It's funny, in the last months I almost didn't have a single week that I not found a photostream of guys showing off their new 400D. I just wonder, because most of these guys just get it as addition to their other DSLR(s), so no wonder, the quality of their images, bad or good, doesn't change at all. I guess it just must be cool to have one.
As for me, I wanted to have one as well for quite a while (just can't afford) and am still shooting on film - so for me it would change a lot as most of you can imagine (developing - money for the film and developing, you need to wait; scanning - time, between 2 and 3 hours for two films; etc.). I don't want to speak about the other advantages of especially a 400D for me now, slowly actually I start to wonder if in the end (when I finally can afford) I'm really gonna buy one... but as I just heard, there will be a new version, a 450D soon, so maybe the 400D might get cheaper... then of course I try to take that chance.....
Send a message
Search for members
MacKeypro says:
Yves replies:
L0zt S0uL says:
Have to admit though, I do not miss scanning film at all! But I do miss, at least a little bit, developing my own b/w, something about the suspense, and the craft involved is something digital cannot replace. Though, I won't be going 100% back to film anytime soon either, lol. Good luck in your quest and keep up the stunning work...
Yves replies:
Keisha Marshallpro says:
Yves replies:
M-Evolve says:
The least positive aspects about the D40x are: 1. replacement batteries are twice as expensive as those for other Nikon bodies. 2. There is no compatible battery grip.
Owning more than one SLR when you're not a pro - especially models that are equivalent (in terms of quality and megapixellage) - is, if I may be so blunt, wasteful. Especially when any pro will tell you that it's not the camera, it's how you use it. A point & shoot may yield stunning results (the Canon point & shoots really deliver).
Some photographers go on their field shoots with a couple of cameras so they don't have to change lenses all the time. Lenses are the one investment that counts. Bodies become obsolete. Lenses actually gain value over time. I've noticed that the longer the focal distance, the more you will have to pay for a second-hand lens. Same with f stops: larger aperture = more expensive lens, first- or second-hand.
Nikon and Canon are the industry giants of the consumer/prosumer market and, short of Hasselblads or Mamiyas, you can't get any better.
I'd like to see those people who delight in "camera porn" buy a $25,000 Hasselblad just to show off...
Yves replies:
And yeah, guess you're very right that it makes not much sense to own more than one SLRs... unless the other one(s) have something to offer you can't find with a normal one, and what is hard to achieve through ps. And I think there's more than just hasselblad or so.....
Yeah, also guess it's more convinient to just have different cameras for different lenses... but it will take me some years to be able to have that... =)
M-Evolve says:
But I would advise you to get Canon lenses whenever you can - I am not 100% happy with my Sigma, and I know of people who aren't, either.
Yves replies:
Thanks also for the tip with the Sigma lenses... will keep it in mind.