Canon Rebel XTi EOS 400D CAMERA

[diablos]

Somebody i know is may be selling this camera and as Ive been looking somewhat unsuccessfully for a camera reading loads of reviews and coming up with no options i thought i's ask here if anyone has one and what are they like.

[BertRoot]

I own one and love it to bits. Good camera to get used to the world of DSLR if that is what you fancy. How much is he selling it for?

[diablos]

I own one and love it to bits. Good camera to get used to the world of DSLR if that is what you fancy. How much is he selling it for?

Ive not quite got him to agree a price yet, what do you think its worth as i'm clueless with cameras even after reading millions of reviews, its just got the standard lens(not just the body).


Would it be good for a camera amateur and do a lot of the old lenses fit it preferably zoom lenses as its really for the football.



Ive read every review on camera labs that gordon laine seems a nice fellow.

Was actually thinking after reading the reviews of getting a lumix fz18 for the soom but may want more from the camera as my confidence increases.

[BertRoot]

Yeah it is good for a beginner if you are prepared to spend some time with it. Loads of old Canon lenses and Sigma ones can be had for reasonable money.

Depends what comes with it but I saw one go with a Sigma 24-70 EX DG and the battery grip go for 390 the other day. The battery grip goes for about 65 second hand and the lens is about 230 new. The kit lens can be had second hand for about 40 quid inc postage. Have a look at the Sigma 70-300 APO as a cheap zoom. I have one and it is grand for very little money.

[muttleymacclad]

As bert says, great camera. Got one as well. It's the lenses though that make the difference and add to the costs in the long run but again as bert says that Sigma 70-300mm lens is good and might do ok for football.

The lenses that the pro's use for football though cost a bout £1500+ so you're never really going to be able to compete with them.

MML

[diablos]

Yeah it is good for a beginner if you are prepared to spend some time with it. Loads of old Canon lenses and Sigma ones can be had for reasonable money.

Depends what comes with it but I saw one go with a Sigma 24-70 EX DG and the battery grip go for 390 the other day. The battery grip goes for about 65 second hand and the lens is about 230 new. The kit lens can be had second hand for about 40 quid inc postage. Have a look at the Sigma 70-300 APO as a cheap zoom. I have one and it is grand for very little money.

cheers if i can get it cheap enough i may get one, good that you can use other lenses checked out the sigma lense and it looks quite good, and not as dear as i thought the lenses would be..

As bert says, great camera. Got one as well. It's the lenses though that make the difference and add to the costs in the long run but again as bert says that Sigma 70-300mm lens is good and might do ok for football.

The lenses that the pro's use for football though cost a bout £1500+ so you're never really going to be able to compete with them.

MML

Yes mate i guessed thepro lenses cost a forune, but even the cheaperones they must be better than my cybershot 6 megapixel with 3x zoom.
see what i mean below rangers v's kaunas.

Spoiler:

rangers v's liverpool even worse clubdeck though.

Spoiler:

[muttleymacclad]

Yes mate i guessed thepro lenses cost a forune, but even the cheaperones they must be better than my cybershot 6 megapixel with 3x zoom.
see what i mean below rangers v's kaunas.

Spoiler:

rangers v's liverpool even worse clubdeck though.

Spoiler:

You'd be right there then diablos. You'll certainly get better shots with the 400d. I'm sure Bilbo took some of a preston match with a 75-300mm canon lens . I'll look for the thread. Here you go... http://www.digital-forums.com/showth...otball+preston This would give you an idea of what you could achieve.

A couple of question you need to ask yourself. Are you going to try and use a £400 + camera other than for holiday snaps and football pics? If yes then go for it, If no then maybe a decent compact with a good zoom is the way forward.

Can you get a DSLR into the games without stewards getting shirty with you?

Are you prepared to carry a "relatively" big camera and lenses around with you when you go out? eg matches?

I'd still say buy it but think about what you will really use it for. If the money isn't an issue fine, if it is, then are there cheaper smaller cameras that could do the job? You'll still have your cybershot anyway for the times when you need a small compact I guess.

MML

[diablos]

You'd be right there then diablos. You'll certainly get better shots with the 400d. I'm sure Bilbo took some of a preston match with a 75-300mm canon lens . I'll look for the thread. Here you go... http://www.digital-forums.com/showth...otball+preston This would give you an idea of what you could achieve.

A couple of question you need to ask yourself. Are you going to try and use a £400 + camera other than for holiday snaps and football pics? If yes then go for it, If no then maybe a decent compact with a good zoom is the way forward.

Can you get a DSLR into the games without stewards getting shirty with you?

Are you prepared to carry a "relatively" big camera and lenses around with you when you go out? eg matches?

I'd still say buy it but think about what you will really use it for. If the money isn't an issue fine, if it is, then are there cheaper smaller cameras that could do the job? You'll still have your cybershot anyway for the times when you need a small compact I guess.

MML

Bilbo photos look good enough thats roughly as good as I'd hope to achieve.

I think looking at the photo section over the past wee while has kinda made me want to get better camera equipment.
I never really have any trouble with stewards but as you say they may get a bit awkward regarding a dslr.

Think i will go for it if i can get it for the right price, cheers for the advice muttleymacclad and bertroot.


May delete this thread as it borders on normality for me

[{{909}}]

you should find the 400d is going quite cheap now as its sucessor the 450D is about, i think the 450 has live view or something like that over the 400 but whatever it has its nothing to worry about.

Id say get ANY of the current entry level cameras from Canon or Sony, the low end Nikons lack autofocus. The other brands like olympus and so on are great aswell so if you do see one at a super price, dont rule it out.

[diablos]

you should find the 400d is going quite cheap now as its sucessor the 450D is about, i think the 450 has live view or something like that over the 400 but whatever it has its nothing to worry about.

Id say get ANY of the current entry level cameras from Canon or Sony, the low end Nikons lack autofocus. The other brands like olympus and so on are great aswell so if you do see one at a super price, dont rule it out.

Yes i was reading up on the nikon d40 as it ws quite cheap new but was slightly concerned when i read that you have to use all the newer lenses as the autofocus only works manually on the older lenses unless the lense has it own motor.

[dpSparhawk]

I have the 400D and I love it.

All images in my Smugmug and Flickr galleries below are taken with the 400D.

[diablos]

I have the 400D and I love it.

All images in my Smugmug and Flickr galleries below are taken with the 400D.

Some fantastic images there mate are they all taken with the standard lens.

does anyone have an issue with the anti-shake not built into the camera and built into the lenses(am i right i stating this ), just like to cover all the bases.

[Clubber Lang]

I went to Wembley on Sunday for the Charity Sheild and my Nikon D60 was taken off me as soon as I got in. They said it was a proffesional camera and anything over 35mm was banned.

CNUTS!

I was hoping to get some decent shots of my son (6) at his first football match.

A friend I was with, who shall remain nameless (he's a member here) didn't fully charge his battery so we didn't get many photos when inside. I am now gonna buy a point and shoot for occasions like this.

On a side note, are you generally not allowed to take DSLR's into football matches as I have tickets for a game in 2 weeks and I want some decent photos?

[dpSparhawk]

Some fantastic images there mate are they all taken with the standard lens.

does anyone have an issue with the anti-shake not built into the camera and built into the lenses(am i right i stating this ), just like to cover all the bases.

Many are taken with the kit 18-55. All macros are taken with the Sigma 105 EX DG and a number of the shots are taken with the Canon 50 mm F1.8 (nift fifty)

My most recent shots within the long exposures gallery is taken with the kit lens and a ten stop neutral density filter. I think the image would look 100% better if I had used a better lens than the kit such as a Sigma 10-20mm.

[muttleymacclad]

Some fantastic images there mate are they all taken with the standard lens.

does anyone have an issue with the anti-shake not built into the camera and built into the lenses(am i right i stating this ), just like to cover all the bases.

The anti shake is known as IS on canon stuff - Image Stabilisation and as you say it's only in the lenses not in camera. Getting lenses with IS also more expensive than non IS lenses.

I don't have any IS lenses and don't really miss it that much. The only time you really need it are when light is poor and you're shooting long distance. This "generally" means you'd probably have a slightly longer exposure to let as much light in as possible, obviously the longer the shutter is open for the more the shot gets affected by camera shake. This may be an issue for you shooting from the stands in low light as you wouldn't be able to use a tripod to keep the camera steady. However bilbo's shots weren't taken with an IS lens, they would have been handheld with a non IS lens.

hope this helps.

MML

[diablos]

The anti shake is known as IS on canon stuff - Image Stabilisation and as you say it's only in the lenses not in camera. Getting lenses with IS also more expensive than non IS lenses.

I don't have any IS lenses and don't really miss it that much. The only time you really need it are when light is poor and you're shooting long distance. This "generally" means you'd probably have a slightly longer exposure to let as much light in as possible, obviously the longer the shutter is open for the more the shot gets affected by camera shake. This may be an issue for you shooting from the stands in low light as you wouldn't be able to use a tripod to keep the camera steady. However bilbo's shots weren't taken with an IS lens, they would have been handheld with a non IS lens.

hope this helps.

MML

Thanks for clearing that up just a few more points now

May seem stupid points but remember I'm a novice


Can get the camera for £300 it has a 4gb card /manual battery charger with it( had a wee play with it) and from my untrained eye it looks fine.

Now the stupid points.

Can you set the LCD at the back so you see the picture your taking or is it only with the eyepiece or is the LCD merely for setting up and shit.

When i buy another lens will it auto zoom or would it have done that with the normal lense if i tried it as i only turned the fcuker manually.

I'm still considering buying new the lumix fz18 which i figure has all the option i need am i being shortsighted here and will the d400 give me all that and more when i purchase more lenses.

Thanks for any advice

[muttleymacclad]

Thanks for clearing that up just a few more points now

May seem stupid points but remember I'm a novice


Can get the camera for £300 it has a 4gb card /manual battery charger with it( had a wee play with it) and from my untrained eye it looks fine.

Now the stupid points.

Can you set the LCD at the back so you see the picture your taking or is it only with the eyepiece or is the LCD merely for setting up and shit.

There's no live view on the 400d, it was something I wish it had but it doens't bother me now too much. You only use the eye piece. The LCD is for your settings and the viewing the shots you've taken.

When i buy another lens will it auto zoom or would it have done that with the normal lense if i tried it as i only turned the fcuker manually.

Just about all zoom lenses are manual in that you have to twist the barrel to zoom in and out. you can focus automaticall or manually but zoom is always done manually.

I'm still considering buying new the lumix fz18 which i figure has all the option i need am i being shortsighted here and will the d400 give me all that and more when i purchase more lenses.

The fz18 is a nice camera, but the 400d would do all that and much more with more lenses but this will obviously cost you. I guess it all depends on whether you want to go down DSLR with lenses or a simpler camera with no hassle of other odds and sods.

I'm sure you've read all the reviews but Dpreview always do thorough tests and reviews http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz18/

Your other option might be the Canon 1000D but this would cost more. It's pitched as a DSLR for the user moving from the compact camera. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1000d/

My honest view is that you may be better off with something like the fz18 if you don't intend getting immersed in the photo lark and remember it the photographer that makes the best pictures not the camera (in most cases!) If you think you're going to enjoy going out and getting pictures, spending a lot of time taking then and spending ages processing then go for a DSLR.

Thanks for any advice

Sorry but it's really hard advising people about cameras.

MML

[diablos]

There's no live view on the 400d, it was something I wish it had but it doens't bother me now too much. You only use the eye piece. The LCD is for your settings and the viewing the shots you've taken.



Just about all zoom lenses are manual in that you have to twist the barrel to zoom in and out. you can focus automaticall or manually but zoom is always done manually.



The fz18 is a nice camera, but the 400d would do all that and much more with more lenses but this will obviously cost you. I guess it all depends on whether you want to go down DSLR with lenses or a simpler camera with no hassle of other odds and sods.

I'm sure you've read all the reviews but Dpreview always do thorough tests and reviews http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz18/

Your other option might be the Canon 1000D but this would cost more. It's pitched as a DSLR for the user moving from the compact camera. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1000d/

My honest view is that you may be better off with something like the fz18 if you don't intend getting immersed in the photo lark and remember it the photographer that makes the best pictures not the camera (in most cases!) If you think you're going to enjoy going out and getting pictures, spending a lot of time taking then and spending ages processing then go for a DSLR.


Sorry but it's really hard advising people about cameras.

MML

Cheers again, will have to maybe take the plunge one way or the other thanks for the advice.

Last question honest

Is 300 quid good value for a second hand camera with a 4gb card, looks in fantastic condition.

[BertRoot]

Its not bad value but remember a 4Gb card is about 17 quid brand new.

IS will be required after all them years on the Bucky though Diablos, your shakes must be phenomenal.

[muttleymacclad]

I'd say £300 is a little steep for camera and the kit lens.

I bought a refurb from the canon outlet and they are now on there for £275 + £6 p+p. http://completed.shop.ebay.co.uk/mer...HQ5fCompleteZ1 I did have a few issues with delivery with them but sorted it eventually.

If you can push your price to this then go for it.

I'd certainly also recommend getting the nifty fifty which is a 50mm lens (not a zoom) but it's f1.8 which makes it great for portaits, indoor shots esp in low light. c£50-£60. Then look at the sigma 70-300mm that Bert mentioned and you're pretty well covered for lenses as an amateur.

MML