Canon 400D
- Thread starter Dmorton
- Start date
- Messages
- 4,210
- Name
- Anton
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If I were you and if you don't need to have two bodies (or otherwise) I wouldn't consider the 400 if I could go for the 30D...
FWIW!
PS. As long as your 300 works reliably and as you say with a decent lens, rather buy more nice lenses!
FWIW!
PS. As long as your 300 works reliably and as you say with a decent lens, rather buy more nice lenses!
Thanks for your replies.
Im from the old school and used 6x7, 5x4 and 10x8 when I used digital for the first time I just thought it was crap, colour fringing round everything being as I use wide lens almost all the time (I dont do pro commercial work any more) Ok its mostly due to the kit lens.
I guess what I really want to know is, is the 400D better interms of fringing with a prime wide lens? I spent ages with post processing in DXO Optics pro
and photoshop to sort out the fringing with the 300D. I want a situation where that is reduced as much as possible.
Im from the old school and used 6x7, 5x4 and 10x8 when I used digital for the first time I just thought it was crap, colour fringing round everything being as I use wide lens almost all the time (I dont do pro commercial work any more) Ok its mostly due to the kit lens.
I guess what I really want to know is, is the 400D better interms of fringing with a prime wide lens? I spent ages with post processing in DXO Optics pro
and photoshop to sort out the fringing with the 300D. I want a situation where that is reduced as much as possible.
- Messages
- 4,210
- Name
- Anton
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well I cannot really answer that last part of your question, but what I can say - and this will be no surprise - The better quality lens the better quality capture.
No doubt there will have been improvements in bodies over the years from 300 to 400 but the 400 to me is not a camera I would consider buying. Build quality is slightly improved from the 350 but nowhere near the 20/30D.
Hope this helps.
No doubt there will have been improvements in bodies over the years from 300 to 400 but the 400 to me is not a camera I would consider buying. Build quality is slightly improved from the 350 but nowhere near the 20/30D.
Hope this helps.
Z
ZED28
Guest
I agree with Anton about the purchase of the 400D. It's not that I wouldn't consider one - if I was starting out from scratch. In your position you already own a 300D so the upgrade isn't as big of an upgrade IMHO. Sure, there are a bunch of extra features with the 400D over the 300D but you really should consider the next step up as far as upgrading. That would be the 30D.
Another option is to keep the 300D and spend the money on good glass. From what I understood from your post, the fringing is more likely a result of using a cheap lens than it would be from the actual camera. :shrug:
Another option is to keep the 300D and spend the money on good glass. From what I understood from your post, the fringing is more likely a result of using a cheap lens than it would be from the actual camera. :shrug:
Yes Im seriously thinking of saving the money and buying good glass, but then
the price this guy kerso is selling the 400D body is tempting and far easier to justify that the cost of a 30D. If I were trying to get commercial work again Id just get a 5D, good glass and be done.
Thanks for all your views.
the price this guy kerso is selling the 400D body is tempting and far easier to justify that the cost of a 30D. If I were trying to get commercial work again Id just get a 5D, good glass and be done.
Thanks for all your views.
