Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Let's spam the brewery with yet another photography thread! I've poisted this elsewhere, but just for Dave, thought I'd repost it here.
Up until a few months ago I was running a pair of 20Ds: one for bird work with the 500/4 or the 100-400, the other for everything else, mostly landscapes, with a variety of lenses in the 10 to 60mm range. Then the shutter failed on my main 20D (the long lens one) so, to tide me over till I got it back, I ordered a 400D.
I pondered a 30D but went with the 400D because it was:
* 2/3rds the price
* higher resolution (only 2MP but maybe extra reach?)
* very small and light ( both a plus and a minus)
I knew I was not going to get the 30D advantages:
* 5FPS instead of only 3
* Better controls and menus
* spot meter
* bigger, heavier body (a plus and a minus)
I think the price and the extra 2MP swayed me to the 400D in the end. Also, in the back of my mind I had the idea of passing the 400D on to Belinda when I got my spare 20D back and/or bought a 1D III. (She needs a DSLR to replace her elderly high-end P&S and isn't happy with the weight and bulk of my 20Ds.)
Was this the right decision? How does the 400D stand up in real life? Read on..........
The weight saving doesn't make much difference, certainly not to me as my lenses are so heavy.
The 20D clearly feels better in the hand: less toy-like. With the 400D you are always more aware of the camera, more careful not to be pressing the wrong buttons. With the 20D you tend to forget about the camera and just take pictures with it. Putting it another way, the 20D becomes a part of your hand in a way the 400D does not and never will.
I tried the 400D out in both roles: as primary camera with a 500/4 on a tripod, and as second camera hand-held with the 100-400, 60mm macro, 18-55, 50/1.8, 10-22 and 24-105.
I went back to the 20D as the primary bird camera fairly quickly. The extra 2MP on the 400D achieves nothing, the lower speed (3FPS vs 5 FPS) is a drawback, and the controls on the 400D just don't compare to the 20D/30D/5D layout. In particular, the awkward two-finger action to change exposure compensation slows you down, and for wildlife photography speed is critical - an extra half-second all too often results in a picture of a vacant perch. Also, the 400D is less sensitive: it's 400 ISO is a true 400, where with the 20D and 30D the nominal 400 ISO is actually about 500 - i.e., you get faster shutter speeds with the 8MP sensor units.
Just the same, I was surprised to discover how small a difference the slower (3 FPS) speed makes. I expected 3 FPS to be a major factor when shooting birds but although the 5 FPS is nicer, it's not all that much nicer. The big speed hit is because of the slower, clumsier controls, not the shutter repeat rate. Yes, I did miss 5 FPS, but I could live with 3 FPS long-term if I had to. A lot of the time you just get 60-odd percent more shots of the same thing anyway. But there are times when it's one of those two "missing" shots that was going to be the keeper. Example: you have a bird in frame from an angle early in the morning when it's half in light, half in shadow - i.e., you are side-on to the sun just after sunrise. This can make a fantastic shot, but only if the bird has its head at exactly the right angle. With thornbills and small honeyeaters and the like, they move so fast that you haven't got a hope in hell of timing your shutter press by eye, you just have to squeeze the shutter when it starts to move, hold it down, and hope you will hit the magic moment. (This is the sort of thing that the 1D III will excel at, of course. And the sort of thing that makes my storage media suppliers rub their hands together in glee .... all those extra flash cards and backup drives!)
For birding, the 20D/30D is still the king. The 400D resolution advantage is no advantage, the extra 2 FPS is worth having (though less critical than I'd expected), the speed and accuracy of the 20D/30D/5D control set is a significant factor, the better sensitivity of the 20D/30D is worth having. So I soon switched to using the 400D as the second body for macros and landscapes, and using the spare 20D for serious birding. But if need be, the 400D would get me by.
What about as a general-use camera?
Start with the obvious: the 2MP resolution "advantage" is not worth 10c. If there is an advantage to the extra 2MP, I'm not seeing it. In fact, I'm more and more inclined to believe that the 20D produces a better overall image, even when you have to crop heavily. Take home message: don't buy the 400D for the extra MP - at best, it makes no difference.
The 400D dust buster really does work. I've seen wildly varying reports about it from other users, so mabe it will work for you, maybe it won't. But it certainly does the trick for me. With my 20Ds, I have to dig out the sensor swabs regularly: less often on the primary camera where the 500/4 stays on nearly all the time and the only time that dust gets in is when I'm adding or removing a teleconverter or a close-up ring; more often on the second camera because it gets lots of lens changes. As an experiment, I switched the 400D dust buster off as soon as I opened the box. Within a day or two, I had dust problems. (I spend a lot of time outdoors in dry, dusty places.) Rather than swab it, I switched the dust buster to auto, and the sensor dust went away within a short while. In the months since then, the 400D has very rarely had a dust spot, and never for more than a few shots. Bottom line: the dust buster works. It is a big advantage - and in fact one reason why I continued to use the 400D alongside the spare 20D after my primary 20D came back from Canon with its new shutter.
The controls and menus make a difference. The 400D is clunky and awkward at times. I particularly dislike the way that the menu disappears in bright light because of the stupid colour scheme - the black and white main screen is readable all the time, but the coloured menu lacks the necessary contrast and you can't read it when you need it. I can nearly always read the 20D screen. (Have not tried a 30D.) And, of course, there are things you need to use the menu for on the 400D which you have buttons and a rear wheel for on the 20D/30D. The 20D/30D/5D controls are clearly superior, especially the big wheel, which gives you the ability to change two things without fiddling about pressing buttons. Largely because the 400D is so small, it's also very easy to switch stuff on and off by accident. It can ruin your whole day when you discover that you've shot a heap of stuff with the wrong white balance, for example. Just the same, that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the controls on the 400D. It's perfectly usable, and if you haven't spent any amount of time with a 20D/30D/5D, you wouldn't know what you are missing. The take home mesage: 400D good, 20D/30D gooder.
Shutter button. The 400D shutter button is too light for my taste - bit of a hair trigger. You get used to it, but I still sometimes take shots without meaning to. No big deal.
Metering. Neither the 20D nor the 400D has a spot meter. The 30D does, and once upon a time I'd have used it a lot. But I'm so used to not having one now that I'm not sure if I'd get much benefit from a 30D. I'm convinced that the metering of the 400D is inferior to that of the 20D. I get a fairly consistent trend with the 400D to under-expose in high-contrast, bright scenes, especially with partial metering. (I mostly use partial metering because that's the best for birding and it's easier to keep things more-or-less the same on both cameras if you run two or three bodies.) Maybe the partial circle on the 400D is bigger than the one on the 20D? Whatever the reason, I've found that matrix metering is more reliable on the 400D, but I still often have to use a third of a stop +EC on it when I shouldn't need to.
Viewfinder: a clear win to the 20D - the small 400D finder is not nearly as good. Most of the time, this is OK, especially for birding work, but you notice it when you are framing landscapes and especially macros. The 400D viewfinder also cuts off more of the picture than the 20D does. What you see is not what you get! You get used to it though, and learn to allow a bit extra.
Overall, despite my complaints above, I'm very impressed with the little 400D. It's a great camera. It is clearly not as good in day-to-day use as the 20D and if I was planning to keep it for any length of time I'd be annoyed that I didn't spend the extra and get a 30D. But I like using it and it filled the hole nicely while my 20D was away.
Up until a few months ago I was running a pair of 20Ds: one for bird work with the 500/4 or the 100-400, the other for everything else, mostly landscapes, with a variety of lenses in the 10 to 60mm range. Then the shutter failed on my main 20D (the long lens one) so, to tide me over till I got it back, I ordered a 400D.
I pondered a 30D but went with the 400D because it was:
* 2/3rds the price
* higher resolution (only 2MP but maybe extra reach?)
* very small and light ( both a plus and a minus)
I knew I was not going to get the 30D advantages:
* 5FPS instead of only 3
* Better controls and menus
* spot meter
* bigger, heavier body (a plus and a minus)
I think the price and the extra 2MP swayed me to the 400D in the end. Also, in the back of my mind I had the idea of passing the 400D on to Belinda when I got my spare 20D back and/or bought a 1D III. (She needs a DSLR to replace her elderly high-end P&S and isn't happy with the weight and bulk of my 20Ds.)
Was this the right decision? How does the 400D stand up in real life? Read on..........
The weight saving doesn't make much difference, certainly not to me as my lenses are so heavy.
The 20D clearly feels better in the hand: less toy-like. With the 400D you are always more aware of the camera, more careful not to be pressing the wrong buttons. With the 20D you tend to forget about the camera and just take pictures with it. Putting it another way, the 20D becomes a part of your hand in a way the 400D does not and never will.
I tried the 400D out in both roles: as primary camera with a 500/4 on a tripod, and as second camera hand-held with the 100-400, 60mm macro, 18-55, 50/1.8, 10-22 and 24-105.
I went back to the 20D as the primary bird camera fairly quickly. The extra 2MP on the 400D achieves nothing, the lower speed (3FPS vs 5 FPS) is a drawback, and the controls on the 400D just don't compare to the 20D/30D/5D layout. In particular, the awkward two-finger action to change exposure compensation slows you down, and for wildlife photography speed is critical - an extra half-second all too often results in a picture of a vacant perch. Also, the 400D is less sensitive: it's 400 ISO is a true 400, where with the 20D and 30D the nominal 400 ISO is actually about 500 - i.e., you get faster shutter speeds with the 8MP sensor units.
Just the same, I was surprised to discover how small a difference the slower (3 FPS) speed makes. I expected 3 FPS to be a major factor when shooting birds but although the 5 FPS is nicer, it's not all that much nicer. The big speed hit is because of the slower, clumsier controls, not the shutter repeat rate. Yes, I did miss 5 FPS, but I could live with 3 FPS long-term if I had to. A lot of the time you just get 60-odd percent more shots of the same thing anyway. But there are times when it's one of those two "missing" shots that was going to be the keeper. Example: you have a bird in frame from an angle early in the morning when it's half in light, half in shadow - i.e., you are side-on to the sun just after sunrise. This can make a fantastic shot, but only if the bird has its head at exactly the right angle. With thornbills and small honeyeaters and the like, they move so fast that you haven't got a hope in hell of timing your shutter press by eye, you just have to squeeze the shutter when it starts to move, hold it down, and hope you will hit the magic moment. (This is the sort of thing that the 1D III will excel at, of course. And the sort of thing that makes my storage media suppliers rub their hands together in glee .... all those extra flash cards and backup drives!)
For birding, the 20D/30D is still the king. The 400D resolution advantage is no advantage, the extra 2 FPS is worth having (though less critical than I'd expected), the speed and accuracy of the 20D/30D/5D control set is a significant factor, the better sensitivity of the 20D/30D is worth having. So I soon switched to using the 400D as the second body for macros and landscapes, and using the spare 20D for serious birding. But if need be, the 400D would get me by.
What about as a general-use camera?
Start with the obvious: the 2MP resolution "advantage" is not worth 10c. If there is an advantage to the extra 2MP, I'm not seeing it. In fact, I'm more and more inclined to believe that the 20D produces a better overall image, even when you have to crop heavily. Take home message: don't buy the 400D for the extra MP - at best, it makes no difference.
The 400D dust buster really does work. I've seen wildly varying reports about it from other users, so mabe it will work for you, maybe it won't. But it certainly does the trick for me. With my 20Ds, I have to dig out the sensor swabs regularly: less often on the primary camera where the 500/4 stays on nearly all the time and the only time that dust gets in is when I'm adding or removing a teleconverter or a close-up ring; more often on the second camera because it gets lots of lens changes. As an experiment, I switched the 400D dust buster off as soon as I opened the box. Within a day or two, I had dust problems. (I spend a lot of time outdoors in dry, dusty places.) Rather than swab it, I switched the dust buster to auto, and the sensor dust went away within a short while. In the months since then, the 400D has very rarely had a dust spot, and never for more than a few shots. Bottom line: the dust buster works. It is a big advantage - and in fact one reason why I continued to use the 400D alongside the spare 20D after my primary 20D came back from Canon with its new shutter.
The controls and menus make a difference. The 400D is clunky and awkward at times. I particularly dislike the way that the menu disappears in bright light because of the stupid colour scheme - the black and white main screen is readable all the time, but the coloured menu lacks the necessary contrast and you can't read it when you need it. I can nearly always read the 20D screen. (Have not tried a 30D.) And, of course, there are things you need to use the menu for on the 400D which you have buttons and a rear wheel for on the 20D/30D. The 20D/30D/5D controls are clearly superior, especially the big wheel, which gives you the ability to change two things without fiddling about pressing buttons. Largely because the 400D is so small, it's also very easy to switch stuff on and off by accident. It can ruin your whole day when you discover that you've shot a heap of stuff with the wrong white balance, for example. Just the same, that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the controls on the 400D. It's perfectly usable, and if you haven't spent any amount of time with a 20D/30D/5D, you wouldn't know what you are missing. The take home mesage: 400D good, 20D/30D gooder.
Shutter button. The 400D shutter button is too light for my taste - bit of a hair trigger. You get used to it, but I still sometimes take shots without meaning to. No big deal.
Metering. Neither the 20D nor the 400D has a spot meter. The 30D does, and once upon a time I'd have used it a lot. But I'm so used to not having one now that I'm not sure if I'd get much benefit from a 30D. I'm convinced that the metering of the 400D is inferior to that of the 20D. I get a fairly consistent trend with the 400D to under-expose in high-contrast, bright scenes, especially with partial metering. (I mostly use partial metering because that's the best for birding and it's easier to keep things more-or-less the same on both cameras if you run two or three bodies.) Maybe the partial circle on the 400D is bigger than the one on the 20D? Whatever the reason, I've found that matrix metering is more reliable on the 400D, but I still often have to use a third of a stop +EC on it when I shouldn't need to.
Viewfinder: a clear win to the 20D - the small 400D finder is not nearly as good. Most of the time, this is OK, especially for birding work, but you notice it when you are framing landscapes and especially macros. The 400D viewfinder also cuts off more of the picture than the 20D does. What you see is not what you get! You get used to it though, and learn to allow a bit extra.
Overall, despite my complaints above, I'm very impressed with the little 400D. It's a great camera. It is clearly not as good in day-to-day use as the 20D and if I was planning to keep it for any length of time I'd be annoyed that I didn't spend the extra and get a 30D. But I like using it and it filled the hole nicely while my 20D was away.
