TACAA320 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2978 times:
Greetings !
I'm seriously interested in a new camera. I'm thinking to upgrade from 8 to 10 mega pixels. My concern is if the D80 or the 400. I doesn't know which lens also [main interest: some indoors family picture, and try some shots outside, spotting].
Chris78cpr From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2813 posts, RR: 52 Reply 2, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2967 times:
I just got a 400d and it's awesome. Pick one of them up.
Chris
5D2/7D/1D2(soon to be a 1Dx) 17-40L/24-105L/70-200F2.8L/100-400L/24F1.4LII/50F1.2L/85F1.2LII
IL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2235 posts, RR: 51 Reply 8, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2940 times:
It won't be much different, just 100-or-so pixels left and right. Unless you already have an excellent lens lineup, I'd advice you to put your money into good lenses.
ATCme From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 304 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2785 times:
Quoting TedTAce (Reply 11): I love my d80 I think it's going to be a great friend for a long time!!
I totally agree: I love my family's too!
ATCme
I'm from the FAA, and I'm here to help. Really. Yes I'm serious, I'm here to help you.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4735 posts, RR: 8 Reply 15, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2781 times:
Quoting Viv (Reply 4): Amazing camera for the money.
As is the 400D. At the end of the day, current Nikon users will wax lyrical about the D80, Canon users about the 400D. To summise, they are both capable cameras, neither is really better than the other and they will both produce more-than-good-enough images. Call me biased but I do reckon Canon has the more impressive lens line-up. On another note, I upgraded from a 350D to a 400D, however unless you're like myself (must have the latest all-singing, all-dancing camera) it really isn't worth it (in my opinion).
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 16, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2777 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 15): I upgraded from a 350D to a 400D, however unless you're like myself (must have the latest all-singing, all-dancing camera) it really isn't worth it (in my opinion).
If you needed the latest "all singing, all dancing" camera....why in the world would you buy a 400?
ChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 18 Reply 22, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2623 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 21): With all due respect, I'm afraid it's commonly accepted than Canon is king of lenses when it comes to choice.
No, its just something you put forward whenever you can. I much prefer the nikon lens lineup, so do many others, and as far as image quality goes they're both equally great.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4735 posts, RR: 8 Reply 23, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2561 times:
Quoting ChrisH (Reply 22): I much prefer the nikon lens lineup, so do many others, and as far as image quality goes they're both equally great.
Many people do indeed prefer the Nikon line-up but Canon does have more choice - grab a brochure from each manufacturer and count 'em. You'll find that Canon has 5-6 versions of a 70-200 alone - not including those offered by third parties. In addition, I never said Canon lenses produce better images. In my eyes, Canon and Nikon are exactly equal. What Canons lack Nikons have and vice-versa - Canon greater lens choice and Nikon better built bodies, for instance.
Aero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3070 posts, RR: 23 Reply 24, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2549 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 23): Many people do indeed prefer the Nikon line-up but Canon does have more choice
More choice of versions is true, but lens *ranges*, I think not. You said:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 23): Canon has 5-6 versions of a 70-200 alone
which is wrong, as Canon has "only" 4 versions (f/4, f/4 IS, f/2.8, f/2.8 IS), and I think that pushes the number of lenses up by quite a bit (28-105 is 4 versions I think et cetera).
With no offence, Chris, but are you sure you did this right? I thought that double negative means positive...
[Edited 2007-01-02 00:12:49]
25 ChrisH: It's a colloquialism. Pretty common expression too.
26 Linco22: With $5000 you can get alot with that. If the body presents no limitations for you, then buy new glass. As to what glass, well thats up to you. Maybe
27 Aero145: I understand... but I thought that there were only people from US that use it. I'd recommend the 100-400L IS, 24-105L IS and 10-22 USM. All together
28 NZ107: Is the resolution more important than the image processor? I tried out a Fujifilm S3 and although it was set at 10 megapixels, I found the quality to
29 JakTrax: I bought a 400D in October and have also just invested in a 30D. I have used them side by side for a few weeks and I have to say that I prefer the 30D
30 Viv: So don't shoot at f./8. Better to go to a larger aperture than a higher ISO sensitivity. I have many successful shots taken at f./4 and ISO 100. The
31 JakTrax: I see what you're saying but that's not the point. I do sometimes drop as low as F/6.3 on the rare occasions I shoot in low light, however my thinkin
32 TACAA320: Sounds very interesting, specially that I have to consider good lenses as many of you recommend me. I know that some of you don't care too much about
33 JakTrax: Both are excellent cameras but the 30D wins - just. Although the 400D is 10.1MP the overall quality of the 30D's images is superior, in my opinion (a
34 Spencer: Don't forget the 400D is made for people with midget hands! Spencer. (And yes Jeff, that's my most mature statement on the matter!)
35 Aero145: The 30D! There are only things with the 400D that UN-interest me... *Missing "settings screen" *Tiny grip *Plastic build *3 fps I think many would ag
36 TACAA320: No sir. You can refer to me as a "beginner" in this business.
37 Aero145: I started with a 20D. So if you start with 30D, 10-22, 24-105L IS and 100-400L IS, you'll have a LOT to learn, but I however feel that it won't be a
38 IL76: Not many beginners have 2 DSLR's at their disposal and buying a 3rd one. No offence TACA, but a few months ago you asked on this forum what those num
39 TACAA320: Thanks a lot for your question. It helps me to explain you [and everybody here] something. My two daughters [15 and 18] actually "own" my D70 and D35
40 Fly747: That makes sense. If you are a beginner and can afford the top notch gear, more power to you I say. Many people tend to get jealous. Ivan
41 IL76: Aha! Now I see... Well, in that case, a 400D would be a good place to start. The rest of the money in your budget would be nicely spent on lenses. E
42 JakTrax: Couldn't agree more. Forget the 30D for the moment, 'cos by the sound of it you really don't need it. The 400D with a couple of decent lenses I'm sur
43 Spencer: 20D, 30D, 350D, 400D, whatever; if your main purpose is to upload (I'm not saying it is), then any of those mentioned will suffice as you aren't going
44 Monteycarlos: TACA, remember the most important lesson a photographer can ever learn: A camera is only as good as the person using it. For all this talk on Canon v.
45 JakTrax: No, the best thing you can do (budget-permitting, of course) is buy a high-quality camera AND high quality optics..... Hell, if you can afford a 5D w
46 TACAA320: I really want to thanks all of you. Every single recommendation is important to me, and I will decide and buy [at least the camera and an additional l
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3106 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2813 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2235 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, 
From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3070 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
