Where are the Canon 400D full reviews?

Discussion in 'Canon' started by default, Sep 23, 2006.

  1. default

    default Guest

    The Canon Digital Rebel XTi or 400D is on the shelves in the stores. I could
    have one this afternoon, but the camera review websites all seem to just
    have preproduction models, advertising copy and "previews" which are not
    much more than just advertising and feature lists.

    Where are the real reviews with detailed image analysis and direct
    comparison side by side to the 350D's images? How about actual tests to
    show the efficacy of the dust cleaning system? Is the signal to noise ratio
    really the same as the 350D? What about the new LCD, does it suck the
    battery dry faster? etc etc. These things appear to still be untested.
    What about flash exposure, is it better, worse the same etc?

    It seems odd that there are not detailed reviews when the product is already
    selling to the public.
    default, Sep 23, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. i think you'll have to wait a bit for this. As for dust cleaning system,
    you'll have to wait months in order for first sensors to be actually dirty.
    All cleaning systems work good on clean sensors. Some say it's just
    marketing stuff and not in fact any effect...
    I'd think that noise is not worse, since they wouldn't go out with worse
    Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\), Sep 23, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. default

    RichA Guest

    dpreview.com did the Nikon D80 and part of it showed
    results from the Canon 400D. It looks sharper than the Nikon,
    but then so is the new Sony.
    RichA, Sep 24, 2006
  4. default

    default Guest

    Thanks, Rich.

    I saw that http://www.cameralabs.com/ had a full review now also of the
    400D. The D80 seems to have noise reduction turned on by default that
    reduces the resolving power somewhat but that can be disabled.
    default, Sep 24, 2006
  5. default

    Jim Redelfs Guest

    All extraneous "priorities", my friend.

    The target audience for that camera probably doesn't know what LCD stands for,
    much less how much power one consumes. They want megapixels!! ...and because
    it has a REMOVABLE lens, it's a fancier camera and, therefore, better! A
    ration of signal to noise of what? Dust?
    Jim Redelfs, Sep 29, 2006
  6. default

    default Guest

    You're probably right. Most people want more megapixels. Also I see most
    of the new compact cameras are making even more saturated colours,
    excessive contrast, and oversharpened pictures. It appears that is the
    style that is wanted.

    I have a Rebel XT 350D and I am very pleased with it. However, I could sell
    it for a significant amount of the price of a 400D so the upgrade would not
    be very expensive if it is an upgrade but if it has problems or isn't really
    better, then I would not want to do it. I was having trouble finding
    critical reviews even after the camera was on store shelves here. I did
    finally find some good reviews with direct comparisons to the 350D. It
    looks like the 400D is a worthy upgrade overall.

    The battery life is reduced a little but all of the accessories like remotes
    and grip work with the 400D. I have seen a few reports on forums about the
    metering being out for certain situations though where the 350D gets it
    right and some complaints about the focusing but most saying it is better.

    I think I'll have to wait a bit longer to decide whether to sell the 350D or
    not to see if any serious problems are appearing in the 400D.
    default, Sep 29, 2006
  7. Anyone ever point out to you that you're an arrogent son of a bitch?
    Ghengis Khan't, Sep 29, 2006
  8. default

    Bates Guest

    Putting a smilie face at the end of your post does not hide the fact
    that your comment is off unwarranted. The 400D potentially offers an
    excellent segway into the DSLR arena for people that do not have the
    necessary funds to purchase a 5D right off the bat. It does not make
    those people any less serious about their hobby and it does not mean
    that they are all ignorant either.

    Initial indications are that the 400D does in deed provide more
    megapixels which arguably will not make much difference as it is really
    only a 25% increase, but it does so without comprimising on noise (or
    so early reports and the head to head of the D80 vs the 400D/XTi on
    dpreview seem to suggest). In addition - Canon has put the same 9
    point AF system as the 5D making this a very attractive model. Granted
    it is not full frame - but then again neither are the much more
    expensive 30D, D200, D2X etc... and yet no one seems to suggest these
    are cameras targeted at amatures.
    Bates, Sep 29, 2006

  9. Hmm, after reading your previously arrogant and deprecating posting, I
    decided to review just what a putz you were by pulling up more of your

    You seem to even denigrate(1) yourself and your own opinions in the
    haste put people down. For reference, see:

    After all the times you have proponed that the higher the megapixels
    the better, you now appear to disparage those who would like to move up
    by placing them all into a category you have apparently decided that
    they all belong in (somehow, you seem to feel that all people who don't
    have your "expertise" [and I use that term loosely] are morons who
    don't know the front of a camera from the back). In fact, you yourself
    advocated the idea of moving up in the previous quote.

    Could it be penis envy that they now have a higher resolution camera
    than your belovved 20D at far less than you paid for yours?

    It's a shame that someone who apparently DOES have some decent
    knowledge is so quick to try to smack down certain [self-assigned]
    categories of people.

    And yes - I own an XTi, having recently moved up from an XT, and will
    eventually (next summer, as I have it budgeted) move up to the 1Ds Mark
    II (or whatever happens to be the top of the line at that time). Right
    now I'm concentrating on the glass (as long as your camera is
    functioning properly, glass, is, IMO, the determining factor in
    gettting the picture right) by expanding my current collection of L
    lenses (many of which I brought along when I moved from film to

    Choosing to not go to an actual "Pro" body at this time and
    concentrating on the glass was a conscious decision. So I guess,
    because I moved up from film to to "Non-Pro" body (the XT), and because
    I decided to upgrade slightly now instead of making the larger leap , I
    fit into your disparaging remarks which classify everyone generally as
    a moron who doesn't use what you personally think qualifies them as
    knowledgeable. [Believe me, it was more than the "megapixels" that
    inspired that move up, not the least of which was to grab the narrow
    window of opportunity to resell the XT at a reasonable return before
    the word of the new XTIi spread - and indeed, I resold it and a handful
    of Cokin filters + an adapter I had laying about extra for only $120
    less than I paid for the XTi]

    My next purchase is a 600mm f4 L. Currently, I own a 24-105L f4 (my
    "walkaround" lens), a 50mmL f1.2, an 85L f1.2, a 100-400L f4-5.6, along
    with my 10-22 EFS f3.5-4.5 and my older (pre-L) 75-300 f4-5.6 IS, and
    of course the 18-55 that came with the camera [which has never even
    been put onto the camera and gets left at home because I have better
    lenses that cover that same range]. I use a Speedlite 580ex, and I'll
    bet I know how to use it in more ways than you do. I have a Gitzo 2220
    tripod, and an Acratech Ultimate ballhead. And yet I use an Canoon
    Digital Rebel XTi, having just bought it because of the increased
    performance. So therefore, according to the implications of your
    little comment, I am a clueless noob who doesn't know anything about my
    camera equipment, just that it's "better because it's a fancier
    camera!" [your snide words]. Right?

    The XTi is better in so many ways than the XT was I can't even begin to
    list them here (and that's not what this little rebuttal was about,
    anyway). I'll match it any day, lens for lens, picture for picture,
    against your 20D - with the exception of sustained continuous shooting
    and top shutter speed (you've got me there on both FPS and number of
    shots, but it's not something I need, so I'm content to not be
    equivalent or better, and I've never needed 1/8000th of a second - in
    fact, I've never needed anything over the 1/4000th that I can get, so
    again I'm content).

    I'd recommend that you learn, along with what appears to be some
    genuine knowledge you posess, not to classify people by their camera,
    and not to ass/u/me things about their knowledge base simply because
    you're under the mistaken belief that because you _think_ you're better
    than they are, that you actually are. There's a word I'm looking
    for... it's t-something. Tol... tole.... tolera.... tolerance....
    Maybe you should look it up.

    Also, I'd learn, if I were you, to not make fun of people who are doing
    the very same thing that you have previously advocated right here in a
    public forum. It makes you look silly.

    Yup, I'm new to this group. Not to usenet (having been here longer [in
    other guises, personalities, and newsgroups] than most people have even
    been aware of "the internet" as a whole, indeed before it was even
    _known_ AS "the internet"), not to cameras and photography, and most
    certainly not to people who pre-judge others based upon their own
    personal predjudices. Long enough to not be bothered by flames, nor
    drawn into a flamewar, so don't even attempt it. Just pointing out
    your own inconcistencies in your attacks on others.

    (1) denigrate: disparage, belittle, deprecate, decry, cast aspersions
    on, criticize, attack; speak ill of, give someone a bad name, defame,
    slander, libel; run down, abuse, insult, revile, malign, vilify, slur;
    informal badmouth, dis, pull to pieces.
    Ghengis Khan't, Sep 29, 2006
  10. That's nice. Perhaps, then, you could refrain from making two page posts
    underlining what you perceive to be other's foibles.
    John McWilliams, Sep 29, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.