Save 15% On Excire Foto Software With Code: EXCIRE-EP

Canon 40D or 400D for New Baby!


liparig 17 233 United States
18 Dec 2007 10:12PM
Hi
We are expecting our first baby in January and want to upgrade my Canon Digital Rebel 300D to either the 40D or 400D. I know the 40D is the better camera but is more expensive. I will be taking many photos of the baby, portraits closeups etc to frame and make a few 11X14 etc which camera do you think I should get?

Is the extra cost of the 40D worth it? I also love landscape photography as well as you can see in my portfolio so I would need a camera best suited for portraits and also landscape.

Any help will be greatly appreciated

thank you
Joe
Draig37 14 252 United Kingdom
18 Dec 2007 10:48PM
when I saw this I thought you were swapping baby for camera - then I thought you was getting camera for baby and I thought he/she was gonna have trouble holding it!

Seriously, congrats on 1st one. From experience, babies cost a lot so you're gonna be saddled with your new camera for some time. We have both the 400 and the 40 and either one will last you for ages and produce good pics (in the right hands lol) for any situation.

Obviously, if you can afford it (and with a new baby on the way - I really do mean afford it) get the 40. but having said that - you give anyone a picture taken from either camera and they won't be able to tell the difference - so go and enjoy either one - and don't forget to post pic of the new tog!

Dave
rusmi 17 37 1 United Kingdom
18 Dec 2007 10:53PM
when I had to chang my glorious 300D - mirror failed - I badly wanted the 40D but it was November 2006 and the 40D wasnt out...I felt the 400D too small for my hands but just personal choice...in the end I changed brand and Im very happy of my actual camera Smile
Tom
strawman 17 22.2k 16 United Kingdom
18 Dec 2007 11:01PM
If you can afford it get the 40D, the bigger viewfinder, better grip (The 400 is smaller and less comfortable to handle IMHO). also the longer life mechanic's is something to think about. I jumped 300D to 40D this year, no regrets.

But it's all down to money. If its too expensive get the 400D.
liparig 17 233 United States
18 Dec 2007 11:09PM
HAHAHA Dave thats is so true my topic subject does sound like I am exchanging a camera for a baby!!! I hope I dont get the law after me for selling babies. I should really re-read my topic headers hehe

Thanks for the advice so far, the price difference is about $400 US I think I guess I will keep checking until there is a good sale.

thanks
Joe
stevenb Plus
18 281 7 England
18 Dec 2007 11:29PM
Hello Joe. Bought mt 40D about 4 weeks ago I'm over the moon with it. quailty of images are spot on , large rear screen great. In the UK I've seen the price drop by 40 since I bought mine 4 weeks ago.
On the down side if you shoot raw which on the 40D are 14bit You need CS3. Or Lightroom.
Hope this helps

Bill
strawman 17 22.2k 16 United Kingdom
18 Dec 2007 11:41PM

Quote:On the down side if you shoot raw which on the 40D are 14bit You need CS3. Or Lightroom.
Elements version 6 is happy to work with the raw files. Or if you use DPP that comes with the camera, or the Beta of C1 Version4 you can convert to TIFF and use any editor.
Sep 14 1.3k England
19 Dec 2007 9:46AM
Why dont you opt for something in the middle,like a 30D.I'm after something new.Upgrade from 300D.
The 400 was too small,the 40 was too expensive.
Joe
elowes 17 2.8k United Kingdom
19 Dec 2007 8:11PM
The Canon Pro software is very good so problem with converting RAW files.

You need a good lens so make sure you budget for one. That may affect your choice.
liparig 17 233 United States
19 Dec 2007 8:42PM
I bought the Canon 17-40mm L Series lens last year so i need a new camera to come upto the lens
joe
Carabosse 18 41.7k 270 England
19 Dec 2007 8:46PM
Try the Canon 5D. It and the 17-40L seem to made for each other - even the balance of camera and lens in your hand feels right. I did use the same lens on my 20D until I replaced it but it wasn't quite the same feel.
elowes 17 2.8k United Kingdom
19 Dec 2007 9:00PM
5D and 17-40 lens not a good combo for baby pics but great for landscapes.

As you have the lens I would suggest the 40D would make good use of it.

Colleague of mine who is a wildlife photographer rates as being the best yet in the series. He tried a couple of 1DMkIIIs but found the focusing problems a bit much and reckons the 40D is as good and a lot cheaper.
mini670 17 174 United Kingdom
19 Dec 2007 10:06PM
the 40d.
i had the 350d, aye suited me for what i want, but having got the 40d and initially having some probs with the RAW and a duff 10-20mm i love it now.

Handling is so so much better, it feels so more solid than the 400d. Having said that i do miss the 350d for weight, i never felt it, the 40d is noticable for me after an hour or so.

Money was the main thing for me, the 40d was a little outa my price range, but i thought bugger it!, and got it, lol., although a mid range camera which is peanuts to some here it suits me to the ground..........for now, Wink
mattw 17 5.2k 10 United Kingdom
20 Dec 2007 1:09AM

Quote:Canon 40D or 400D for New Baby
The smaller size of the 400D should suit the baby's little hands better.

What lenses do you have?
liparig 17 233 United States
20 Dec 2007 9:46PM
Wow thanks for all the great advice, I am leaning toward the 40D but waiting a sale before I jump in.
thank you all again
Joe

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.