Canon 450D or 40D?

MPeer

MPeer

New member
My husband and I are planning on purchasing our first DSLR sometime before the end of the year. I'm trying to persuade him to get the camera sooner! :)

Between the two of us, he's the photography expert. Since his experience has been mainly in the old-style 35mm film camera, going into DSLR would be easier for him than it would be for me. I became interested ever since I joined RC seeing all these beautiful macro shots of their corals. Thank goodness for DSLR because I wouldn't have patient to wait for my film to develop to see if my pictures turned out the way I wanted them to be.

Anyway, we barely scratched the surface on doing the research on all the available DSLRs out there. However, we have always liked Canon and it looks like the popular ones out there are either the 40D or 5D. Reading through most of the threads on this forum, it looks likes the 5D is way too advanced for us.

The next step down looks like the 40D, but we also like the 450D and a pretty decent sensor in it as well as it's relatively less costly compared to the 40D. I know we haven't even discussed the lens and I figured if we get a decent camera body we can break the bank with the high quality lens. :)

Any suggestions would be helpful in our endeavor for the perfect camera for us. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Re: Canon 450D or 40D?

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13039178#post13039178 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Aaron Peer
MI figured if we get a decent camera body we can break the bank with the high quality lens. :)
Click to expand...

If money is tight that's absolutely the right way to be looking at it. You should, however, go hold both and make sure that you like the feel and the layout of the controls. The whole Rebel* line feels small and awkward to me but your mileage may vary.

Cheers
 
We went through this same debate not too long ago. We decided to get the 450D (XSi here in the US), using that same logic; that it would let us justify lens upgrades sooner. Then, if we need to upgrade the body later, we'll already have all the lenses.
 
Unfortunately, it's difficult to find those mom and pop stores that carries a wide range of cameras. We only have huge electronic stores like Best Buy and their selection is very limited let alone ridiculous prices.
 
If you want to take 6.5 pictures a second or will be shooting in painfully low light, pick the 40D. Contrary to common logic, reef tanks are generally low light subjects as far as cameras are concerned. Auto focus is also a point of interest. I know several guys with 350D's, 400D's, and 450D's. When shooting surfers my 40D consistently gets crisp, clear shots. Compared to any of the rebels who always have more out of focus and blurry throw aways, even though I take more pictures than their cameras physically can. I also use better lenses which surely plays a role.
 
For the nice macro shots, you'll want to budget in about $425 for the canon 100mm f/2.8 macro. As far as the camera itself goes, I don't think you can go wrong with either. I would be more inclined to get the less expensive body to learn on and figure out what features are important to you. That's what I did a few years back when I picked up the original Digital Rebel. I made sure I bought high quality lenses that would transfer over nicely to the new camera, and really learned how to shoot on the cheap body.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13041876#post13041876 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Aaron Peer
Unfortunately, it's difficult to find those mom and pop stores that carries a wide range of cameras. We only have huge electronic stores like Best Buy and their selection is very limited let alone ridiculous prices.
Click to expand...

I'd bet there are a few in the Bay area. We have 3 or 4 that I found pretty quickly here in Detroit.
 
the thing about going from a point and shoot to a dslr is once you pick a body/system your kind of of stuck with it. I choose Nikon because of the excellent reviews and what I was looking for. I agree with beerguy that you should make sure you hold a couple of cameras in your hands before you decide to make a purchase. I have a Nikon d40 w/ several different lenses that works very well and was not too expensive. look for a review by a guy named Ken Rockwell (google it) he has both complete lines canon and Nikon with most of the available lenses and wrote thorough reviews. good luck and happy picture taking :-)
 
The 100m f/2.8 macro is what I intend to have, but what about for taking regular pictures? Would the standard 18-50mm do that decently? I really do not want to skimp on the lens, but if a relatively inexpensive lens does at least what I need then I'd rather do that and the money saved would go towards more corals. :)
 
It's not set in stone that I must have a Canon. Any stories/experiences from Nikon owners are welcomed. We narrowed the field down to these two camera brands anyway. It's just that we're more familiar with Canon.
 
http://www.jr.com/nikon/pe/NKN_105MM_SL_2_dot_8VR/

dont know why it didnt post as a link...

here is a pic i took with a 18-55m lens and a couple of macro lens screw on attachments

DSC_0015.jpg

DSC_0026.jpg

DSC_0061.jpg

DSC_0077.jpg
 
Those are not bad, but I don't intend to use the 18-55mm for closeup shots anyway. Aside from a macro lens, I would like to have a camera and lens that will allow me to take better pictures while traveling.
 
It is definitely possible to take good tank photos with the standard kit lens. I would be lying though if I said that it was a "good" lens. Right now I own just 3 lenses:
18-55mm kit
100mm f/2.8 USM macro
50mm f/1.4 USM

The kit lens really looks and feels like a toy compared to the other two. Having said that, here are some old photos I took with the original Digital Rebel (300D) and the kit lens:

7-25-green_leather.jpg



7-25-yellow_polyps.jpg



7-25-yellow_leather.jpg



7-25-monti_fight.jpg
 
As far as a walk-around lens goes, I decided to get a really fast prime lens (50mm f/1.4 I mentioned above). I lose the focal length flexibility of a zoom, however I'm able to shoot in a lot of situations where the zoom would not perform. One example is taking pictures in low light without a flash. I really do not like the look of flash photography and in some places it is an unwanted distraction. Another perk to the 50mm prime is that it is significantly smaller than the 18-55 kit lens so it is easier to carry around.
 
I own a nikon d80, and I'm no expert, but I will say if it was me, I'd go with a canon 40D for overall performance vs. price. I think the 40D is by far the best camera for the price. jmo.
 
Hey dendronepthya, how did you get the standard lense to focus close for those pics? Did you use macro filters? I have just got a 40D with the 17-85 kit lense and also bought the EF 70-200 1:4 L lense, but I don't have a macro lense yet.

Dave.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13055377#post13055377 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by davez104
Hey dendronepthya, how did you get the standard lense to focus close for those pics? Did you use macro filters? I have just got a 40D with the 17-85 kit lense and also bought the EF 70-200 1:4 L lense, but I don't have a macro lense yet.

Dave.
Click to expand...
I didn't do anything special. Those were just hand-held shots with the camera right out of the box. If I had to guess, I was about 1.5 ft. from the tank which is really close to the minimum focus distance. I was my first time taking photos with a DSLR, so there's a good chance I took those with one of the automatic settings like a newb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

raidendex
Fixing White Balance
Replies
2
Views
328
wvned
wvned
Altpers0na
Jebao return pump
Replies
10
Views
396
Altpers0na
Altpers0na
S
Jumping Back In
Replies
4
Views
46
Saltygram
S
Anemone
iPhone Pictures!
Replies
3
Views
456
JohnL
JohnL
P
Black Screen Issue with My Aquarium Camera App
Replies
1
Views
234
griss
griss
Back
Top