Canon 30D vs 400D vs 5D vs 1D MkIII

I'm looking into buying a D-SLR for myself. I'm only a beginner,
but am doing a SLR photography course at the moment with a
borrowed 20D and am really enjoying it. I want to get a little
more serious about this as a hobby. My preference is to stick
with Canon because I know some friends/family with compatible
gear - girlfriend (also doing the course) has a 350D with 2 kit
lenses.

I've had advice that I'm better off spending money on good
lenses, and from what I've learnt in the course I understand a
little more why this is important and recommended. But that is
another post

Originally I was thinking about getting the 400D, but having used
a 20D I like the metal casing over plastic, although it's
heavier. However the 30D is only 8.2Mpx compared to the 400D's
10.1Mpx. Is there some benefit that overrides this that makes
the 30D better? The 400D apparently has inbuilt sensor cleaning
- is that more worthwhile? Should I wait for a 40D (if there is
one coming)?

As a side curiosity: I've been reading some threads recently
about the 1D MkIII just released and looked into it's specs
briefly, and was curious why it is more expensive than the 5D
which has higher megapixel capability. I note the 1D III has
higher ISO 6400.

The 5D and 1d III are a little out of my range anyway.

--
Troy Piggins

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 16:10:11 +1000, Troy Piggins
wrote:

I'm looking into buying a D-SLR for myself. I'm only a beginner,
but am doing a SLR photography course at the moment with a
borrowed 20D and am really enjoying it. I want to get a little
more serious about this as a hobby. My preference is to stick
with Canon because I know some friends/family with compatible
gear - girlfriend (also doing the course) has a 350D with 2 kit
lenses.

I've had advice that I'm better off spending money on good
lenses, and from what I've learnt in the course I understand a
little more why this is important and recommended. But that is
another post

Originally I was thinking about getting the 400D, but having used
a 20D I like the metal casing over plastic, although it's
heavier. However the 30D is only 8.2Mpx compared to the 400D's
10.1Mpx. Is there some benefit that overrides this that makes
the 30D better? The 400D apparently has inbuilt sensor cleaning
- is that more worthwhile? Should I wait for a 40D (if there is
one coming)?

As a side curiosity: I've been reading some threads recently
about the 1D MkIII just released and looked into it's specs
briefly, and was curious why it is more expensive than the 5D
which has higher megapixel capability. I note the 1D III has
higher ISO 6400.

The 5D and 1d III are a little out of my range anyway.

You can see a comparision he

http://surl.se/bfdm

Firstly - don't get caught up in the megapixel race - more isn't necesarily
better. Even the 6MP DSLR's are very very good, the difference between 8 &
10 is practically irrelevant. The 30D's better noise handling (which comes
partly because of the lower megapixel) IMO more than offsets the slight
megapixel advantage that the 400D has. The extra benefits of the 30D such as
spot metering, faster burst, faster response, higher capacity battery, 2
control dials vs 1, longer shutter life etc, again give it significant
advantage over the 400D. Personally I think it feels a lot better to hang
onto too - the 400D feels awkward and feels like a toy. Then there are other
considerations too - for example the 400D doesn't have an illuminated LCD
information panel like the 30D, and instead relies on the rear panel LCD -
no big deal? try using it at night - that bloody great 2.5" screen that is
great for viewing your photos, absolutely kills your night vision (I'll
concede that there may be a way of turning it off, but haven't used one
quite to that extent - but changing things like ISO, etc require it's use).
As for the 5D, it's again a very nice camera, but be prepared to put some
serious investment into lenses, flashguns etc to get the best from it.
At the moment, the 30D bundled with the 17-85IS lens with the $200 cashback
will effectively set you back somewhere in the low $2k region, not that much
more than the 400D with the same lens, and is much better value for money.
"Troy Piggins" wrote in message
...
I'm looking into buying a D-SLR for myself. I'm only a beginner,
but am doing a SLR photography course at the moment with a
borrowed 20D and am really enjoying it. I want to get a little
more serious about this as a hobby. My preference is to stick
with Canon because I know some friends/family with compatible
gear - girlfriend (also doing the course) has a 350D with 2 kit
lenses.

I've had advice that I'm better off spending money on good
lenses, and from what I've learnt in the course I understand a
little more why this is important and recommended. But that is
another post

Originally I was thinking about getting the 400D, but having used
a 20D I like the metal casing over plastic, although it's
heavier. However the 30D is only 8.2Mpx compared to the 400D's
10.1Mpx. Is there some benefit that overrides this that makes
the 30D better? The 400D apparently has inbuilt sensor cleaning
- is that more worthwhile? Should I wait for a 40D (if there is
one coming)?

As a side curiosity: I've been reading some threads recently
about the 1D MkIII just released and looked into it's specs
briefly, and was curious why it is more expensive than the 5D
which has higher megapixel capability. I note the 1D III has
higher ISO 6400.

The 5D and 1d III are a little out of my range anyway.

--
Troy Piggins

In article ,
Troy Piggins wrote:

I'm looking into buying a D-SLR for myself.

The biggest adjustment for me when I bought my first dSLR was the 1.6x "crop
factor". I am not proud to admit that I learned most about it AFTER I bought
my 20D.

Canon makes "EF-S" lenses (5 so far?) that are usable ONLY on the Digital
Rebel series or the 20D and 30D. "Regular" EF lenses are usable on these
cameras but their focal length must be multiplied by 1.6 to determine their
effective focal length on the DigiReb and 20D/30D.

Originally I was thinking about getting the 400D, but having
used a 20D I like the metal casing over plastic, although it's
heavier.

It's LARGER overall, too. Those very aspects factor heavily in some decisions
to choose the more expensive camera.

However the 30D is only 8.2Mpx compared to the 400D's 10.1Mpx.

THAT is a more minor difference than you may realize. Increasing the
megapixel count without increasing the size of the sensor size has some
liabilities.

Is there some benefit that overrides this that makes the 30D better?

There are several, not the least of which is the heavier/better build of the
larger body, spot metering and increased exposure capabilities. Whether they
are WORTH the price difference is debatable.

The 400D apparently has inbuilt sensor cleaning
- is that more worthwhile?

I don't think so.

Should I wait for a 40D (if there is one coming)?

Why wait? Take the plunge now and enjoy your camera during the time that you
would otherwise be waiting for the Next, Big Thingtm. You know the drill:
There's always something better just around the corner.

The 5D and 1d III are a little out of my range anyway.

Which is one of the reasons I didn't answer that particular question. In any
case, doing so might have revealed my ignorance - something I try hard to
hide! All I know is that "full frame" models are significantly more expensive
than the 30D and even more so when compared to the Rebel - and neither one of
those is particularly "cheap".

My friend just bought, and I experienced, a Digital Rebel XTi (400D). I
prefer the FEEL, among other things, of my 20D. It's almost three years old
and I am still thrilled with it.

Whatever you get, you should buy the body ONLY and add an EF-S lens that is
better than the "kit" lens. I regret not having done that. The kit lens is
OK, but just barely. Get the 30D. Good luck!
--

JR

Canon EOS 20D

* Doug Jewell is quoted & my replies are inline below :
"Troy Piggins" wrote in message
...
I'm looking into buying a D-SLR for myself. I'm only a beginner,
but am doing a SLR photography course at the moment with a
borrowed 20D and am really enjoying it. I want to get a little
more serious about this as a hobby. My preference is to stick
with Canon because I know some friends/family with compatible
gear - girlfriend (also doing the course) has a 350D with 2 kit
lenses.
[snip]
Originally I was thinking about getting the 400D, but having used
a 20D I like the metal casing over plastic, although it's
heavier. However the 30D is only 8.2Mpx compared to the 400D's
10.1Mpx. Is there some benefit that overrides this that makes
the 30D better? The 400D apparently has inbuilt sensor cleaning
- is that more worthwhile? Should I wait for a 40D (if there is
one coming)?
[snip]
Firstly - don't get caught up in the megapixel race - more
isn't necesarily better. Even the 6MP DSLR's are very very
good, the difference between 8 & 10 is practically irrelevant.
The 30D's better noise handling (which comes partly because of
the lower megapixel) IMO more than offsets the slight megapixel
advantage that the 400D has.

Fair enough. Better quality over bigger quantity.

The extra benefits of the 30D such
as spot metering, faster burst, faster response, higher
capacity battery, 2 control dials vs 1, longer shutter life
etc, again give it significant advantage over the 400D.

I've read that since my original post. Thanks for convincing me.

Personally I think it feels a lot better to hang onto too - the
400D feels awkward and feels like a toy. Then there are other
considerations too - for example the 400D doesn't have an
illuminated LCD information panel like the 30D, and instead
relies on the rear panel LCD - no big deal? try using it at
night - that bloody great 2.5" screen that is great for viewing
your photos, absolutely kills your night vision (I'll concede
that there may be a way of turning it off, but haven't used one
quite to that extent - but changing things like ISO, etc
require it's use).

Something I wouldn't have realised at my current skill/experience
level, but that's why I asked the experts here

As for the 5D, it's again a very nice
camera, but be prepared to put some serious investment into
lenses, flashguns etc to get the best from it. At the moment,
the 30D bundled with the 17-85IS lens with the $200 cashback
will effectively set you back somewhere in the low $2k region,
not that much more than the 400D with the same lens, and is
much better value for money.

Thanks again for the advice.

--
Troy Piggins

On Jun 8, 2:10 am, Troy Piggins wrote:

Originally I was thinking about getting the 400D, but having used
a 20D I like the metal casing over plastic, although it's
heavier. However the 30D is only 8.2Mpx compared to the 400D's
10.1Mpx. Is there some benefit that overrides this that makes
the 30D better? The 400D apparently has inbuilt sensor cleaning
- is that more worthwhile? Should I wait for a 40D (if there is
one coming)?

As a side curiosity: I've been reading some threads recently
about the 1D MkIII just released and looked into it's specs
briefly, and was curious why it is more expensive than the 5D
which has higher megapixel capability. I note the 1D III has
higher ISO 6400.

The 5D and 1d III are a little out of my range anyway.


Stick with the 20D. Save your money for the best glass. A good "L"
lens on your 20D will blow away a cheap kit lens on the $8000 1DsMKII.

The 1DMKIII is much faster than the 5D (10fps) and has lower noise at
higher ISOs. There are also some other features unique to it having
to do with highlight recovery and the elimination of backfocus
problems.
Simply stated, it just takes better pictures.

* Annika1980 is quoted & my replies are inline below :
On Jun 8, 2:10 am, Troy Piggins wrote:

Originally I was thinking about getting the 400D, but having used
a 20D I like the metal casing over plastic, although it's
heavier. However the 30D is only 8.2Mpx compared to the 400D's
10.1Mpx. Is there some benefit that overrides this that makes
the 30D better? The 400D apparently has inbuilt sensor cleaning
- is that more worthwhile? Should I wait for a 40D (if there is
one coming)?

As a side curiosity: I've been reading some threads recently
about the 1D MkIII just released and looked into it's specs
briefly, and was curious why it is more expensive than the 5D
which has higher megapixel capability. I note the 1D III has
higher ISO 6400.

The 5D and 1d III are a little out of my range anyway.

Stick with the 20D. Save your money for the best glass. A good "L"
lens on your 20D will blow away a cheap kit lens on the $8000 1DsMKII.

Thanks for the advice. I should clarify that I am only borrowing
my brother's 20D. It's a 30D I am thinking about buying.

The 1DMKIII is much faster than the 5D (10fps) and has lower noise at
higher ISOs. There are also some other features unique to it having
to do with highlight recovery and the elimination of backfocus problems.
Simply stated, it just takes better pictures.

Right - perhaps I'll leave it for when I turn pro :-/

30D with good glass it is then.

--
Troy Piggins

* Jim Redelfs is quoted & my replies are inline below :
In article ,
Troy Piggins wrote:

I'm looking into buying a D-SLR for myself.

The biggest adjustment for me when I bought my first dSLR was
the 1.6x "crop factor". I am not proud to admit that I learned
most about it AFTER I bought my 20D.

Canon makes "EF-S" lenses (5 so far?) that are usable ONLY on
the Digital Rebel series or the 20D and 30D. "Regular" EF
lenses are usable on these cameras but their focal length must
be multiplied by 1.6 to determine their effective focal length
on the DigiReb and 20D/30D.

I've read a little about that. So it's fine to get any EFx lens,
as long as I remember the effective focal length of the (regular)
EF is not "true"?

[snip good advice taken on-board]
Should I wait for a 40D (if there is one coming)?

Why wait? Take the plunge now and enjoy your camera during the
time that you would otherwise be waiting for the Next, Big
Thingtm. You know the drill: There's always something
better just around the corner.

Of course you are right. I was just thinking if a 40D is
expected very soon - like in the next month - I can wait. If
not, I'll go 30D. Anyone know?

The 5D and 1d III are a little out of my range anyway.

Which is one of the reasons I didn't answer that particular
question. In any case, doing so might have revealed my
ignorance - something I try hard to hide! All I know is that
"full frame" models are significantly more expensive than the
30D and even more so when compared to the Rebel - and neither
one of those is particularly "cheap".

My friend just bought, and I experienced, a Digital Rebel XTi
(400D). I prefer the FEEL, among other things, of my 20D.
It's almost three years old and I am still thrilled with it.

Whatever you get, you should buy the body ONLY and add an EF-S
lens that is better than the "kit" lens. I regret not having
done that. The kit lens is OK, but just barely. Get the 30D.
Good luck!

Thanks!

--
Troy Piggins

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 16:10:11 +1000, Troy Piggins
wrote:

I'm looking into buying a D-SLR for myself. I'm only a beginner,
but am doing a SLR photography course at the moment with a
borrowed 20D and am really enjoying it. I want to get a little
more serious about this as a hobby. My preference is to stick
with Canon because I know some friends/family with compatible
gear - girlfriend (also doing the course) has a 350D with 2 kit
lenses.

I've had advice that I'm better off spending money on good
lenses, and from what I've learnt in the course I understand a
little more why this is important and recommended. But that is
another post

Originally I was thinking about getting the 400D, but having used
a 20D I like the metal casing over plastic, although it's
heavier. However the 30D is only 8.2Mpx compared to the 400D's
10.1Mpx. Is there some benefit that overrides this that makes
the 30D better? The 400D apparently has inbuilt sensor cleaning
- is that more worthwhile? Should I wait for a 40D (if there is
one coming)?

As a side curiosity: I've been reading some threads recently
about the 1D MkIII just released and looked into it's specs
briefly, and was curious why it is more expensive than the 5D
which has higher megapixel capability. I note the 1D III has
higher ISO 6400.

The 5D and 1d III are a little out of my range anyway.

I'll jump on board with the recommendation for the 30D. I also went
throught the process of looking at the Rebel XTI / 20D / 30D,
considering the price and features and am very glad that I decided on
the 30D.

I recently had the opportunity to shoot a performance of Irish
dancers, and the spot metering mode was fantastic.

As far as 8 mega pixels, I have printed 8"x10" photos that are "as
sharp as a tack"

30D with good glass it is then.


Check out the Canon 24-105 f4 L IS, great lens, covers a lot of situations,
equivalent of a 38mm to 168mm lens on a 35mm camera or slight wide angle to
slight tele if you wish. Has Image Stabilisation and "L" glass, fast to
focus also. It may be twice as expensive as a 17-85 but it is well worth
it. It is my stay on the camera (30D) lens for day to day shooting.

Jean