is the rebel 400 really worth the extra 200?

[DeepSpring]

I'm looking to get a digital after shooting with film for a while. B&H has the 350 for $600 and the 400 for $800. I was wondering if the 400 and w/e new features it has would really be worth the price jump, or would my money be better spent on lenses. Thanks

 

[thebeginning]

many people will say 'spend the extra on lenses!', and they are normally right in doing so...but in this situation i think that the 400 is certainly worth it for only 200 more bucks.

 

[DeepSpring]

Well let me ask this, the lens on my film rebel k2 will work fine on the 350 and 400 right? Its just teh standard kit lens. Because if not then it goes to $900 for the kit lens plus memory card and we're looking at close to $1,000 which is getting a bit high. I don't need the BEST or anythign im nto going to be printing posters and I'm not shooting expensives portaits or anything like that

 

[DeepSpring]

sorry for all the postng but i keep learning more

the only difference i see between the 2 is the 400 has 10.1mp while the 350 has 8

the 400 shots 3 frames a second 350 2.8 not a big difference

the 400 also can shoot 27 continuous frames while the 350 is 14 I dont see myself taking more than 14 pictures at a time anyways

and the dust feature seems to be the only real big difference that would sell me

at the moment I think I'm going to go wih the 350 unless someone says somehting otherwise and not just the 400 is better please but can you actuallyt ell me what looks better

 

[astrostu]

Another feature of the 400 is the ultra-sonic cleaner that it has on (I think) the CCD. I have a 350, and I think it's fine, and I would not upgrade to the 400 even if money were not an option (just not worth it to me). But it really all depends upon what you're going to use it for, how large you want your prints to be, etc.

 

[Peanuts]

many people will say 'spend the extra on lenses!', and they are normally right in doing so...but in this situation i think that the 400 is certainly worth it for only 200 more bucks.

I will second this. I currently have a 350D and see no reason to upgrade to the 400D, but I am quite certain if I was purchasing a new digital camera as a first, the internal sensor cleaner alone would be tempting enough to spend the extra money. Just my take on it.

 

[Big Mike]

Go to a store and hold both of them in your hands.

The 400D has a much bigger screen, and only one screen which shows the settings rather than an extra, small screen for the settings. The 400D has an eye sensor so it know when you hold the camera up to your eye (to shut off the screen) The 400D has better access to the settings via buttons on the back rather than going into the menu.

The 400D has the vibrating sensor to get rid of dust, and it also has the dust spot elimination setting. I'm betting that all new Canon DSLR cameras will have this feature.


IMO, the new 400D is worth the extra $200. It's actually a better camera, in many ways, than the more expensive 30D.

 

[JDP]

Whoa, the 400D has an eye sensor too?

Hrmm... Maybe there's something to this whole 'canon' thing. hehe.

 

[DeepSpring]

hmm this thing is soundging better and better.....


I'ts looking like it would be worth it in the end.....

 

[Mihai]

Well, there is more:
the 400 has the 9 point autofocus of the 30D, allegedly much better and faster.
Furthermore, it has the RGB histogram. Finally it stores 9999 pics in a Folder.
That is on top of the rest (more megapixels, larger screen). I just ordered the 400 and I can't wait for it to come!

M.