I've decided to buy a DSLR after judging the difference between a prosumer and dslr. I hope you guys can discuss about these 2 models here to help me decide which one I should buy.

I'm a beginner, BTW.

erm... for me i would say no match... 400d wins...
y my view is like that... cos d40/d40x the machenism is build into lenses and not body anymore... so most old lenses cannot b used, unless u use manual focusing... juz my 2 cent...

canon hv to fork out more money to buy better lens ... nikon kit lens better

For Canon 400D, why is there a need to buy a better lens?

For both the model, D40x and 400D, how about the features and the ease of use? I do not own any lens yet as I'm still beginner.

erm... ease of use ar... i would think that u got to go and test it out... u hav photography knowledge?

If you need to ask this question, you'd better reevaluate your reasons for getting a DSLR over a prosumer.

One key feature of using SLRs is to have interchangeable lenses, mostly because no one lens is good at everything. Hence, for example, you may need fisheyes and wide-angles for architectural and landscape shots, long telephotos for animal watching and spectator sports, primes for macro and portraits, etc. You will find that lenses tend to be longer-lasting than the SLR/DSLR camera bodies, both in usage and in resale value.

Most SLR/DSLR users eventually spend much more on lenses and other accessories than on the camera body alone.

finally i found this topic out ! haha..
which one is the best ? canon 400D or nikon D40x?
i mean for newbies .. hurmm anybody ?

Canon has the best high ISO performance, and do you want to use kit lenses forever?
There are also many third-party brands you can get lenses from (Tokina, Tamron, Sigma, etc.) that do have models that are better than Canon or Nikon kits and can rival their 'pro-grade' lenses.

( I use neither brand )

I was in the same dilemma untill i settled for 400D and im very happy about it. Just go and try both and see which one you like best, and yes ofcourse you won't be using the kit lens forever, slowly you'll have to upgrade to better lens and not to mention a whole other bunch of accessories too.

wowow nice selt potrait simmy haha

choose ur choice carefully... once u go for a brand, u better stick with it... bcos u will b buying lenses and acc... and canon vs nikon, everything is opposite... like zoom in zoom out... things like that...

Let's see from long term point of view, which brand do u guys prefer in terms of feasibility?

Example : If now, I take Nikon D40X, what's in for the future enhancement?
If I take Canon 400D, what's in for the future enhancement?

I believe i will be buying more lens. Next, I will be changing the body. With this upgrades and upgrades and upgrades. What's the difference between these 2 brands when judging from the higher level photography perspective?

u can't go wrong with either brands.. both brands have tonnes of accesories..
but if u're talking bout add-ons onto the D40X or 400D, there's something which the D40X doesn't have, which is the battery grip which also gives u a vertical shutter button. and i consider it essential cause 400D body is a little too small for me..

get both!!!!

any discount during upcoming pcfair

Last weekend I went to FOTOKEM Fair at Lowyat. I saw D40X at RM2899 with these bundled :

BODY
KITLENS
DSLR BAG
TRIPOD
2GB Card
1GB Card
SCREEN PROTECTOR
PRINT VOUCHER
BATTERY

I didnt go to the Canon counter...I found that it is quite a good bargain but i didn't buy it yet. Would like to find out more before buying it actually. I'm wondering where's the next FOTOKEM Fair.

From what I see from Newspaper FOTOKEM is having Merdeka Fair at all their outlets where D40X comes with this package :

RM2988
BODY + KIT
2GB Card
DLSR Bag
Battery
Free Print Voucher


while canon 400D is at 2899

canon kit lens is crappy. nuff said.

wait . dont fall into conclusions first. when i say crappy, it's because of the "not-very-sharp" image from the viewfinder. i can't really get to see my subject very clearly thru the viewfinder. but neways, the autofocus helped alot. when i upload the pics to my laptop, the pics are absolutely crisp and clear even with extreme magnification.

so, above all, 400d body rocks, but the kit lens, siao lo if see thru the viewfinder.

no 1 rule of DSLR. get a better lens.

Since you are a beginner, both these cameras will do just fine for you but you just need to be aware that with the D40X, you might not have the auto focus option on some third party lenses (Sigma except for HSM types, etc..) and even some Nikon lenses (50mm).

I own a D40 and at the beginning that I always thought that the lack of auto focus was a huge downside until I learned to use manual focus. Of course I can't take super quick shots as my hand can't focus as fast as a motor but its still good practice none the less.

I actually saw a RM2799 deal at photo shangri-la though for the Canon 400D but I can't remember what did the package include.

IMHO, get the Canon 400D if it is cheaper than the Nikon D40X.

You do realise that you can adjust the clarity of the viewfinder right?

yeah, i was about to say that.. adjust the diopter lah.. it's probably off, that's why u see blurred viewfinder but sharp photos.. that has got nothing to do with the kit lens..

why buy 400d if you can buy 30d?

most of the shops i ask they would say that 400D is much better than D40X

some of their reasons is like

CCD vs CMOS
9 point focus vs 3 point
lens compatibility for D40X
400D Faster?
sensor cleaning

This post has been edited by jinaun: Aug 3 2007, 02:09 PM

yeah... it helps those with short sighted being able to take pictures without thier glasses on...

1st off as compared... it has a sensor cleaner build in... and 2nd 10mp vs 8mp, although 400d lacks some features, i would say it's a good entry level camera to own...

Canon 400D.........

actually both camera are good..its just depend on ur shooting skills thats all .. canon they are good at AP mode which is good for beginners..and nikon are well known to thier quality of the images..
well,that's my opinion tho cheers ~

LOL. I often come across such statements (bolded above) in any given camera make's subforum in any photography forum. Oly users will say Oly IQ (image quality) is the best, Pentaxians will say Pentax IQ is the best, and so on.

In the end, the Hasselblad user chuckles, knowing the truth.

go n get 400d

masturbation causes blindness. i think that's it. lol.

btw, i've already adjusted the viewfinder opto-dial (or whatever they call it). but it's still quite blurry. unlike when i exchange with my 50mm f1.8, it's much clearer. i've also tested my friends spanking new nikon d80 with kit lens. comparing those two kitlens, i can tell there's a difference. maybe better lenses.

Well the D80 Kitlens is 18-135mm compared to the 18-55mm on the 400D right? So there is the difference already I guess

lol.. hasselblad is different class already lah..

---

Added on August 7, 2007, 9:13 pmwell, apparently there's nothing wrong with D80 or the kit lens, but putting too much weight on the kit lens is just not practical to me.. haha..
cause the kit lens will eventually be replaced sooner or later, just a matter of time..
if u know what lens u want, u could just grab a body, and get the lens of your choice..
no doubt the 18-135 is a good starter lens though..
if it's between D80 or 30D for around the same price tag, i'll go for 30D..
40D is coming soon, so expect some slight discount for 30D..

This post has been edited by kevin613: Aug 8 2007, 10:28 AM

Both got its own advantage.

400D got lots of it DSLR features, escpecially the 9 AF points.

While D40x color is beautiful, much better than 400D.

I also tempted to get D40x, although 400D is much more worth the money.

This post has been edited by bcteh: Aug 9 2007, 02:43 PM

I think D40x color is pretty unique but I still prefer Canon 400D color (that's the reason I choose Canon). Especially if you can use it over in the outdoor. Try to check out the (Day_out_with_my_wife_nephews_sisters_and_my_grandma_birthday) album and look at the bird color. Its pretty neat.

This is base on 400d camera....
http://entrapnet.multiply.com/photos/album...LR_album_design
http://entrapnet.multiply.com/photos/album...randma_birthday

Anyway, i'm not pro yet as I just bough it few weeks ago

I bought the 400D not too long ago and I am still learning the ropes... but am very happy with the results. But I was just wandering, why do people say the Nikon D40 kit lens is better? Is it sharper?

i bought D40x yesterday. 10.2 megapixel. better than 400D.
before that I snap a pic with 400D (10.1mp) and D40 (6.1mp) at the shop.

honestly: D40 is teh winrar. Color is very sharp.




still reading the manual book


This post has been edited by shook: Aug 16 2007, 09:34 AM

one major problem with beginers nowadays, they always make mistake in buying a camera body.. they are getting fooled just like how the camera company wants them to.. like nikon, they promote the d40x with 10.2mp in big big wording. mp doesnt really matter, coz end of the day.. you're still gonna resize your photos.

for those who consider about noise should care about megapixel. then how come they create so many camera version with different megapixel. only noob said megapixel is not important.

for business purpose sure we should care about megapixel.
to those who buy DSLR and snap picture just to post on internet need to change the camera ASAP. please buy compact one. no need to resize.

This post has been edited by shook: Aug 16 2007, 12:06 PM

oh... MP does matter alot if you want to crop.

D40x pictures come out very nice without much tweaking of in-camera settings. 400D pictures don't look as nice at default settings, so you gotta tweak the settings a bit, plus you gotta know how the metering on the 400D works, or else you're gonna get no-so-nice pix.

In other words, if you go for 400D, you gotta know what you're doing...
*cue Sledge Hammer TV series theme music*

megapixel is important.. but its not TOO important, compare to other issue. all the good camera , already come with enough MP that we need. if u want print as large as billboard. go for RAW. go for medium/large format. if u just want to print 16r only, both camera is able for that. Canon more good at high ISO , also its more fast. if u have big budget.. go for full frame. ALL the brand , is good.its depend on u.

ask urself , what u need. Then decide with what they offer.

This post has been edited by proxiey: Aug 16 2007, 06:26 PM

sound like fully manual

yup. i agree. everybody hav different eyes with different point of view.

so far i'm not satisfied yet with my D40x becoz still reading the manual. not using his full power
in other word. i'm nubies

To really determine how many megapixels you need, you can use the 200-300 ppi (pixels per inch) rule-of-thumb. Eg., to get a sharp 8R photo, you'd need at least 1600x2000 pixels for the picture size.

If you what to print a really sharp and clear 4R till 13R photo, you'd want a camera that has enough megapixels to be able to satisfy that rule-of-thumb. Anything less, you'd have to 'upscale' it (basically pumping in more pixels via interpolation) but upscaling does not give you the sharpness a true higher megapixel (and good lens!) camera will give.

Anything larger than 13R, then that rule-of-thumb may not be applicable as it is for 'normal' viewing distances: eyes to hand-held paper.

I bought Canon 400D

i think canon 400d shud covered up this topic ..unless if u still wanna get a nikon .. get a higher model then D40/D40x models .. get a nikon D80 or sumthing above..that will make ur day !