400D or 40D to begin?

[bengguan]

Hi all,

Need advice from all the big bros and sis in this forum. Recently I decided to pick up photography as a hobby. I have some basic knowledge in photography in school, but this is my first time buying a DSLR. Do you think for a beginner like me, 400D or 40D is suitable for me? Btw, I think whatever camera i chose, I hope that it would last me for several years. Thank you!

[Snoweagle]

Originally Posted by bengguan Hi all, Need advice from all the big bros and sis in this forum. Recently I decided to pick up photography as a hobby. I have some basic knowledge in photography in school, but this is my first time buying a DSLR. Do you think for a beginner like me, 400D or 40D is suitable for me? Btw, I think whatever camera i chose, I hope that it would last me for several years. Thank you!

Budget? If no budget restraints, go for 40D.

[ceecookie]

40D,even though more expensive,will be much more useful and better if you have the budget.
Refer to my 30D vs 400D thread if you wish to know more about the 400D.
U can choose the 30D if you dont mind getting 2nd hand..

[daohuay]

Originally Posted by bengguan Hi all, Need advice from all the big bros and sis in this forum. Recently I decided to pick up photography as a hobby. I have some basic knowledge in photography in school, but this is my first time buying a DSLR. Do you think for a beginner like me, 400D or 40D is suitable for me? Btw, I think whatever camera i chose, I hope that it would last me for several years. Thank you!

go for 400D if ur budget is tight, so u have more budget on better lens.

[bengguan]

Well. from what I found out the price differences for the 400D and 40D with 17-85 lens is about $800. Therefore, I think that not a big issue there. But, What I really like to know is whether which model is more suitable for me, in term of my limited knowledge in photography. Is 40D more complicated to use? Thanks!

[ceecookie]

Originally Posted by bengguan Well. from what I found out the price differences for the 400D and 40D with 17-85 lens is about $800. Therefore, I think that not a big issue there. But, What I really like to know is whether which model is more suitable for me, in term of my limited knowledge in photography. Is 40D more complicated to use? Thanks!

Higher and more professional models does not equates to more complication.
They have Full Auto(though im not sure abt 1 series) available.
What is different is simply more/better functions available(i.e 3FPS for 400D versus 6.5fps for 40D)

[justanut]

Look at it this way: You can learn more things with a more "complicated" camera vs one that is almost like a point and shoot. That is if you're really looking into learning more.

I think the 40D is a very good platform to start out with and has pretty much all of the settings that high end dSLRs have so you can really learn. Especially since the price differential doesn't really matter to you.

Start out with the 17-85 kit lens or if you have the dough, get the body only and buy a 17-55. But i learnt more from my 17-85. You could buy mine

[ceecookie]

If you have 2.5k to spare,consider EOS 40D body + Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 2nd hand.
Add 160-200+ for a new copy

[ditikolon]

400D is good enough, but if you want a larger viewfinder, DIGIC III, higher continuous shooting rate, better grip, etc... yah go for the 40D. 400D's viewfinder is quite cramped btw, but useable.

If you're thinking about 400D kit II, I would save the money, just get the body and a Tamron 17-50 f2.8. Although 17-85 IS USM is really an undisputed walkabout lens for 1.6 bodies (focal length wise), I'd appreciate the f2.8 and the Tamron's glass... it's really sharp. Or alternatively you could get the new 18-55 IS and a flash.

[browncow]

The best way is to go to a good camera shop and hands-on the 2 cams yourself.
If you have small hands you may prefer the 400D, or you may find the 400D too small for your liking.
You may find the 3 inch LCD or the flywheel of the 40D irresistable.
If you get the 400D you might outgrow it sooner than if you get the 40D, but both of these cameras are packed with so many features, with either one you're likely to be only utilising a small fraction of the possible potential of the camera.
Bodies don't last as long as lenses. If you have a 10D now even if you laylong also no body wants, but a well preserved L lens can easily last > 10 years, so maybe you want to get the cheaper 400D and spend the 800 bucks difference on a better lens?
There is no correct answer....you have to decide for yourself based on what's important to you.
My 2 cents.

browncow

[bengguan]

Thanks a lot, bros and sis. Appreciated the prompt and professional replies!

[ahliang]

Quys quick question, I had the 40D with 17-85mm lens.
As said the lens is good for walkaround shooting, if I am doing more closeup shooting like portrait is it good to get the Tamron 17-50 f2.8.

[ditikolon]

Originally Posted by ahliang Quys quick question, I had the 40D with 17-85mm lens. As said the lens is good for walkaround shooting, if I am doing more closeup shooting like portrait is it good to get the Tamron 17-50 f2.8.

If you want a zoom lens that can do closeup, yah, Tamron 17-50 is fine. But if you want to keep your 17-85 as your primary walkabout, might as well get a prime. Esp if you're serious about doing closeups. 50mm f1.8 or f1.4 USM would be good. Or 85mm if you don't want to be too close. All these primes are sharp, relatively low cost (esp the 50 1.8), and have large apertures for creativity and subject isolation. ymmv.

[coolsigg]

Originally Posted by ahliang Quys quick question, I had the 40D with 17-85mm lens. As said the lens is good for walkaround shooting, if I am doing more closeup shooting like portrait is it good to get the Tamron 17-50 f2.8.

for portraits, go for primes...50F1.4/F1.8 or 85F1.8 depending on your preferred shooting style...

[Kit]

If you are on a budget but still looking for a more advanced body, try looking for a used 30D. Save the money for decent lenses.