topic is comparing between 30D and 400D, happened to see olympus.. no hard feelins hor~~
Lesson to learn: Take the whole piece of writing in context: not just one word, in this case, "Olympus".
First DSLR - 30D or 400D
- Thread starter nigelc
- Start date
- Status
Lesson to learn: Take the whole piece of writing in context: not just one word, in this case, "Olympus".
DingDongBell
New Member
Gee.... are we being "OtherBrandPhobic" now? Cannot tolerate any mention of other camera brands like Nikon, Olympus, Sony in the Canon shrine? :what: Please lah, this is a discussion forum, let's allow some discussion?
Anyway, features aside, the 30D is definitely something that will go a longer way than the 400D. It's designed and built that way. So if you're really serious about photography, and don't intend to change camera bodies very often, then you're better off with a 30D. Not saying that 400D not reliable, it's just not designed to be as robust and durable as the 30D, e.g. Magnesium alloy contruction, shutter mechanism, mirror box etc.
As for features, ISO3200, 5fps and spot-metering are actually very important features, for your future needs, if not now.
However, if you catch the BBB bug every now and then, you're likely to lose less $$ on the 400D if you ever upgrade the cam. 30D replacement will come soon, and overnight its value will drop a few hundred $$.
Anyway, features aside, the 30D is definitely something that will go a longer way than the 400D. It's designed and built that way. So if you're really serious about photography, and don't intend to change camera bodies very often, then you're better off with a 30D. Not saying that 400D not reliable, it's just not designed to be as robust and durable as the 30D, e.g. Magnesium alloy contruction, shutter mechanism, mirror box etc.
As for features, ISO3200, 5fps and spot-metering are actually very important features, for your future needs, if not now.
However, if you catch the BBB bug every now and then, you're likely to lose less $$ on the 400D if you ever upgrade the cam. 30D replacement will come soon, and overnight its value will drop a few hundred $$.
Wah! :bigeyes: Thanks all for the comments!
Went to give 400D a feel... its seems a bit small for my hand resulting in rather uncomfortable grip and finger positioning..
No chance to give the 30D a go cos someone was 'molesting' it for an extended time... got to go some time this week again..
Seems like 30D is the way to go but wonder if i can or should wait til the replacement model is launched... sigh... timing not good..
Went to give 400D a feel... its seems a bit small for my hand resulting in rather uncomfortable grip and finger positioning..
No chance to give the 30D a go cos someone was 'molesting' it for an extended time... got to go some time this week again..
Seems like 30D is the way to go but wonder if i can or should wait til the replacement model is launched... sigh... timing not good..
saifulbahar
Senior Member
After reading all these thread... one question, does anyone know where is the best price place to buy the 30d?
mtunlinn
New Member
From my knowledge, at OP. But with shop warranty only. 16++ for body only.
Much as I like canon. The announcement of the olympus E-510 really made me take notice. I applaud them for offering us real innovations IS in body and live view. Looking at the samples of E410 made me realize canon others are quickly catching up in image quality. Low iso IQ of canon has been unchanged since the D60. No improvement at all in 5years. Same poor sharpening algorithm in their jpgs: Bad halos when sharpened. This forced me to shoot raw even when I dont need teh extra headroom.
How sure are you of this? :think:
wow, your standards must be really high....
You need to get your facts right before making nonsensical statements like this. :thumbsd:
From http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos10d/page19.asp
"Most of the issues we identified in our reviews of the EOS-D30 and EOS-D60 have been resolved, these included visible diagonal jaggies (now made much smoother so as to be virtually undetectable) and strange dots on our resolution chart (gone completely with the EOS-10D)."
From http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos10d/page16.asp
"As you can see there is no resolution gain between JPEG and RAW using Canon's standard software."
Yes, you'll always see improvements when you shoot RAW:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page21.asp
"When you see the difference between in-camera and shooting RAW and converting via DPP you realize that it's a pity Canon couldn't have implemented this more advanced processing / sharpening algorithm into the EOS 20D for in-camera produced JPEGs."
BUT that is true for ALL cameras including, for example, the more recent Nikon D80: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/page20.asp
"You can turn the sharpening up, although as always for the crispest most detailed images shoot RAW and convert using Nikon Capture NX or Adobe Camera RAW."
When it comes to default jpeg engine, Canon really rules.
True they reduced the moire in the d30 but detail also suffer. If you read dpreview you should check out the samples from d30. At pixel level they are equal to or better than DPP converted RAW files. D60 had a bit of moire but the look is basically no different from 10D.
The info from the 20D review was wat I meant. I couldnt say it better myself. It highlights the poor algorithm I am talking about.
Not true for all camera. Canon seems to suffer most from halo artifacts. The D30, 1d and the newer cameras from pentax and sony etc shows its possible to have a crisp apperance without sharpening artifacts. If you truly understand RAW then you will know that. Out of camera pictures are simply RAW files that are converted using the camera processing engine. Theres no reason why they cant have better quality than wat we are having now.
If you think I am bashing canon. I am not. They are still ahead of the competition in many ways (iso quality one of them) but just some of the things that they refuse to improve on makes me feeling cold.
The info from the 20D review was wat I meant. I couldnt say it better myself. It highlights the poor algorithm I am talking about.
Not true for all camera. Canon seems to suffer most from halo artifacts. The D30, 1d and the newer cameras from pentax and sony etc shows its possible to have a crisp apperance without sharpening artifacts. If you truly understand RAW then you will know that. Out of camera pictures are simply RAW files that are converted using the camera processing engine. Theres no reason why they cant have better quality than wat we are having now.
If you think I am bashing canon. I am not. They are still ahead of the competition in many ways (iso quality one of them) but just some of the things that they refuse to improve on makes me feeling cold.
xunjas
Senior Member
cs.com Oracle - body @ 1840 SGD under the B&S mass orders & sales section..
Although I shoot RAW now, I NEVER had problems with sharpness of in-camera jpegs from my 350D in the past. NEVER.
You have obviously never used a Pentax DSLR.
I used to own one, so I know EXACTLY what I am saying. To say Pentax jpeg can have a crisp appearance without sharpening artifacts is probably the biggest joke I have heard in a while. As for Sony jpeg being good is another big joke. Again, I am speaking from experience.You should sell your Canon gear and gather some new experience.
I use a 350D and 20D. I used think they are good. others are definitely worse in the iso department but other areas IQ has caught up to canon. You are probably using the ist range the newer K100 and K10 are huge improvements over the old ones. WHich is why they caught my attention they strive to improve.
Of course if you shoot RAW, canon is excellent. Which is what I do nowadays too. The converted files with dpp is quite good. But then there are times I do not wish to process so many files.
Of course if you shoot RAW, canon is excellent. Which is what I do nowadays too. The converted files with dpp is quite good. But then there are times I do not wish to process so many files.
I agree Pentax has improved quite a bit in their jpeg rendition. But the moire in the K100D as compared to the equally sharp but moire-free Nikon D40 is rather disappointing:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/page24.asp
And the K10D shows they have lost their touch again:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk10d/page24.asp
Sigh...
I have no doubt RAW images from DSLRs using the Sony's APS-C sensor are great, but when it comes to jpeg... it's a different story. Still, Sony's APS-C sensor is 1 to 1.5 stops behind Canon CMOS sensor at ISO 400 and higher. But, to be fair, I must say I love the flexibility of Nikon's flash system and the in-camera shake reduction in Pentax and Sony.
If anyone say that image quality has not improved over the years since the D30 era, then he must be blind. You should just look at the IQ produce by the 5D at ISO3200 in JPEG(with proper exposure). If any other brand can come close to it please let me know.
Olympus is using a 4/3 system with a 2x Crop sensor, that in itself is a challenge to produce a good Signal to Noise Ratio sensor. I always believe that each light sensor on the CMOS or CCD should be as big as possible. Yes over the years new CMOS and CCD produce less noise, but still a highly dense sensor do pose a greater challenge to produce low noise image.
Also, in order to produce decent images on the olympus camera, olympus have to produce super high quality lens, which is at super high price too.
Olympus is using a 4/3 system with a 2x Crop sensor, that in itself is a challenge to produce a good Signal to Noise Ratio sensor. I always believe that each light sensor on the CMOS or CCD should be as big as possible. Yes over the years new CMOS and CCD produce less noise, but still a highly dense sensor do pose a greater challenge to produce low noise image.
Also, in order to produce decent images on the olympus camera, olympus have to produce super high quality lens, which is at super high price too.
A lots of OT here. :bsmilie:
Personally, if with a $3K budget I will go for a 400D kits with grip.
The kits lens may be of lower quality, but if you shoot landscape, stop it down
and it should still give decent result. It is quite cheap also, so no harm giving it a try
for the moment.
Here are some of my own reasons.
400D may has less features, and poorer built quality.
However, ask ourselves how good are we really exploiting the camera to get
the best pictures ?? How many of us are shoot in really extreme conditions ??
Buy 400D, and you are left with more money for accessories and better lens.
Good lens have better value than body.
I agree with some others that 30D will be a better camera, especially
if you intend to use it for a long time. But ask ourselves again, how many
of us can control the urge to upgrade when newer model is launched ?? :devil:
Go travelling, you will be glad the little weight and size difference of the 400D.
Lastly, gives Nikon D80 a try if you have the time. ;p
Oops... here is Canon forum... :sweat:
Personally, if with a $3K budget I will go for a 400D kits with grip.
The kits lens may be of lower quality, but if you shoot landscape, stop it down
and it should still give decent result. It is quite cheap also, so no harm giving it a try
for the moment.
Here are some of my own reasons.
400D may has less features, and poorer built quality.
However, ask ourselves how good are we really exploiting the camera to get
the best pictures ?? How many of us are shoot in really extreme conditions ??
Buy 400D, and you are left with more money for accessories and better lens.
Good lens have better value than body.
I agree with some others that 30D will be a better camera, especially
if you intend to use it for a long time. But ask ourselves again, how many
of us can control the urge to upgrade when newer model is launched ?? :devil:
Go travelling, you will be glad the little weight and size difference of the 400D.
Lastly, gives Nikon D80 a try if you have the time. ;p
Oops... here is Canon forum... :sweat:
I use to own a 400D . It is a very good camera .
Then hands itchy , so decided to go test drive the 30D .
What everyone say is true , go down to CP and test drive both . Use both cameras to take the SAME picture . See the difference and you would eventually know which one you want . Use both on the the Kit lens they provided will be fine to see the difference .
So eventually , i took the 30D and sold my 400D . Just because i ahd itchy hands to go test the 30D ;p
Never the less , the 400D is still a good camera .
Then hands itchy , so decided to go test drive the 30D .
What everyone say is true , go down to CP and test drive both . Use both cameras to take the SAME picture . See the difference and you would eventually know which one you want . Use both on the the Kit lens they provided will be fine to see the difference .
So eventually , i took the 30D and sold my 400D . Just because i ahd itchy hands to go test the 30D ;p
Never the less , the 400D is still a good camera .
- Status
Similar threads
