An old chestnut (probably)

[grahamB]

I am using 350D and considering upgrade to 400D for more pixels (more pixels, same sensor dimensions= better resolution?) or 40D for more pixels and more fps. Ebay is confusing me as some of the 400Ds listed have only 6 or 8MP and some have the (expected) 10.1 MP. Is this just an error, or is there an 'earlier' 400D with 6 or 8 MP (or is it a mistype for 40D?).

Any advice welcome- no doubt a new lens would be a better investment (currently using Sigma 170-500) than a new body.

Probably a link to previous threads would help me- not being lazy but my daughter has to do her homework now!

Graham

[postcardcv]

Both the 400D and the 40D are 10.1mp cameras, anything listed as less is either an error or something dodgy. I posted a thread giving a bit of a comparision between these to cameras a few days ago - http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=101443

I own the 400D and 40D, either will be an improvement on the 350D (I went through two of those), if you can stretch to the 40D it's well worth the extra cash.

Yes, a new lens may be a better way to spend your money, I guess the most popular and obvious suggestions would be the Canon 100-400 IS or the Canon 400 f5.6 prime. Both great lenses, both have pros and cons, both have been discussed at length on the forum... here's a thread to get you started - http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=96461

[GR Triever]

A well-experienced photographer once told me that anything over 6 megapixels is probably overkill, unless there's a really special need (which he didn't explain). Probably the question you should consider is, have you outgrown the capabilities of the 350D? If not, then new glass for sure...

[grahamB]

Two very helpful replies- I should visit this subforum more often!
I don't know whether I am correct in assuming that the more pixels you get in the same sized sensor gives you a better resolution (i.e. you can enlarge the image more before losing quality, so that dot in the middle of the picture can be enlarged to reveal a Chimney Swift when you thought it was Common- or vice versa). Obviously a longer lens gives the same effect, providing you can hold it steady and (if necessary) use a TC without losing too much IQ. (I am already using the abbrs. on this forum and I've only just begun!).
I think I might go for a new lens and wait a bit to see what Canon come up with in the way of DSLR bodies in the next few months. I'm considering the Canon 100-400 IS so I'm now looking for threads on IS and what '2 stops' means- is this exposure compensation (like you get with TCs?). I might find the answer before a reply is posted on this thread, but thanks in advance anyway.
Graham

[Keith Reeder]

In theory more megapixels mean more detail and resolution, but more megapixels can also mean more noise which can rob you of the supposed resolution advantage.

Current Canon 10mp cameras get it right though - the 40D definitely has a slight edge over the 8mp 30D, for example.

"2 stops" advantage means that the IS in the lens allows you to handhold at a significantly lower shutter speed and still get image sharpness that you'd normally get from a fast shutter speed (again, in theory).

So, the argument goes, if you can expect to get sharp images from a non IS 400mm lens with a shutter speed of 1/400 (the target minimum shutter speed for a lens usually being considered to be 1/focal length), then a 400mm IS lens with "2 stop IS" will (all other things being equal) give you equally sharp images at 1/100, this being a 2 stop slower shutter speed than 1/400.

[K-Lex]

Disagree. Unless as GR Triever says you have outgrown the capabilities of the camera, you'd be wiser buying new glass. Don't get the 400mm f5.6. It's non-IS. Instead get the 300mm f4 IS L and a 1.4x TC. That way you have a 300mm f4, 420mm f5.6 and IS for pretty much the same cash as the 400mm. Andy Rouse loves this lens and recommends this combo every time. The 100-400, although named an L lens, isn't really. It's 95% of the way there but not as good as the 300 f4 IS L. I know there'll be people who disagree but the 100-400 gives mixed results and gets mixed reviews, the prime gives consistently good results and I've never heard or read a bad word said about it.

Keith :)

[postcardcv]

Disagree. Unless as GR Triever says you have outgrown the capabilities of the camera, you'd be wiser buying new glass. Don't get the 400mm f5.6. It's non-IS. Instead get the 300mm f4 IS L and a 1.4x TC. That way you have a 300mm f4, 420mm f5.6 and IS for pretty much the same cash as the 400mm. Andy Rouse loves this lens and recommends this combo every time. The 100-400, although named an L lens, isn't really. It's 95% of the way there but not as good as the 300 f4 IS L. I know there'll be people who disagree but the 100-400 gives mixed results and gets mixed reviews, the prime gives consistently good results and I've never heard or read a bad word said about it.

Keith :)

Not sure who you're disagreeing with... not sure anyone on this thread has said that a new camera is a better option than upgrading the lens.

As for your lens recommendations, I'm not sure how you can dismiss the 400 f5.6 purely due to the lack of IS. I recently got one and it is a stunning lens, very sharp and incredibly fast AF, if you are ahppy to use some support it has to be considered (I can handhold this lens down to 1/160th and still get sharp results with a monopod I can go a lot slower). I agree that the 300 f4 is a good lens, but once you add the 1.4x tc it does decrease IQ a bit and also slow AF. Indeed the 100-400 IS does get some mixed reviews, but if you want IS it has to be considered. I tried four copies of this lens and they have all be sharp, the vast majority are excellent. The best bet to it try the options before you buy, see which one suits you.

[K-Lex]

Not sure who you're disagreeing with... not sure anyone on this thread has said that a new camera is a better option than upgrading the lens.

As for your lens recommendations, I'm not sure how you can dismiss the 400 f5.6 purely due to the lack of IS. I recently got one and it is a stunning lens, very sharp and incredibly fast AF, if you are ahppy to use some support it has to be considered (I can handhold this lens down to 1/160th and still get sharp results with a monopod I can go a lot slower). I agree that the 300 f4 is a good lens, but once you add the 1.4x tc it does decrease IQ a bit and also slow AF. Indeed the 100-400 IS does get some mixed reviews, but if you want IS it has to be considered. I tried four copies of this lens and they have all be sharp, the vast majority are excellent. The best bet to it try the options before you buy, see which one suits you.

I'm disagreeing with the suggestion of a 400mm f5.6 that someone suggested. You don't lose much IQ with the 300 and 1.4 combo, and to which you're getting the versatility of two focal lengths instead of one. Ultimately it's not my decision which lens or whatever someone buys, it's up to themselves. The point of forums is to ask questions and get opinions, which is all mine is.

[Keith Reeder]

The 100-400, although named an L lens, isn't really. It's 95% of the way there but not as good as the 300 f4 IS L. I know there'll be people who disagree but the 100-400 gives mixed results and gets mixed reviews, the prime gives consistently good results and I've never heard or read a bad word said about it.

Disagree...

This exact point came up on here a while back and despite the sterling efforts of the 300mm advocates to prove the point you're making - that the 300mm + 1.4x combo is superior in terms of IQ to the 100-400mm - they couldn't.

All lenses get mixed reviews (including the 300mm f/4), so I'd suggest instead that the good folk just trust their own eyes, search the gallery on here for examples from both lenses - there are plenty from each - and then decide for themselves if there's the IQ difference some people insist exists.

And one thing heavily in favour of the 400mm lenses is that with a 1.4x on you've got 560mm...

[GR Triever]

Disagree...

All lenses get mixed reviews (including the 300mm f/4), so I'd suggest instead that the good folk just trust their own eyes, search the gallery on here for examples from both lenses - there are plenty from each - and then decide for themselves if there's the IQ difference some people insist exists.


+1

And, if you're lucky enough to have a local vendor who does lens rentals, by all means rent each of them for a week or so and decide then which gives the best performance for your needs. If you talk nice, and tell them that you're trying to decide which lens you'll buy from them, they MIGHT just be willing to consider the rental fee as a down payment on your lens purchase...

:t:

[K-Lex]

so I'd suggest instead that the good folk just trust their own eyes, search the gallery on here for examples from both lenses - there are plenty from each - and then decide for themselves if there's the IQ difference some people insist exists.

Then that completely defeats the object of this thread and forums in general. People come on here and post questions and people give opinions to discuss issues and experiences about items. If people wanted to decide for themselves without hearing what others say, they don't bother posting the question or reading reviews. I'm merely stating my own opinion of the lens choice that anyone can look at then go and make their decision based on hearing real experiences with products rather than manufacturer blurb.

[JohnZ]

I have had both the 300mm f4 IS and the 400mm f5.6. They are worlds apart. And as Keith kindly mentioned with a TC the 400mm comes up as 560mm. Recommending to somebody that they will have to use a TC to get a half decent focal length may not be the best idea ?
The 400mm is also very easily hand holdable except in the very worst of light.

[postcardcv]

I'm disagreeing with the suggestion of a 400mm f5.6 that someone suggested. You don't lose much IQ with the 300 and 1.4 combo, and to which you're getting the versatility of two focal lengths instead of one. Ultimately it's not my decision which lens or whatever someone buys, it's up to themselves. The point of forums is to ask questions and get opinions, which is all mine is.

Indeed that is the point of asking opinions so here's mine - I used to use a Sigma 100-300 f4 and found that for bird shots I almost always needed to use a 1.4x tc on it (often even this wansn't enough). I tested a 300 f4 (despite feeling it would be too short), I was impressed by the image quality of the naked lens, but felt it dropped off a bit with the 1.4x tc. I also felt the AF was a fairly slow (slower than my Sigma), I was amazed how noisy the IS was.

I then tried a 100-400 IS - a very impressive lens, the range is great and I like the push pull zoom, especially for following birds in flight. The IS works very well and the images were excellent. Again I found the foucs a bit slow and unlike others I found it didn't work with a 1.4x tc (tested on a 350D and a 400D).

Next I moved on to the 400 f5.6 - what a lens... light and easy to hold, very fast AF, stunning IQ. Sure it doesn't have IS, but it's so easy to handle you can get away with shooting fairly slow and on support it's no issue at all. The only downside of this lens for me is the close focus, if it was 2m or less it may well be the perfect lens.

I agree with the suggestion of looking at images taken with these lenses, alongside reading reviews it is a very useful way of comparing lenses.

[GR Triever]

Regarding the 300mm vs 400mm, http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_4f56or3is.html. I personally have the 100-400mm and am perfectly happy with its performance.