DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Upgrade from 350d to 400d - worth it?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 9 of 9, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/27/2007 05:19:26 PM · #1
I currently have a 350d, and I am looking for better high iso performance. The higher resolution would be nice too. Is the 400d a worthy upgrade?

08/27/2007 05:28:34 PM · #2
From what I've heard, no. The 30D body is $270 more at B&H, and prices will soon drop due to the 40D.

FYI, most here will tell you to spend on glass. =)

-Jeff
08/27/2007 05:37:42 PM · #3
If a new lense is a better way to spend the money, what would you recomend to take the place of my Canon 70-300 IS USM for football photography. I know the lense I have is not to good, but is there anything better?

Edit - That should read "is there anything better at a reasonable price?"

I looked and I didn't find anything so I figured it would be cheaper to upgrade the body and shoot at a higher iso(if it had less noise at high iso) than to get a faster lense.

Message edited by author 2007-08-27 21:40:51.
 08/27/2007 06:04:44 PM · #4
The real problem is that fast glass is expensive and high ISO, while helpful will never make up for fast glass.

I'm from the Nikon camp, but have the same considerations. I'd love a 70-200 f/2.8 VR, but I couldn't afford it. So I got the 70-300 VR instead. I'm very pleased in the sun, but regret it when there are clouds or when dusk approaches. Sadly, upgrading the body won't fix the issue for me and I doubt it will for you either.

Best bet is to save up for faster glass. Then down the road, whatever body you end up with you'll have good lenses. Good glass will outlive your bodies by a long shot.
 08/27/2007 06:46:47 PM · #5
for a budget lens, ive got the 70-200 f/4 ($500) which is said to be close to the clearest of the lenses. but you can spend more and get the nicer 2.8 ($1000) version.if your doing football especially during the night, youl need the 2.8 to get some good pics. i was personally looking at the 400/5.6 but i was looking for a day lens but you could also check out the 300 f/4 ($1000) either is, or not, which is an awsome lens for sports such as soccer and any field related sports. check em out. peace
 08/27/2007 06:48:13 PM · #6
this would be the upmost cheapest and lowest glass you should be looking at.
 08/27/2007 06:50:04 PM · #7
Some pricing info and thoughts:

You can't touch 300mm f/2.8 for less than a couple grand.

If you can live with a prime, the Canon 200mm f/2.8L is only $100 more than your 70-300 ($659).

The 70-200's are the most popular telephoto lenses in the prosumer price range. The 70-200 f/2.8L is $1140, while the f/4.0L version is $559, and Sigma's 70-200 f/2.8 is $889.

Assuming you could sell your 70-300 for a reasonable price, some of these may be in the same price range as upgrading to the 400D.
08/28/2007 02:35:04 AM · #8
I will look into that sigma 70-200.

Thanks for the advice everyone
08/28/2007 03:00:14 AM · #9
don't upgrade to 400D. No real added value considering the price. And iso performance seems less good than the 350D
//www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon400D/page4c.shtml

however, you may want to consider upgrading to the 40D. More expensive obviously, but not completely out of reach and should be worth it for sport photography (6.5 fps).

Message edited by author 2007-08-28 07:02:51.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/09/2025 08:32:55 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/09/2025 08:32:55 PM EDT.