I only really got the camera because it was cheap, now its getting more and more expensive :lol:


----------



## ade33 (Jun 4, 2008)

At the price you paid it's not worth selling it - what are the differences between the 400 and 450 anyway? Invest your money in good lenses - that's where you'll notice the biggest increase in image quality.


----------



## tmclssns (Dec 28, 2006)

@Jonsen: that's always the deal with photography. Invest in glass not the body because the glass will last you a lifetime (if you don't smack it around). If you can miss the cash on expensive bodies as well, then do, but otherwise I'd buy a lower priced body with a quality lens then a quality body with a "crappy" lens (though I have to admit that the higher priced bodies come with quality kit lenses)


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

IGADIZ said:


> Sorry Bigpikle... but if you really are into photography, sooner or later you are going to get the expensive glass. To me, getting the "normal" glass is a waste of money; I know I am going to get the L class lenses anyway. L lenses are built to last, and the image quality they produce (assuming you know what you are doing) is unchallenged. you may not see the difference, but I certainly do.
> So if you are serious about your photography, invest on good quality L class glass, it will last you a life time and, should you decide to give it all up or change brands, they will hold their value really well.


I absolutely agree, but how many people really get into to it at that level?

Most seem to be looking for a new camera, and everyone says "get a DSLR" and then they ask what lenses and everyone say "get expensive glass"....

If you are serious then do it, I know I'm glad I have a big bag of L glass, but for many they have no need of a DSLR let alone a bag of expensive glass


----------



## Jonsen (Aug 12, 2007)

Got mine because it was a) Mega cheap and b) Unimpressed with the amount of noise from my Pentax compact.

Keeping the compact for other shots though.

So, will I be satisfied with teh 55-250 IS lense? I'm just after a bit more range to shoot objects about 20-40 meters away.

Still very much a newbie. I could always sell the IS lense to upgrade to a better one in the future for when I drag the camera out of auto mode


----------



## IGADIZ (May 21, 2006)

Try THIS for size. I recon it will serve you well, + it will work with FF should you decide to go that way in the future. .
If you don't fancy that one, then go with the EF-s 55-250 IS. It wouldn't be my first choice ... but then again, I don't have a 1.6 crop camera


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

I had the original EF 55-200 and it was a damn fine lens. I got some cracking shot with it and it was small and light in the bargain. I only sold it when I got a lovely 70-200L...

I do like IS though - very nice feature on lenses of that focal length. I wish I had the 70-200F4L IS, although dont miss the extra cost and weight


----------



## tmclssns (Dec 28, 2006)

Bigpikle said:


> I do like IS though - very nice feature on lenses of that focal length. I wish I had the 70-200F4L IS, although dont miss the extra cost and weight


Tell me about it. I was in doubt between the 2.8 and 4.0 but in the end selected the 4.0 with IS. The 2.8 was just too heavy imo as a "walk around lens". Though when I recently shot some photographs inside a building of basketball game... the 4.0 was almost "shortcoming" as my friend outperformed me with his 2.8 (nothing a higher ISO rating can't fix but you have to be satisfied with the additional noise...)


----------



## swiftshine (Apr 17, 2008)

Jonsen said:


> Shame the 400D didnt ship with the 18-55 IS lense the 450D ships with as that is much better.


Where did you hear that mate?

Having used both lenses it seems to me that the 18-55IS is exactly the same glass as the 18-55, i.e not very good. The only difference is the IS.


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

swiftshine said:


> Where did you hear that mate?
> 
> Having used both lenses it seems to me that the 18-55IS is exactly the same glass as the 18-55, i.e not very good. The only difference is the IS.


For the money the 18-55 and 18-55IS are superb lenses. You have to take things in context you are paying practically nothing for the lens when you get it as part of a kit. The equivalent in the pro/l glass range is between £600-£1000 depending on if it's a DX lens or not (and canon don't call any of their DX lenses "L" no matter how good they are- but that's another story).

So lets say it's a £50 lens that means it is between 12-20 times cheaper than the pro range. And i'm pretty sure it's not 12-20 times less good.


----------



## The_500 (Sep 21, 2008)

I have the Canon 400D and it is fantastic. Currently eyeing up the 10-22mm, and I cannot wait. As previously mentioned, it's all about the lenses.


----------



## Jonsen (Aug 12, 2007)

swiftshine said:


> Where did you hear that mate?
> 
> Having used both lenses it seems to me that the 18-55IS is exactly the same glass as the 18-55, i.e not very good. The only difference is the IS.


Got a 450D at work (with twin IS lense kit) and the pictures that come off the 18-55 lense are usually great. I didn't realise that the lenses were the same glass so to speak, maybe I was just "bigging up" the 450D as it was a expensive camera and the first proper one I got my hands on.


----------



## swiftshine (Apr 17, 2008)

rmorgan84 said:


> For the money the 18-55 and 18-55IS are superb lenses. You have to take things in context you are paying practically nothing for the lens when you get it as part of a kit. The equivalent in the pro/l glass range is between £600-£1000 depending on if it's a DX lens or not (and canon don't call any of their DX lenses "L" no matter how good they are- but that's another story).
> 
> So lets say it's a £50 lens that means it is between 12-20 times cheaper than the pro range. And i'm pretty sure it's not 12-20 times less good.


Yes, it's a £50 lens, and no, it's not 12-20 times worse than an L but twice as bad as a £50 Sigma equivalent.

And please don't confuse us Canon users with your Nikon terminology. I mean, WTF does DX mean anyway


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

swiftshine said:


> Yes, it's a £50 lens, and no, it's not 12-20 times worse than an L but twice as bad as a £50 Sigma equivalent.
> 
> *And please don't confuse us Canon users with your Nikon terminology. I mean, WTF does DX mean anyway*


yeah you're right it's just with all this PC malarky these days i've got used to treating inferior people as equals in order to conform with society!

I promise will remember to look down upon you from now on

please note that was just a cheap joke, let's not go in to the whoe canon vs nikon thing again, it's been done to death on DW and it's not even a photography forum!!!!!


----------



## swiftshine (Apr 17, 2008)

Up mate, always look up.

I'm not averse to the odd cheap joke myself:thumb:


----------

