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

Anyway, this is a bit of a step back is it not, from 'I'm about to buy a 400D, list some accessories'? :p
 
divine` said:
Anyway, this is a bit of a step back is it not, from 'I'm about to buy a 400D, list some accessories'? :p
Click to expand...

No, I've already bought one - for a friend. Now I've played with her one, I want one for myself.

The only thing that is putting me off pressing buy is the whole "lens makes a camera" attitude and the idea that everything is gash unless you buy uber expernsive seperates...

Is it not possible to do good photography on the basic 400D without the added extras?
 
It is possible. Definitely.

But if you don't want to lay out a bit on some decent lenses etc. then a high end bridge is probably ultimately a far more versatile and useful tool to you.

You can do absolutely no telephoto work without buying another lens, you're limited to wide angle and short range 'normal' focal regions. I'd consider this thoroughly useless for journalistic working personally.
 
cleanbluesky said:
No, I've already bought one - for a friend. Now I've played with her one, I want one for myself.

The only thing that is putting me off pressing buy is the whole "lens makes a camera" attitude and the idea that everything is gash unless you buy uber expernsive seperates...

Is it not possible to do good photography on the basic 400D without the added extras?
Click to expand...

It is possible, but generally the added extras make it easier to get a good picture. Sharper lenses will give a sharper picture, and the more expensive lenses with a wider aperture will allow for better low light photography with less chance of blurring. If you need to get close up, you can either buy a telephoto lens, or try and position yourself closer (often not possible).

Depending on what situations you intend on photographing, you may well be able to get good results with the kit lens, as many people on here have, however if you are somewhere poorly lit or far back then the limitations of the kit lens may become more of an issue.
 
divine` said:
It is possible. Definitely.

But if you don't want to lay out a bit on some decent lenses etc. then a high end bridge is probably ultimately a far more versatile and useful tool to you.

You can do absolutely no telephoto work without buying another lens, you're limited to wide angle and short range 'normal' focal regions. I'd consider this thoroughly useless for journalistic working personally.
Click to expand...

I'm not thinking paparazzi, I don't want Britney upskirt shots or to catch Christina Aguilera getting diiirty on a private beach from 2 miles away...

I just want a camera that I can take out about about that will look the part and ensure I get decent shots... I've played with the 400D and decided that I like it a lot.

What do you mean by "wide angle and short range 'normal' focal regions"?
 
Jotun said:
It is possible, but generally the added extras make it easier to get a good picture. Sharper lenses will give a sharper picture, and the more expensive lenses with a wider aperture will allow for better low light photography with less chance of blurring. If you need to get close up, you can either buy a telephoto lens, or try and position yourself closer (often not possible).

Depending on what situations you intend on photographing, you may well be able to get good results with the kit lens, as many people on here have, however if you are somewhere poorly lit or far back then the limitations of the kit lens may become more of an issue.
Click to expand...

So essentially the lenses are about making certain types of shots easier and getting good shots in low light?
 
Jotun said:
If you need to get close up, you can either buy a telephoto lens, or try and position yourself closer (often not possible).
Click to expand...

If you need to shoot something far away, you can either buy a telephoto lens, or try and position yourself closer (often not possible).

If you need to get close up, you can either buy a macro lens, or try and position the camera closer (often not possible due to minimum focus issues).
 
Okay... now to my mind - these two LOOK the part...

Fuji FinePix S6500

Fuji FinePix S9600

Although they're essentially bog standard cameras... so these versus a 400D, why should I buy the 400d?
 
Last edited:
cleanbluesky said:
What do you mean by "wide angle and short range 'normal' focal regions"?
Click to expand...

wide angle is is generally the realm of landscape photography.
This encompasses 10-24mm roughly on a APS-C DSLR

Normal is what you'd use generally, not too wide, not too tele.
This encompasses 24-85mm roughly on a APS-C DSLR

Short Telephoto is for working at 'small' long distance.
This encompasses 85-150mm roughly on a APS-C DSLR

Telephoto is for working at normal long distance.
This encompasses 150-300mm roughly on a APS-C DSLR

Long Telephoto is for big big distances.
This encompasses 300+mm roughly on a APS-C DSLR

So the 18-55 bridges the wide and normal ranges, but it's only a fairly short normal. If you see what I mean.

I know you don't necessarily mean paparazzi style photography, but for photographs of those cordoned off streets where something interesting is going on halfway down the road, your 400D with 18-55 might as well be a fisher price polaroid for a 5 year old, as the pictures will be equally useless.
 
Anyway

S9600 vs 400D

As far as I see it, the main advantage of the SLR here is it's versatility through upgradeability. You can buy the lenses you need, the accessories will be better. But it all costs money.

The S9600 is about as complete a package as you can get. It can do macro, it can do long telephoto, it has a decent sensor, the controls are almost as full as an SLR, the handling won't be far off a 400D etc.

If you're not prepared to spend extra, the S9600 is probably the better camera, ultimately.

This is the problem I see with DSLRs being so cheap now, people don't realise the whole lens/accessory side of it is still just as necessary as it always was and just as expensive. The 400D is a base to build from, it is not a full solution.
 
divine` said:
Anyway

S9600 vs 400D

As far as I see it, the main advantage of the SLR here is it's versatility through upgradeability. You can buy the lenses you need, the accessories will be better. But it all costs money.

The S9600 is about as complete a package as you can get. It can do macro, it can do long telephoto, it has a decent sensor, the controls are almost as full as an SLR, the handling won't be far off a 400D etc.

If you're not prepared to spend extra, the S9600 is probably the better camera, ultimately.

This is the problem I see with DSLRs being so cheap now, people don't realise the whole lens/accessory side of it is still just as necessary as it always was and just as expensive. The 400D is a base to build from, it is not a full solution.
Click to expand...


I suppose then the option would be whether to get a cheaper camera that will do mostly everything I want or get the 400D and look to learn the craft...

Hmmm
 
cleanbluesky said:
So essentially the lenses are about making certain types of shots easier and getting good shots in low light?
Click to expand...

Pretty much yeah, there is also the fact that generally the more money you spend on a lens, the sharper the result, which will mean it can be printed larger. That's it really though (although I'm sure someone will be along shortly to disagree with me :p)

divine` said:
If you need to shoot something far away, you can either buy a telephoto lens, or try and position yourself closer (often not possible).

If you need to get close up, you can either buy a macro lens, or try and position the camera closer (often not possible due to minimum focus issues).
Click to expand...
Yeah I didn't word that too well I guess, I meant regarding telephoto lenses.
 
It's not like you can't "learn the craft" on a bridge camera.

If you know you're going to be into photography, though—into photography enough to spend money on remotely decent glass—there's no point in limiting yourself straight away. Get a 400D with the kit lens, get 50mm f/1.8. Have a play. Get a cheapish tele (75-300 or a 70-200 f/4L if you're feeling fancy) or an ultrawide depending on what you shoot most of—or upgrade the kit lens if you're happy with that sort of range.

Sorted, and you'll probably have spent under £750 by the end of it.
 
I got a 350D 2 years ago, a year ago I spend £700 on a 70-300 USM IS, 50mm F/1.8 and a 10-20mm Sigma to get the most out of my camera.

Thats £1300 I've spent on it so far with an upgrade to a 40D and a 17-55 USM IS on the way.

A £1000 lens on a £400 SLR > £100 lens on a £2000 SLR (of course if the photographer is equal in skill).

Each lens you get opens up new photographic opportunities.

10-20mm = wide angle landscape/where space is tight etc
18-55 = not used that much or at all because its cheap but its ok stopped down (replaced with 17-55)
50mm = really fast lens for low light and portrait photography (18-55 would be rubbish for this IMO lack of DoF/sharpness etc)
70-300 USM IS = zoom for long distance shooting, widelife, aircraft, etc (Will be replaced with 100-400 in the future)

So basically unless you can/want to spend the money to get the most out of a D-SLR. Don't bother and get a bridge :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom