Talk me into or out of buying a 400D...

What a useful thread :confused:

What do you shoot? How often do you shoot it? How much are you prepared to spend on glass? Are you prepared to accept the inevitable cons of an SLR in return for the pros? Why a 400D in particular?
 
if 350 quid seems too much at the moment, I would suggest that you are not able to jump into the money grabbing field of new DSLR's yet.

I would suggest a bridge camera until you are sure.
 
aztechnology said:
if 350 quid seems too much at the moment, I would suggest that you are not able to jump into the money grabbing field of new DSLR's yet.

I would suggest a bridge camera until you are sure.
Click to expand...

a very valid point even a basic single lens set up is probably going to blow a much bigger hole in your pocket than that once you add the required memory cards and bag etc etc and then you will have to resist upgrade itis which seems very prevelant in the dlsr world.
 
aztechnology said:
if 350 quid seems too much at the moment, I would suggest that you are not able to jump into the money grabbing field of new DSLR's yet.
Click to expand...
Indeed, the cost of the body should be at most a third of your total budget for kit. You still need to factor in lenses, flashgun, memory cards, batteries, bag(s), filters, tripods, cleaning kit etc.
 
cleanbluesky said:
You're looking at it.
Click to expand...

Mining a low-traffic photography forum for single-sentence answers to only those questions you think up for the duration of a single thread is, rather unsurprisingly, not an effective way to learn about photography.

Why are you so certain you want a DSLR versus a compact or bridge camera when you don't even know what's limiting about a kit lens or why you'd use a flashgun over a built-in flash? I'm genuinely not trying to be snobby or elitist or whatever adjectives will inevitably be thrown at me: I just can't fathom why someone would be so eager to spend what they admit is "a lot of beans" on something they apparently haven't even looked at in depth.
 
robmiller said:
Mining a low-traffic photography forum for single-sentence answers to only those questions you think up for the duration of a single thread is, rather unsurprisingly, not an effective way to learn about photography.

Why are you so certain you want a DSLR versus a compact or bridge camera when you don't even know what's limiting about a kit lens or why you'd use a flashgun over a built-in flash? I'm genuinely not trying to be snobby or elitist or whatever adjectives will inevitably be thrown at me: I just can't fathom why someone would be so eager to spend what they admit is "a lot of beans" on something they apparently haven't even looked at in depth.
Click to expand...

I don't think you're snobby or elitist, nor do I have the desire to throw adjectives at you (or cheap china plates)...

To assume there is a threshold of knowledge at which to take action would be untrue to my acceptance that I am in a constant state of confusion about the world. At any point were I to assume I am not, then I'd be getting prescriptive with reality.
 
cleanbluesky said:
To assume there is a threshold of knowledge at which to take action would be untrue to my acceptance that I am in a constant state of confusion about the world. At any point were I to assume I am not, then I'd be getting prescriptive with reality.
Click to expand...

Oh good I was worried this wasn't going to be a typical CBS thread for a moment back there

Let's run through a few of the basics I guess (warning warning grossly simplified generalisations ahead hard hats recommended):

Pros of a 400D and kit lens vs a bridge camera
  • Build quality (maybe)
  • Image quality (just about)

Cons of a 400D and kit lens vs a bridge camera
  • It's bigger without conferring any significant handling benefit
  • It is far more limited in terms of focal length (most kit lenses are at least passable 10-15x zooms; kit lenses are typically 3x).

Pros of DSLRs in general vs bridge cameras:
  • Versatility. The ability to use a 10.5mm f/2.8 and a 28mm f/1.4 and an 18-200mm and an 800mm f/5.6 on the same body (to use a Nikonian example) quickly sees the DSLR overtake the bridge camera... if you're prepared to invest at least moderately in glass.
  • The potential for higher image quality... if you're prepared to invest at least moderately in glass.
  • As you upgrade bodies and lenses you start to see an absolutely massive increase in ergonomic and build quality. Compare a 1D/D3 or even a 40D/D80 to a bridge camera; the difference isn't even funny.

As is repeated frequently, here and elsewhere, DSLRs are a system: you will lose out versus a bridge camera if you just stick to your kit lens. However, if combined with some sensible and moderate investment in glass and a willingness to learn about what is a relatively deep (if not tremendously complex) subject, the buying of a DSLR is a no-brainer.
 
Last edited:
Dare I suggest you try a decent bridge camera first and then progress from there?
Like a Fuji S9600 for example...which was the first thing I personally could think of.
 
cleanbluesky said:
Why would I need to get so many lenses? The camera itself has a flash...
Click to expand...

1) The kit lens is a wide-to-normal range zoom and not a particularly good one at that. It'd be largely useless for most 'journalistic' photography.

2) The on-board flash, whilst useful in a small number of situations (basic fill or something), is otherwise, completely gash, will likely cause shadows with bigger lenses or with hoods attached etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom