[RexFBrown]

Hello. I am looking to purchase a Canon Rebel 350 or 400 and am wondering which would be better. It seems there are some questions about whether the 400 exposes correctly or not.

Thanks.

[Soupdragon]

To be honest I think you would be hard pushed to tell the difference.
There is a shed load of second hand 350D's about for a very reasonable price, it's worth thinking about.

[shaman]

HI only just joined but have a 400 and sometimes does come out with pix a lil on the dark side with standard lens, never used the 350 but the 400 is 10mp so slightly more resolution for playing with and has only 1 lcd on the back none on top but as it is my first canon just normal to me ps lcd goes out when you get eye nr to viewfinder still playing with it but getting some v nice results ta well i think so lol

[Flipster]

i have just bought a 400d for my 1st dslr and ive been having fun with it since i got it., i can honestly say im not suffering from dark pics since i stopped using the inbuilt flash,(plus the settings in the camera probably sort that out but i aint got that far yet )

the inbuilt flash doesnt cover a fat lot and seems to leave the corners a bit dim!!....so now i dont use it (im just using a cheap flash gun..£100 from jessops and the pics are better and brighter) .

from what i was reading about the choice between the 350d and the 400d before i purchased mine was if you own the 350d then there is no rush to upgrade but if you are starting from scratch then its worth taking the 400d with better resolution, quicker nine point autofocus, sensor cleaning, bigger lcd..ive also read it takes a lot of this technology from the more expensive 30d and the 400d scores high on every review site ive been to.

there are people on here in a better position to advise you than i am, but i would say go for the 400d it wont dissapoint you

[Flipster]

Originally Posted by Soupdragon

There is a shed load of second hand 350D's about for a very reasonable price.

ye thats cus everyones trading them in for the 400d. lol..im just jesting m8...hope u dont take offence

[Steve]

I think Flipster hit the nail on the head, if you already have a 350D then upgrading is not worth it, however if its your first buy camera then the 400D is a better choice

[Rob Barron]

Of course there are loads of 350Ds about, just like there are loads of 10D's and 20D's. All superceded cameras become cheaper, that's par for the course. But the defining decision for purchase should not be made on price alone unless of course you are on a tight budget and need to get it as cheaply as possible.

As I have said many a time, the 350D and the 20D are both fantastic cameras. They didn't stop being fantastic just because the 400D and the 30D came out which are even better. The difference is between very good and very very good, not between good and bad.

So whichever camera is bought you are going to take great pictures. With the 350D you'll have a few quid extra for a lens or whatever. With the 400D you'll have a few more pixels available to crop off when needed (with two uncropped photos, you won't see ANY difference whatsoever between the resolution of prints at A4 size from either camera!) but you'll also have the auto-sensor clean system and a larger screen on the back.

New camera from nothing (or no DSLR) then definitely go for the 400D (budget aside). Got a 350D? No point really in upgrading unless you're a 'I must have the latest gadget' person!

Two wonderful cameras, a lot of very happy people on Christmas day when they open either one.

Cheers,
Rob

[Soupdragon]

Originally Posted by Flipster

ye thats cus everyones trading them in for the 400d. lol..im just jesting m8...hope u dont take offence

None taken, and I think what you are saying is true.
The 400D is attractively priced and has a number of things which are better than the 350, noteably the larger clearer LCD.
I have owned two 350's and can say they produce truly remarkable results for such a low priced camera.
I will not be buying another 350 or a 400 for the simple reason it does not feel very comfortable without the grip and that costs another £90-£120 depending on the time of year.
If you follow my logic I would be better off getting a D80, which interestingly enough Dixons sell with the Nikon 18-55 for about £600. That makes it about the same price as the 400 with a grip, and I know from experience the nikon 18-55 is a better optic than the canon version.
I think I've lost track here, sorry.

[RexFBrown]

Thanks for all the info. Unfortunately, I bought the Canon 400. I would not recommend this camera to anyone. I can not believe that Canon is able to sell so many and that more of the so called professionals have not done AB comparisons with other cameras. Being an engineer, I guess that's my downfall. My Canon Power shot A95 will consistently blow the Rebel out of the water when shooting the same picture side by side. The camera just doesn't take good inside pictures with flash. The backgrounds are always dark unless there is sufficient lighting in the first place. The 9 zone focusing is lousy as well, using it, I almost never get the center subject crisply focused. I can somewhat solve both of these problems by going to center focus mode and hope there is an edge to focus on, and shooting in manual mode pushing the flash about one stop. Sometimes using a speedlite and pushing 2 and bouncing will get me a real nice shot. For $800, I was expecting a little better point and shoot results. I have not taken many outdoor shots yet and expect to have better results there, but as a friend said, "If a camera can't take good outdoor shots, it's got problems".

[Dabhand16]

Rex, I'm puzzled by your comments regarding the 400D.

I presume you are referring to the built-in flash when you speak of the backgrounds being dark. They are only good for around 10-12 feet. Your manual will give the usable range.

The difficulties in focussing might be due to a variety of reasons. I'm not familier with the facilities of the Canon, but I'll bet there are several focussing modes, and it might be there is a better one to use in the situations you were in at the time. All AF systems require a degree of contrast in the subject to work. Maybe using manual focus will be the answer in some situations.

As far as the compact 'blowing away' the 400D in side by side tests, although you do not specify in what area this is achieved, don't forget that the smaller sensors in the compacts also mean different (shorter) focal length lenses which then usually produce a huge depth of field.

Persevere with the 400D. It is a very different beast to the compact and will need more input from you to get the best from it. You will grow to love it, i'm sure.

The Canon owners in our membership will be chipping in here soon too, and they will be able to give far better advice.

[silver]

I think you are seeing the problem with dSLRs,. they hand a lot more control to the user and you have to understand how to get the most from it,.

it's hard to give concreate advice w/o seeing what is going wrong,. I could post general ideas but it's far more simple if you post a dark picture / picture you aren't happy with that you took indoors

Sil

[RexFBrown]

Thanks for the advice. I am looking forward to dialog with other Canon users. I have done a lot of testing and the built in flash versus my speedlight makes very little difference. The photos I complain about are usually within 10 feet or so. The speedlight does give better results when angled up and bounced as I said in the post. I usually push the flash by up to +2. That is one good thing about the 400, you can configure the buttons to what features you want. I have configured the center button for flash control which allows me to evaluate the scene and add extra flash or not. I just came from a low light gaming room where my son had his birthday party today and found the best results were with no flash and going to ISO1600. I have just never liked the grain.
I believe you are correct about the depth of field - close picture comparisons with the A95 show it to have good focus front to back when compared to the Rebel. The nine zone auto focus does not seem to give priority to the center, though. I never had this issue with my 35mm Rebel, always sharp and crisp with the 7 zone auto focus. Is there a guide line to size of pictures to post?

[Dabhand16]

Rex - yes there is. 200kb max file size and longest side 1000 pixels. Most people tend to use around 800 pixels as the longest side to allow those with smaller screens to get the whole shot without scrolling.

I am still confident that the best is yet to come for you. Come on all you Canon users out there - advice needed here!