D30 versus 400D (XTi)

[ketan]

First of all, thank you for responding to my earlier post on buying a camera.
As I do not get Nikon Japan make here I have now narrowed down on Canon Japan make.
With great courage I ask the same question again... Feel free to laugh at me as I know I am acting dumb asking this question.
I have read about 50 posts on the bettle between 30D versus 400D (XTi)
Favoring 30D - Better feel, Great body, ISO up to 3200, Better viewfinder, better exposed photos
Favouring 400D (XTi) - Price (currently $950 versus $1400), Higher Pixel 10 versus 8 (means sharper image?)
What really confused me is they say that buy 400D and invest the balance $ in better lens; lens matters, not the body.
In forums I found several people who moved from 400D to 30D but I am yet to find one who moved from 30D to 400D.
My perception is that people using 400D attempt to justify their choice whereas people using 30D are so firm and confident that almost do not attempt to justify their choice.
I am not a professional photographer, though I wish to take this up as a very serious hobby. I wish to learn photography.
I have used so far point and shoot digital cameras S50 and S80 and EOS300 film camera.
I am extremely fussy about sharp and well exposed images.
Please advise which camera I should go for.
Ketan

 

[Garbz]

No it's not a matter of justifying. It's a matter of balancing your budget. If you are going to spend a few thousand now with plans to set asside more money every year to continue funding and upgrading your hobby it would make sense to buy the 30D. Better lenses and flash and other equipment can come later, and you have an all around higher quality setup. The body does matter to the quality.

What people mean when they say the lenses are important is that the body alone does nothing without a lens. On a budget it would make sense to buy the cheaper body + more lenses, or cheaper body and a flash as the camera will now be able to be used in a much wider range of shooting situations.

It makes no sense to buy the expensive camera and a cheap lens either, and most of those all round lenses with large zoom ranges are pretty poor quality. But then going for a high quality lens on a high quality body, how far can you stretch your budget. A 30D with a 18-55mm L series lens is fantastic providing you only shoot landscapes and that's about it. For someone who would rather use their camera for other things it may make more sense instead to buy a 400D a cheaper 18-70mm lens and a flash, or a 400D and 2 lenses.

The body does matter, and the 30D is considerably better (it is sharper too, megapixels alone are not important), but you're limited ultimately by the lenses and flashes you mount on your camera. I am in this boat with my Nikon D200 (equivalent between the 20D and 5D), and no lens so far that can match the sharpness of the sensor. But I have a budget set aside and plan to buy 2 finer lenses this year.

 

[ketan]

Thanks Garbz for reply.
I am bit inexperienced on this. So bear with my elementary questions.
How do you decide that it is a good lens or a poor lens. For ex. I have Tamron Aspherical XR (IF) AO3 28-200 of my EOS 33 (film) camera that I am planning to mount of whatever camera I buy. Will that be an wrong decision and I should go for some other lens ?
Can I compensate 30Dsharpness with 400D + good lens ?
Please educate me on the lens part which I was altogether ignoring so far.
I am stretching my budget thinking that D30 will last (technologywise) longer than 400D.
ketan

 

[PatriK-b]

I'm a 30D owner but also an occasional 400D user.

I can't say if one is sharper than the other, as said Garbz, it's more about lenses quality. A 400D with a L serie will perform far more better than a 30D with a plastic lens. Hum, I think you guessed

The difference is more a matter of build construction (metal vs plastic), ergonomic (bigger body means more space, more buttons, more functions directly accessible, no combined keys needed on 30D).
400D is a very small body, best fitted for small hands. I screwed once my 100-400 on the 400D, it was difficult to use, not enough grip.
Light metering is also, a little bit more accurate and has spot metering.
Battery life is 2-3x more on 30D.

It's maybe more a question of 'how and for what I will use it' then a qualityt of picture issue.

My 2 cts.

 

[ketan]

Does 8 megapixel versus 10 of 400D hurt ?
Can I say 30D is a longer term investment?

 

[PatriK-b]

As you said, you are not a pro: the pixel count won't make any difference.

Spending money on anything which involves electronic, software and technology should not be considered as an investment.

Lens quality as to deal with max aperture, sharpness, distortion, vignetting, lens surface treatment, overall build quality...

 

[Jon, The Elder]

Ketan....both Patrik-b and Garbz have given you good solid information.

I have and use the Canon 30D. It is a good solid camera and I expect to use it for quite some time to come. I shoot for money, so I need good quality, reliable equpment.

Decide what you want to shoot most (landscape, people, sports, whatever) then pick one good lens to start with. As you grow in your photography, you will find out what other lenses you need to buy.

 

[sabbath999]

Does 8 megapixel versus 10 of 400D hurt ?
Can I say 30D is a longer term investment?

I would encourage you to NEVER look at a DSLR as an investment. They become obsolete quickly, within 2 or 3 years.

LENSES are investments in your photographic future, because they do not become obsolete (assuming you invest in full-sensor lenses...)

 

[ketan]

Thank you friends for your valuable advise.
I am an accountant by profession and not a photographer. This is my first digital SLR.
So as all of you suggested will go for 400D and invesr balance in good lens. (Of course L series is beyond reach)
Thanks...

 

[WDodd]

I would encourage you to NEVER look at a DSLR as an investment. They become obsolete quickly, within 2 or 3 years.

LENSES are investments in your photographic future, because they do not become obsolete (assuming you invest in full-sensor lenses...)

Great advice. While I would say that the body doesn't hold its value nearly as well as the lenses you buy to compliment it, the body will hold a good portion of it over the next few years. But still something to think about.

Sounds to me like the 400D would be more suited to your purposes. I just got my start a few months ago and bought a 350D (XT) and have been pretty serious about learning and am just now noticing the limitations of my body.

 

[RacePhoto]

I would encourage you to NEVER look at a DSLR as an investment. They become obsolete quickly, within 2 or 3 years.

LENSES are investments in your photographic future, because they do not become obsolete (assuming you invest in full-sensor lenses...)

I agree. I'd say if someone had just enough for a lens and camera and one had to be upgraded later, I'd say buy the best lens, which will last and last, and the lesser camera which will be surpassed in a year or two with something better.

The lens will last for much longer and if it matters, hold it's value for much longer, than a camera that will go "obsolete" in a year or two.

The lens makes the picture what it is, more than the camera!

 

[Garbz]

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.

 

[ketan]

Though I said that I will go for XTi, I am still debating in my mind on this going through various forums, asking stupid questions etc.

The question that has survived is : I hear that XTi photos are bit 'soft' compared to D30.

Does this visibly appear or it is only when you have a large print.

I do not think that shutter speed of 1/8000 or ISO>1600 is of any use to me. Also I am not a professional who need to spend lot of time with camera so possibly the grip or small viewfinder of XTi will not hurt. But if I get 'soft' pictures then I will never forgive me.

 

[Garbz]

No the softness is rarely to do with the sensor and more to do with the software. All RAW data from cameras need to be sharpened or it appears soft. I find the D200 out of the box rather soft but that was easily fixed in the menu by taking sharpening up to +1 or +2, or simply post-processing. The amount is entirely up to the photographer. If you are still in doubt look at the reviews on www.dpreview.com they are often accompanied with original images taken by the camera.

 

[PatriK-b]

Totally agree with Garbz, sharpness/softness is result of lens quality (and also the aperture you work with) and camera settings. Don't worry about the 400D sensor, it is pretty good.