Q's on possible purchase on 400D
Discussion
Hello, I know that there's a few posts regarding entry level dslr's and have got my choice down to the Canon 400D.
I do however have a couple of q's which I hope that some of you may be able to help me with.
(1) As i've just found out that the 450D is imminent, do you think that the price of the 400D will drop more than 10% in the near future?
(2) With the into of the 450, do you think that it would be worth the extra over the 400D, (photos will be of family and holiday snaps - noting too taxing)
(3) If I got the 400D, would you recommend me buying the body only and spending a little extra on a better standard lens? if so, what you recommend without spending too much over the cost of a bundled 400D and standard lens?
Many thanks for any responses posted.
I do however have a couple of q's which I hope that some of you may be able to help me with.
(1) As i've just found out that the 450D is imminent, do you think that the price of the 400D will drop more than 10% in the near future?
(2) With the into of the 450, do you think that it would be worth the extra over the 400D, (photos will be of family and holiday snaps - noting too taxing)
(3) If I got the 400D, would you recommend me buying the body only and spending a little extra on a better standard lens? if so, what you recommend without spending too much over the cost of a bundled 400D and standard lens?
Many thanks for any responses posted.
Well for hols & family snaps how about something like the G9?
dSLR's are overkill for that.
Saying that ...
(1) As i've just found out that the 450D is imminent, do you think that the price of the 400D will drop more than 10% in the near future?
400d will likely fall in price to closer to the 350d now I would have thought. 450d out in March/April.
(2) With the into of the 450, do you think that it would be worth the extra over the 400D, (photos will be of family and holiday snaps - noting too taxing)
Both utterly totaly overkill. 450d has some nice updates over the 400d but nothing that you'd realy notice.
(3) If I got the 400D, would you recommend me buying the body only and spending a little extra on a better standard lens? if so, what you recommend without spending too much over the cost of a bundled 400D and standard lens?
I'd swing for the new kit lens with IS if its a possibility (reputed to be a kit lens with the 450d) - far sharper, else spring for the Tamron 17-50f2.8. The old kit lens is OK though, not fast , not fast focusing and 'soft' wide open but thats compared to expensive SLR lenses rather than cheap P&S cameras.
Or if you want a general do everything lens look for the 'Sigma 18-200 OS'
dSLR's are overkill for that.
Saying that ...
(1) As i've just found out that the 450D is imminent, do you think that the price of the 400D will drop more than 10% in the near future?
400d will likely fall in price to closer to the 350d now I would have thought. 450d out in March/April.
(2) With the into of the 450, do you think that it would be worth the extra over the 400D, (photos will be of family and holiday snaps - noting too taxing)
Both utterly totaly overkill. 450d has some nice updates over the 400d but nothing that you'd realy notice.
(3) If I got the 400D, would you recommend me buying the body only and spending a little extra on a better standard lens? if so, what you recommend without spending too much over the cost of a bundled 400D and standard lens?
I'd swing for the new kit lens with IS if its a possibility (reputed to be a kit lens with the 450d) - far sharper, else spring for the Tamron 17-50f2.8. The old kit lens is OK though, not fast , not fast focusing and 'soft' wide open but thats compared to expensive SLR lenses rather than cheap P&S cameras.
Or if you want a general do everything lens look for the 'Sigma 18-200 OS'
Thanks for the info.
Had a look at the Sigma 18-200 os lens but that's a bit out of my price bracket at the moment. Also it was fairly heavy for general lugging about. Sigma do a standard 18-200 lens without 'OS' which is (a) about £100 cheaper and also much lighter - the wife will be using the camera as well.
The question being, (1) is it the standard sigma 18-200 lens that much better than the oe model shipped with the camera and (2) am I going to regret not getting the os version?
Sorry for the seemingly daft questions but this is a new venture for me.
thanks
Had a look at the Sigma 18-200 os lens but that's a bit out of my price bracket at the moment. Also it was fairly heavy for general lugging about. Sigma do a standard 18-200 lens without 'OS' which is (a) about £100 cheaper and also much lighter - the wife will be using the camera as well.
The question being, (1) is it the standard sigma 18-200 lens that much better than the oe model shipped with the camera and (2) am I going to regret not getting the os version?
Sorry for the seemingly daft questions but this is a new venture for me.
thanks
I know some of the serious photographers won't agree with me on this but...
There is a lot of variability in the kit lens. the Other Half and I both have Canon cameras; one kit lens was ok, the other was poor. This is consistent with the general opinion on here. So it's a bit of a lottery. If it's your first SLR, then I'd still say use the kit lens for a bit - it's plenty good enough for you to learn on. By the time you've found your way around the camera and settings, you'll know much better what you want next.
The OH had a Canon 70-300IS and I had the same without IS. I managed fine with it because I was only using it in good light at fast speeds, or with a tripod. So it depends what you want to use it for. If you need it fast, you probably need to spend money I'm afraid.
There is a lot of variability in the kit lens. the Other Half and I both have Canon cameras; one kit lens was ok, the other was poor. This is consistent with the general opinion on here. So it's a bit of a lottery. If it's your first SLR, then I'd still say use the kit lens for a bit - it's plenty good enough for you to learn on. By the time you've found your way around the camera and settings, you'll know much better what you want next.
The OH had a Canon 70-300IS and I had the same without IS. I managed fine with it because I was only using it in good light at fast speeds, or with a tripod. So it depends what you want to use it for. If you need it fast, you probably need to spend money I'm afraid.
I'm definately no expert, but I've been playing with my G9 for about a month now and I'm very impressed with what it can do considering its size. My father has a 350D and it obviously can't compete with that, particularly in low light, but during the day I think it's a pretty good compromise. For me there was no point in me getting a DSLR because I'd never take it anywhere, whereas the G9 does fit in a coat pocket. I've just got back from skiing and I'm quite pleased with what I came away with. I might start a thread with some pictures up here for a critique if I'm feeling brave so you could see what it'd do with an idiot controlling it. 
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff