Why would you upgrade to a 400D? (Canon EOS 400D)

Member Name: k4ssie

Product:	Canon EOS 400D
Date:	28/05/09 (92 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Great value, has all the functions you need

Disadvantages: Limited focus points, poor high ISO performance

I bought this camera as a kit with the standard 18-55mm lens just over a year ago, having dithered for quite a while over whether to upgrade my point & shoot compact, or jump in to the big scary world of DSLRs. There are a ton of very technical analyses of this camera's abilities out there (just check dpreview or any similar site if that's what you're after) but it's personal experience that counts, so i thought i'd make this review a few thoughts about the process of changing from a compact to this camera, and what i've learned about its limitations over the last year.

During the first couple of weeks, i have to say i wondered if i'd done the right thing. If you use this camera like a point & shoot, and don't take advantage of the "special" things it can do (more below!) then you'll just be carrying around a lot of kit in order to make pictures similar to your P&S - only with a lot of limitations. For example, i was upgrading from a really quite good compact - a Casio Exilim - which had a similar number of megapixels, a zoom range which blew the 400D's kit lens out of the water, and a macro function which meant i could focus on things very close to the lens - again, the 400D kit couldn't do this.

But.

~ The special stuff ~.
The 400D is a great introduction to the brilliant effects you can get with an SLR, but you MUST take it off "automatic" and use either manual or aperture priority mode. Then, you will be able to manipulate the image you create so that it's not just a snapshot of exactly what your eyes saw at the time. Manual exposure allows you to under-or over-expose in order to create certain moods, or to emphasise just one part of a scene. Controlling your shutter speed means you can freeze movement, or go for a long exposure to give the feeling of movement through blur. With the right lens (admittedly, NOT the kit, but the canon 50mm f1.8 is perfect and will only cost you about £60 more) you can control very precisely how much of your scene is in focus and how much has a dreamlike blur. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why you should rush out and buy this camera if you want to be creative with your photography.

~ Why the 400D? ~
I read a gazillion reviews and comparison charts, if you do this you'll come to realise that there are about four options in the "beginner" price range (roughly £250-500 for body and kit). In my opinion the differences between them all, in use, are very marginal. Because i knew i'd be investing in lenses in due course, a key factor for me was the price and availability of lenses, and with the 400D you have a choice of Canon's own (usually top whack, certainly on price, often on quality) and a few third party manufacturers' lenses which were compatible. I also just liked the way the camera felt in my hands, in terms of size and weight - there's no substitute for a trip to Jessops or wherever and just handling the various options. And finally, i spotted a brilliant deal - just £300 after the canon cashback offer that was running at the time, from John Lewis of all places.

~ Niggles and limitations ~
Excluding "full frame" cameras which this isn't the time or place to discuss, any SLR you buy, no matter how costly, will differ from the 400D in that it'll have more (or less, but usually more) of the following:
- Megapixels. If you're given to having poster size prints made, or are too lazy to walk closer to your subject so you end up cropping the outside of your shot off to get what you really wanted, this matters. Otherwise, it doesn't, all that much.
- Drive rate. Basically, how many time you can fire the shutter in a second. Again, has never bothered me - but if i was doing sports photography or something else involving fast moving subjects, it would.
- Focus points. This one DOES bother me. The 400D has 5 focus points arranged in a cross (plus one in the centre) across the viewfinder. 5 sounds a lot, but it actually isn't - if you've composed your shot, but one of the 5 points doesn't happen to coincide with where you want the focus to be, you have to recompose, focus, move back to your required focus, and shoot. If you're doing something with precise focus, like closeup work, this means many more of your shots will be out of focus because even that tiny movement can be enough to screw things up.
- ISO range. The higher ISOs (anything up to 3200 plus on expensive SLRs) allow you to take good shots in very poor light - if it works. The 400D runs to 1600, but i find anything above 400 produces very "noisy" - grainy, basically - results. I do find that a limitation of this model.
- Metering types. Basically, how much of the scene you want the camera to analyse when deciding on the required exposure. More is not necessarily better. The 400D lacks "spot" metering, which you'd need if, for example, you were photographing someone lit by a single ray of sunlight in an otherwise dark room. Analysing the whole scene, the camera will exposure for an average of the dark room, so your sunlit person will end up overexposed. Spot metering would allow you to get the exposure perfect for their face. There are ways around this of course, but I still wish i had it!
- Shake reduction. Again, helps you get a sharp shot in low light. Some cameras have it built in; the 400D doesn't, although some Canon lenses do, and are usually relatively expensive as a result.
- "Live view". Being able to see the image on the camera's LCD screen, before the shutter is pressed. The 400D doesn't have this, you have to use the good old-fashioned viewfinder. Mostly not a problem, except if shooting at an awkward angle or low down, when it would be nice.
- LCD screen quality. Variables are size and resolution. I find the 400D's very dim - it's totally impossible to evaluate shots when outside in bright light, and by the time you get inside to check them out, the moment may have passed.

Overall, this is a superb camera for the money - the limitations i'm seeing now are mainly because my technique has improved through using it, and i'm more demanding of my shots. If you're looking for a starter SLR, I suspect that it doesn't matter *that* much which one you choose - but I think most people would be very happy with the 400D.

Summary: A great balance of features and cost for a starter SLR

Processing/Quality:
Reliability:
Ease of use:
Features:
Picture quality: