D30 versus 400D (XTi)

[ketan]

Garbz, with due respect, I went on www.dpreview.com sample gallary and the images of D30 are visibly superior compared to 400D. By exposure and by details.
Of course there are no 'one to one' comparison and may be I am wrong or biased...still I am pretty sure of what I saw.

 

[Groupcaptainbonzo]

The lens in tandem with the brain is what makes a picture. The 30D will survive a bashing now and then much better than a 400D. It is more rugged. But the pair of them will be superceeded in a few years anyway. And you will be using the lenses on a different body. When talking about the difference between 8 and 10 Mega pixels there really isnt much. But the 10 will obviously have the VERY slight edge. If you have to settle for cheap lenses because you have bought the expensive body then you will loose that all important edge in quality. If you are a pro you go for the more expensive camera body. But if you are just a keen amateur then the 400D will more than fit your needs . And the image quality with good glass is Fan-tastic...

 

[sabbath999]

Oh on the other note if you're like me the 30D will actually survive the photography. I needed a metal bodied camera, for me a Nikon D40 and D80 was not an option and I honestly think I would have come close to breaking it in the 6 months I have owned it. So it's not just a matter of picture quality.

You are not supposed to hammer nails with your camera, bro...

Seriously though, those D200's are tanks, for no more weight than they are...

 

[sabbath999]

When talking about the difference between 8 and 10 Mega pixels there really isnt much. But the 10 will obviously have the VERY slight edge.

Respectfully, I disagree with this to a point... just because a camera has more megapixels does not necessarily translate into better image quality. Since the image sensors are the same time, it means that more pixels are packed onto the 10mp sensor than the 8... and that means that less light each pixel, which in turns means that they are less sensitive... leading to increased current to get you signal. Increased current means increased noise. Obviously, the difference here is slight, and there are tons of other factors in play (including the quality of the two sensors) but, at least in theory, a higher MP count does not necessarily equal better picture quality.

A good example of this is the Nikon D40 and D40X. I have now had a chance to shoot both, in real world situations, and while one might assume that the picture quality of the 10mp D40X is vastly superior to the D40 with "only" 6mp, in the real world there is no real difference between the two. If anything, I give the edge to the D40 in image quality. The other differences between the cameras give the D40X a nice advantage (bigger ISO range, faster continuous fire rate, etc.) but the overall image quality is not any better in the real world IMHO... it just gives you the ability to crop a bit more on REALLY big prints (always nice).

 

[Garbz]

Garbz, with due respect, I went on www.dpreview.com sample gallary and the images of D30 are visibly superior compared to 400D. By exposure and by details.
Of course there are no 'one to one' comparison and may be I am wrong or biased...still I am pretty sure of what I saw.

Oh yes I completely agree. I should have been more specific and say softness is not something to do with the megapixels count on the sensor. The fact is the 30D is a far superior body (and it better be for the price). But often one of the biggest differences can be in the on-camera software. This is something Fuji claims make their clone bodies more superior than the Nikon originals, marketing FUD really.

When comparing on dpreview just be careful with the conditions they were shot in. I was not impressed when I checked what you mean only to find the very first photo of the 30D was taken with an L series lens, and the first photo of the 400D was taken with Canon's cheapest kit lens. I looked through a few more and found one that was taken with the same lens, and the 30D photo was recorded in RAW and processed on the computer, but the 400D photo was shot straight to JPEG.

Under ideal conditions (good base, good lighting, no mirror slap, etc) the 350D's sensor outperforms most of Canon's lenses. They use the 350D to test the lenses with a standard resolution chart to get LH/PW numbers at photozone.de and only a few lenses actually outperform the camera body. The selling point of the 30D in my eyes would really be the rugged build, extra features, lower noise, and better metering and focusing systems.

I should mention that I am bit biased against the whole sharpness/resolution thing. I never print A3+ sized photos and always look at the photo in it's entirety. I'm sure you can fault every camera if you look at a 100% crop on a computer screen, but when looking at the photo normally I would personally be quite happy with the sharpness from most P&S digicams

 

[ketan]

Hi friends,
I went to the shop to finally buy the camera and to my surprise 30D was on special promotion at almost $ 275 discount.
Needless to day that after seeing the body and the build and the discount I could not resist buying 30D, finally.
Thanks for all your patient reading and expert advices.
Ketan