I've posted similar threads in the past - now I'm actually in the position to take note and actually purchase!
So, ancient Canon 400d owned by my wife. Loves it to bits, hasn't out-gown it and really enjoys owning it. It took a fall and to say it is temperamental is an understatement. To make matters worse, the kit lens was attached and that has completely broken.
We don't have tons of lens options, but as she has a few, seemed sensible to stick with Canon and replace kit lens at same time.
4000d seems cheap and cheerful and with a kit lens costs only £255. This is obviously well priced and being newer, means it is of higher specification that her old one.
2000d is more expensive, however Canon are running a double-cashback, which means I'd get £100 bac on the purchase, so with kit lens would cost me £291.
Seems the obvious choice, for £40 more to go for the 2000d over the 4000d?
If my wife opens a 2000d on Christmas morning, is she going to be happy with it in comparison to the outgoing 400d?
Cheers all.
So, ancient Canon 400d owned by my wife. Loves it to bits, hasn't out-gown it and really enjoys owning it. It took a fall and to say it is temperamental is an understatement. To make matters worse, the kit lens was attached and that has completely broken.
We don't have tons of lens options, but as she has a few, seemed sensible to stick with Canon and replace kit lens at same time.
4000d seems cheap and cheerful and with a kit lens costs only £255. This is obviously well priced and being newer, means it is of higher specification that her old one.
2000d is more expensive, however Canon are running a double-cashback, which means I'd get £100 bac on the purchase, so with kit lens would cost me £291.
Seems the obvious choice, for £40 more to go for the 2000d over the 4000d?
If my wife opens a 2000d on Christmas morning, is she going to be happy with it in comparison to the outgoing 400d?
Cheers all.
