Currently have a 400d - should I upgrade (and what to)?

S

Syphon

Suspended / Banned
Messages
18
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

I've had a 400D for a few years. Other than the stock lens I use a nifty fifty. I'm pretty pleased with the results I get.

I've been getting itchy feet though and wonder if I would see a massive difference in results if I upgraded to a new camera? I'm not sure what I should move to next if I did though. I'm prepared to spend about £600-£700 on top of whatever I would get for my 400D, but don't know if I'd see a £700 improvement in my photos!

Any thoughts or would I be better off using the money to get a new lens?

Cheers :)
 
What do you shoot and which lenses are you using at the moment?
 
If you are using the standard kit lens and the nifty 50 you won't notice much improvement pairing these with a different body.

Your money would be much better spent on new glass.

What do you shoot? That help people suggest what to spend your money on.
 
Hi,

I mainly shoot photos indoors of my son (4 year old), family and our cats. Cars from time to time (static), but wouldn't mind giving some landscape stuff a go at some point. See my flickr link below.

I rarely use the kit lens now - although when outside the zoom comes in handy. The 50 is on the camera pretty much all of the time.

Cheers.
 
I um'd and ar'd about upgrading from a 400D to a 40D to see if I would feel an improvement. I started and contributed several threads and people were very helpful and I got mixed results as to whether I should or should not upgrade.

Eventually I took the plunge and bought a 40D, and I have to say I havent looked back at all. Essentially the 40D has the same sensor as the 400D, but the glass that is internal to the camera is improved and thus helps maximise the quality of the image hitting the sensor. Coupled with improved software the images that I take with the 40D are just a touch more 'silky' and seem to be sightly better quality overall.

So ok I'm taking what I consider better quality images when compared to the 400D, but the more 'pro' feel of the 40D allows easier adjustment of settings in between shots. a few features that come to mind that have given an advantage are the higher iso, better noise handling, top mounted LCD info screen, spinnny wheel thing on the back.

So the answer is.... deffo yes, you do get a return on your investment, but you have to make sure the extra features are what you are after.

My 2p's worth.. :thumbs:
 
I went from a 400D to a 40d. Don't regret it for a second. Main things for me are better ISO handling, more FPS and the general feel \ handling \ ergonomics etc are much better (for me).

That said, in your position I would invest in some glass. For £700 you could get (if one purchased second hand) a Tamron 17-50 and a 70-200l f4, and those lenses compared to upgrading to a better body IMHO wouldmake a much better difference. Of course there are plenty of other lenses but if the choice is

1. eg 50D +50mm + kit lens v
2. 400d + Tamron 17-50 + 70-200L (or a macro lens, or sigma 10-20mm)

My choice would be 2 every time.

I'd then save up to upgrade the body at a later date.

Or last option trade in your 400 for say a 40d and with the money left over get one of the lenses mentioned above.

whatever you decide, enjoy!

Al
 
With what you have at the moment, I would say get some good glass under your belt! I have a 450D, and while it does have some shortcomings, the weak link is firstly my skill level, and secondly the glass. I want a 7D, BADLY, but it's just lust and would be wasted on me at the moment. I'm looking to investing in a really good lens lineup, and only when I feel I am being let down by the camera will I be changing the body!

Firstly, get rid of the kit lens. Go for a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or the Sigma equivalent for around £200 (or spend your entire budget on the Canon 17-55 if you really want!). That will do landscape and general stuff that you use the kit lens for. For more portrait stuff (or kids, pets etc), the Canon 85mm f/1.8 comes in very high regard too, and is a bit longer for further away subjects.

Remember, good glass on a 400D can still give great results, but poor lenses on the best body in the world will still disappoint!
 
chris321 said:
Firstly, get rid of the kit lens. Go for a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or the Sigma equivalent for around £200 (or spend your entire budget on the Canon 17-55 if you really want!). That will do landscape and general stuff that you use the kit lens for. For more portrait stuff (or kids, pets etc), the Canon 85mm f/1.8 comes in very high regard too, and is a bit longer for further away subjects.

Remember, good glass on a 400D can still give great results, but poor lenses on the best body in the world will still disappoint!
Click to expand...

I agree with all that, get the Tamron, I used one on my 400D when I had it and it improved my photography no end compared to the kit lens. Or if you are feeling flush, get the new VC version or the Canon 17-55.
 
Syphon said:
I mainly shoot photos indoors of my son (4 year old), family and our cats. Cars from time to time (static), but wouldn't mind giving some landscape stuff a go at some point. See my flickr link below.
Click to expand...

Yes so I think you notice the difference in quality between the Nifty Fifty and the Kit Lens. Personally I would say forget a new body and go for a Canon 10-22 or the Sigma 10-20. These would give you a nice wide angle for landscapes and also a different take on your static car work.

You have the 50 for portraits and still the kit lens for a zoom.

Then think about a telephoto lens later.

Marcus Geezer said:
Eventually I took the plunge and bought a 40D, and I have to say I havent looked back at all. Essentially the 40D has the same sensor as the 400D, but the glass that is internal to the camera is improved and thus helps maximise the quality of the image hitting the sensor. Coupled with improved software the images that I take with the 40D are just a touch more 'silky' and seem to be sightly better quality overall.

So ok I'm taking what I consider better quality images when compared to the 400D, but the more 'pro' feel of the 40D allows easier adjustment of settings in between shots. a few features that come to mind that have given an advantage are the higher iso, better noise handling, top mounted LCD info screen, spinnny wheel thing on the back.
Click to expand...

Note the 40D vs 400D there is NO difference in 'internal glass'. There isn't any :) But if the 40D gave you more confidence and you think you're shooting better images fair play to you..
 
Marcus Geezer said:
I um'd and ar'd about upgrading from a 400D to a 40D to see if I would feel an improvement. I started and contributed several threads and people were very helpful and I got mixed results as to whether I should or should not upgrade.

Eventually I took the plunge and bought a 40D, and I have to say I havent looked back at all. Essentially the 40D has the same sensor as the 400D, but the glass that is internal to the camera is improved and thus helps maximise the quality of the image hitting the sensor. Coupled with improved software the images that I take with the 40D are just a touch more 'silky' and seem to be sightly better quality overall.

So ok I'm taking what I consider better quality images when compared to the 400D, but the more 'pro' feel of the 40D allows easier adjustment of settings in between shots. a few features that come to mind that have given an advantage are the higher iso, better noise handling, top mounted LCD info screen, spinnny wheel thing on the back.

So the answer is.... deffo yes, you do get a return on your investment, but you have to make sure the extra features are what you are after.

My 2p's worth.. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Erm, sorry to say this but there is no "internal glass", the glass is all in the lens!! So he wont notice any difference in IQ going from the 400d to 40d (unless shooting at very high ISO) as he'll be using the same glass and the same sensor so there would be no difference what so ever.

My advice would be to spend that money on decent glass as the kit lens and 50 wont really get the best out of your body, and you'll notice a massive IQ improvement with quality lenses.

Edit - beaten to the 'internal glass' comment above!
 
Marcus Geezer said:
So ok I'm taking what I consider better quality images when compared to the 400D, but the more 'pro' feel of the 40D allows easier adjustment of settings in between shots. a few features that come to mind that have given an advantage are the higher iso, better noise handling, top mounted LCD info screen, spinnny wheel thing on the back.
Click to expand...

akr said:
I went from a 400D to a 40d. Don't regret it for a second. Main things for me are better ISO handling, more FPS and the general feel \ handling \ ergonomics etc are much better (for me).
Click to expand...

Does the 40D actually cope with higher ISO better than the 400D? I've been wondering about this switch too but thought it was really only the build quality since the sensor's the same in both bodies.
 
I upgraded from the 450D to the 40D and never looked back. If you're coming from the 400D you'll also get spot metering as well (if I'm right in believing it's not a feature of the 400D).

Much better high ISO images (far less noise), higher burst rate, all 9 AF points are the cross-hair type (only the center one is on the 400D) so AF is more reliable when using them, better feel (although that's very subjective and personal) and ISO3200 if you need it in a squeeze. You can get a 2nd hand 40D in excellent condition for around £450 on here as I did so it's well under your budget.

I'd also agree that lenses may be a better investment for the time being. If you love the 50mm f/1.8, I'd recommend upgrading to the f/1.4 version if you can afford it. Much better quality glass and USM focussing is blisteringly quick. At f/1.8 it's much, much sharper than the cheaper lens under less than ideal conditions. If you're shooting indoors a lot, the 35mm f/2 is another gem. The 10-22 is a great lens for landscapes as well but as it's EF-S you'll want to think long and hard about it if you can see yourself upgrading to a FF camera as you won't be able to carry it over.

George.
 
I'd look at getting yourself a Canon 10-22, a tripod, remote shutter release and maybe a flash if you think your indoor photography would benefit from that. You then have a nice starting set-up for trying out landscape shots and the UWA will let you be more creative with portraits as well as getting some great looking car shots :)

Personally I don't see how a 50mm 1.4 would really benefit you unless you are pixel peeping at high resolutions.
I also wouldn't worry about EF-S and FF cameras. If you are undecided about a 40D then the cost of a FF body is not going to be attractive. Worry about that if it ever happens.
 
I think selling the kit lens and invest in a 24-105L it is a terrific walabout lens and would compliment the nify fity well.

I think you will be amazed at the difference it makes.

Go for a new ext 5DII white box kit lens-can be had for circa £725 genuine uk or Kerso!!!
 
Marcus Geezer said:
<snips> Essentially the 40D has the same sensor as the 400D, but the glass that is internal to the camera is improved and thus helps maximise the quality of the image hitting the sensor.

<snips>

My 2p's worth.. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Hrm. Viewfinder, perhaps - but that's not going to change the quality of picture taken.

No, for any serious leap in photo quality outside of photographic skill/technique you'd be much much better advised to get more lenses.
 
Paul Philpott said:
I think selling the kit lens and invest in a 24-105L it is a terrific walabout lens and would compliment the nify fity well.

I think you will be amazed at the difference it makes.

Go for a new ext 5DII white box kit lens-can be had for circa £725 genuine uk or Kerso!!!
Click to expand...

Not the best lens for landscapes though, especially on a crop sensor..
 
odd jim said:
Erm, sorry to say this but there is no "internal glass", the glass is all in the lens!! So he wont notice any difference in IQ going from the 400d to 40d (unless shooting at very high ISO) as he'll be using the same glass and the same sensor so there would be no difference what so ever.

My advice would be to spend that money on decent glass as the kit lens and 50 wont really get the best out of your body, and you'll notice a massive IQ improvement with quality lenses.

Edit - beaten to the 'internal glass' comment above!
Click to expand...

Freester said:
Yes so I think you notice the difference in quality between the Nifty Fifty and the Kit Lens. Personally I would say forget a new body and go for a Canon 10-22 or the Sigma 10-20. These would give you a nice wide angle for landscapes and also a different take on your static car work.

You have the 50 for portraits and still the kit lens for a zoom.

Then think about a telephoto lens later.



Note the 40D vs 400D there is NO difference in 'internal glass'. There isn't any :) But if the 40D gave you more confidence and you think you're shooting better images fair play to you..
Click to expand...

I took it under good advice that this is in fact true. Notably when you clean the sensor are you actually cleaning the sensor itself, or a protective piece of glass in front of it?

Anyway what do I know, I only spent 2 months researching detail such as this to make sure I wasnt just suffering from upgradeititis.
 
incapete said:
Does the 40D actually cope with higher ISO better than the 400D? I've been wondering about this switch too but thought it was really only the build quality since the sensor's the same in both bodies.
Click to expand...

Yes. In a thread I either started or contributed to a post was included which determined ISO results in different cameras and the 40D beet the 400D hands down at high ISO's.


Also I think with the cash this gentleman has available IMO he should go for a 40D and a 28-135 Canon lens. Thats what I have as my walkabout until I can upgrade and I like to think that without investing serious money in an L series lens it gives best bang for buck.

I compared same images from the 400D and the 40D same lens same settings after purchasing the 40D, which was easy as I have kept the 400D as a spare. The colours are 'smoother' and the images have a more pleasing look to them. Not placebo. Fact!
 
Marcus Geezer said:
I compared same images from the 400D and the 40D same lens same settings after purchasing the 40D, which was easy as I have kept the 400D as a spare. The colours are 'smoother' and the images have a more pleasing look to them. Not placebo. Fact!
Click to expand...

Are you shooting RAW or JPEG? If JPEG did you apply the same image processing in Camera? If RAW did you apply the same settings out of camera in your RAW processor?
 
Marcus Geezer said:
I took it under good advice that this is in fact true. Notably when you clean the sensor are you actually cleaning the sensor itself, or a protective piece of glass in front of it?
Click to expand...

The only thing in front of the sensor is a High Pass filter. This does not differ between the 40D or 400D as far as I am aware.
 
I've offered my advice on the basis that a 40D allows you the freedom to take your photography up a notch, should you feel that the kit you have is restricting you at all.

I'm just about starting to get paid for work as a photographer and the 40D has given me both the confidence and ability to present myself in such a manner. The bottom line is with the 400D I would not be achieving the results i am at the moment, due to the numerous additional features which include the reduced noise at high ISO, better image quality and the ease in which I can change settings on the camera.
 
...and thats what its all about. If it gives you better images, for whatever reason, its the camera for you!

My point was mearly a technical one - lens for lens, camera for camera, the OP wouldnt notice a big difference, IQ wise - technically, if he went for the 40d over the 400d unless he upped the level of his glass (and as stated, the only other glass in the body is the high pass filter which is the same). However, it might make him a better 'tog for other reasons which you list.
 
...oh dear :bang:
 
Marcus Geezer said:
I've offered my advice on the basis that a 40D allows you the freedom to take your photography up a notch, should you feel that the kit you have is restricting you at all.

I'm just about starting to get paid for work as a photographer and the 40D has given me both the confidence and ability to present myself in such a manner. The bottom line is with the 400D I would not be achieving the results i am at the moment, due to the numerous additional features which include the reduced noise at high ISO, better image quality and the ease in which I can change settings on the camera.
Click to expand...

I think however therein lies the difference Marcus. We are aiming advice at an amateur tog who enjoys taking pics of his family, pets and possibly some landscapes rather than a paid professional.
I am not saying a 40D would offer benefits as I know it's ISO handling and low light focus speed is superior to the xxxD series, I simply think he'll benefit from some better glass first as it is the obvious bottleneck in his kit list, once this restriction transfers to the body then he can look to spend some cash there knowing he has the glass to get the best from his camera :)
 
jnO said:
I think however therein lies the difference Marcus. We are aiming advice at an amateur tog who enjoys taking pics of his family, pets and possibly some landscapes rather than a paid professional.
I am not saying a 40D would offer benefits as I know it's ISO handling and low light focus speed is superior to the xxxD series, I simply think he'll benefit from some better glass first as it is the obvious bottleneck in his kit list, once this restriction transfers to the body then he can look to spend some cash there knowing he has the glass to get the best from his camera :)
Click to expand...

:withstupid: :whistling:

I am currently running a 400D plus the best glass I can buy / afford. Next will be the body but for best pound for pound improvement and to better shoot the sort of thing the OP is interested in glass is a better option than body. All IMHO.
 
incapete said:
Does the 40D actually cope with higher ISO better than the 400D? I've been wondering about this switch too but thought it was really only the build quality since the sensor's the same in both bodies.
Click to expand...

I've owned both (at the same time) and the 40D definitely performs better at higher ISOs than the 400D. I reckon it's a good stop better, from the 40D I'd use ISO800 shots with no NR no problems, with the 400D you'd need some NR to get to the same level. The 40D is noticably more responsive than the 400D and I agree that it does give better images (perhaps connected to the 14bit processing introduced in the 40D).
 
postcardcv said:
I've owned both (at the same time) and the 40D definitely performs better at higher ISOs than the 400D. I reckon it's a good stop better, from the 40D I'd use ISO800 shots with no NR no problems, with the 400D you'd need some NR to get to the same level. The 40D is noticably more responsive than the 400D and I agree that it does give better images (perhaps connected to the 14bit processing introduced in the 40D).
Click to expand...

Marcus Geezer said:
Yes. In a thread I either started or contributed to a post was included which determined ISO results in different cameras and the 40D beet the 400D hands down at high ISO's.


Also I think with the cash this gentleman has available IMO he should go for a 40D and a 28-135 Canon lens. Thats what I have as my walkabout until I can upgrade and I like to think that without investing serious money in an L series lens it gives best bang for buck.

I compared same images from the 400D and the 40D same lens same settings after purchasing the 40D, which was easy as I have kept the 400D as a spare. The colours are 'smoother' and the images have a more pleasing look to them. Not placebo. Fact!
Click to expand...



Cheers - I've got the 400D and some reasonable lenses but it's low light events that are starting to be a problem - I'd been looking at the 40D but had started to persuade myself that it wasn't worth it. Saving for the 17-55 2.8 IS first though!
 
kennysarmy said:
Another vote to get :

1. tamron 17-50 f2.8 &
2. canon 70-200 f4 L

upgrade the body after....
(are you anywhere near Gloucester?)
Click to expand...

Wow started a bit of a discussion. :) Thanks for all the views people. Ok it makes sense to look at lenses by the sounds of things. I didn't add, but I've been considering a HD camera and was thinking it might be best to get a DSLR with it built in as well. I guess that changes things considerably, or should I just get a cheap HD camera like a flip instead?

If I get the lenses recommended if I ever upgrade to a semi-pro camera (full frame) will the lenses I have be compatible?

I'm in Clevedon so not too far from Glos, why?

Cheers.
 
Of the two above the 70-200L will be fine on FF (Canon EF lenses ok, EFS won't work)

Think the Tamron is for Crop cameras only eg xxd or xxd models so no good on FF, however that also applies to the 17-55 2.8IS canon make.
 
Hi again peeps. I'm digging this old thread back up as I've not progressed since this discussion. Now I'm back on the case though!

Would the situation re: lenses still apply or now the 550D is on the scene and I can get one new for £550 should I go for that before looking at lenses. Also I think if I read correctly the 550D is full frame? The HD video would be a bonus for me.

Ta
 
Syphon said:
Hi again peeps. I'm digging this old thread back up as I've not progressed since this discussion. Now I'm back on the case though!

Would the situation re: lenses still apply or now the 550D is on the scene and I can get one new for £550 should I go for that before looking at lenses. Also I think if I read correctly the 550D is full frame? The HD video would be a bonus for me.

Ta
Click to expand...

The 550D is not full frame, and yes, without an upgrade of lenses you wont seem any improvement in your photos.
The only advantage you would gain is the video.
 
hashcake said:
The 550D is not full frame, and yes, without an upgrade of lenses you wont seem any improvement in your photos.
The only advantage you would gain is the video.
Click to expand...

ta. I'll have a chat to the Mrs about the quality of the video for filming our 5 year old growing up :thumbs:

And look into lenses anyway.
 
I'd still go for the 17-55 2.8 IS. Its a cracking lens and will fit on any xxxd or xxd and the 7d. Will you ever bother spending £1,000 plus on a full frame body in the next few years? If not, dont worry about EF/EFS fitment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top