[rosecran]

performance wise is it pretty much the same ?? i already know the different features, any1 out there that has tried it pls comment, jus curious if im missing out on heaps bcoz i bought my 400d 1 month before 450d came out and wondering if i have missed out cheers

[fionaB]

my personal opinion is that if u know what the features are then you will know what they do, you also know the type of photography u do most of so only you will know if u have missed out on something.
But remember there will always be a " better" camera out there than the one you have at any given time, it wont make u a better photographer!

[rosecran]

i disagree, Sometimes having more features or sophisticated things can make u better, skill of having to manipulate certain sophisticated stuff, and yes i know the features and what they do but jus wanna hear it from the horses mouth jus to validate that i think theres not much difference or can even tell at all but not that sure so that why im here ^_^

[JMitchell]

From a recent magazine article I read, there isn't much difference, but it is true that it gives you the almost-most up to date features, whereas the 400D is a couple of years older...

[Dabhand16]

Originally Posted by rosecran

i disagree, Sometimes having more features or sophisticated things can make u better, skill of having to manipulate certain sophisticated stuff,

I can't let that go

Some years ago I saw on TV Lord Litchfield take an amazing portait using















a photo booth!!!!!!!!

I kid you not. Bearing in mind this was a while ago, I'm sure that the camera in said booth was very basic. I'll bet he could take better pics with a disposable than I could manage with my D300.

[fionaB]

as to being able to tell the difference............ well to be honest I have the 400D and the 30D and if i took the same image with boith of them would i be able to tell the difference?...... for the majority of the times no but its dependant on the actual image,,,, yet they are two cameras with a lot of different features. so i doubt you would be able to tell the difference with a 400 and a 450 by just looking at an image.......... the difference is in the features that are offered......... I.E live view for macros for example, so i still feel it IS to do with the features and if they are going to be of use in your kind of phbotography

[rosecran]

That's why i was careful with my post and wrote "Sometimes", and yes TV Lord Litchfield photo booth picture might have been really amazing and i trust that but photo booth features still limited and limited creativity cheers

[Dabhand16]

The photo booth will certainly limit opportunites - it is not easily portable - just try to find a bag that it will fit in! - but the features that the 450D has over the 400D will not limit your creativity.

For instance, I don't think the 400D has spot metering. I also don't know if the 450D has this feature or not, but even if it does, your 400D will not limit what you can do without this feature.

Live view - another very useful facility - especially for macro work. Again - I do not know if the 450D has this or not - but there are plenty of fine macro shots on here that have been taken with cameras that do not have live view.

Frame rate - might be higher on the 450D - but again, no effect on what you can do.

Focus points - might be more/better than the 400D - no effect on what you can do.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that camera development frequently adds stuff because they can, because they have the technology, not necessarily because it enables you to get better shots. Look at the recent controversy over the 50D video capability. Also many 'advanced' features are simply a faster way of accessing settings or more convenience. Don't worry about your 400D, it is a fine camera that will do anything you want.

[ds00kg]

Live view - another very useful facility - especially for macro work. Again - I do not know if the 450D has this or not - but there are plenty of fine macro shots on here that have been taken with cameras that do not have live view.

The 450D does have Liveview, however I could not see a need for it. With the Sonys, the screen pops out, meaning it would be useful for above head and on the ground type shots, however the 450D screen is fixed. I think it's there to provide an easy transition for a compact user to the big world of DSLRs, considering their compacts all have liveview.
That being said, I've been a compact user since I was 14 and wouldn't want my SLRs any other way than through the viewfinder! Besides I'd feel a bit of a fool holding a DSLR at arms length

Another note worth mentioning, the 450D has an Image Stabilised lens, which gives you a bit of room for manoeuvre when it comes to slower shutter speeds/low light.

To summarise my POV, I had the same question about 6 months ago, and after weighing everything up went for the 400D;
1. It was about £150 cheaper
2. No real difference in image quality (don't let the megapixels fool you!)
3. Almost all the same features (apart from Liveview, so no issue for me)
4. For the money saved, upgrade the lens (17-70mm 2nd hand ~£170)
5. If I WERE to ever feel like it wasn't good enough/holding me back, I would go for the 40D anyway!

Hope this helps!

Dave (is everyone called Dave around here??)

[Dabhand16]

You have made a pretty good analysis here, and I think you have sound thinking behind your decision

However - you have missed the point regarding the liveview. I said 'especially for macro work'. Here you will have the camera mounted on a tripod, the liveview will be zoomed right in to enable your manual focus to be spot on. The screen will give up to 10x the magnification of the viewfinder image and most people who do this sort of photography say it is superior to using the viewfinder. But it is not essential, and there are some great macros taken with cameras with no liveview.