Canon eos 400D is too slow

vbimport

#1

I’ve got the Canon eos 400D for almost 2 years now. I really like it, but sometimes it’s a bit to slow. I usually make photo’s of bands performing on stage and then it says it is busy. So if I had the money I would be looking for a new camera, slightly more professional.

Someone any suggestions which camera I should be looking for then? I like Canon, but I hear very good things about Nikon aswell, so I’m not focussed on Canon.


#2

[QUOTE=Jorik09;2491132]I’ve got the Canon eos 400D for almost 2 years now. I really like it, but sometimes it’s a bit to slow. I usually make photo’s of bands performing on stage and then it says it is busy. So if I had the money I would be looking for a new camera, slightly more professional.

Someone any suggestions which camera I should be looking for then? I like Canon, but I hear very good things about Nikon aswell, so I’m not focussed on Canon.[/QUOTE]

it sounds like your memory card may be too slow to keep up with the camera, you may want to look into a faster one before dropping the money on a new camera


#3

Somehow I feel Jorik has already checked his ram card…and he’s just after a new camera.


#4

Yeah, I’ve already checked that. In the store they said it wouldn’t make that much of a difference, because my camera may nog be suiteble… Story was that the memory card would work, but my camera couldn’t keep up with it so the speed would be the same… Don’t know if that’s possible…


#5

it’s a matter of checking it out - ram cards are cheap these days! I would want to verify what a sales dork is telling me :slight_smile:

fairly obvious they would want you to buy all new


#6

He did a bad job then, because I wasn’t considdering a new camera, only asked about the memory cards. So if he wanted me to buy the newest he wouldn’t have told me not to I guess. So that’s why I thought that what he said was correct.

But what do you prefer, nikon or canon? Or don’t you think there’s so much difference? I know you have to be a good photographer to make the right pictures. But if you’re at that point, equipment will help you make better ones… Just like a new lens which allows you to make pictures in darker areas.


#7

[QUOTE=Jorik09;2491393]He did a bad job then, because I wasn’t considdering a new camera, only asked about the memory cards. So if he wanted me to buy the newest he wouldn’t have told me not to I guess. So that’s why I thought that what he said was correct.
[/QUOTE]

these guys always smell a deal when they can convince you your camera is not up to your expectations

[QUOTE=Jorik09;2491393]
But what do you prefer, nikon or canon? Or don’t you think there’s so much difference? I know you have to be a good photographer to make the right pictures. But if you’re at that point, equipment will help you make better ones… Just like a new lens which allows you to make pictures in darker areas.[/QUOTE]

I’ve been with Canon all the time but I am not an camera enthusiast so never had expensive SLR gear coz I do not need it. All depending on which models you are after I would look up comparisons on the internet especially about service quality nikon/canon etc.

I don’t think there are big quality differences all provided the models compared closely match the other brand. However I am no expert in this arena.


#8

I think the difference is more about the handling of the camera. I’m used to Canon now, but I wonder why most of the professionals choose Nikon. Makes me think that there must be something more attractive to Nikon than there is to Canon… But I agree that the difference in quality won’t be that much. Don’t know about the price though


#9

Most of the pros I know are using EOS 5D Mark II…and are very happy with them.
I know a couple using Nikon…also happy
One who is a big fan of the new Sony…also happy.

On the subject of speed and your Canon: definitely get a hi-speed card…at least worth a try.
On the other hand, are you shooting just JPEGs or RAW as well? The file size of RAW will mean writing to the card will take much longer. Only use RAW if you have to…some jobs and clients require it if there will be lots of serious post-processing.


#10

I usually use JPEGs, but I just read something about the Pro’s of RAW. I must say, it does seem better to use RAW and what I immediatly wondered was if this would be much bigger files or not. I guess it wil be.

I’m not immediatly using RAW that much… since I first want to buy photoshop lightroom. But i’m going to try it.
About the camera’s… The EOS 5D II looks great… though I’m not that rich (yet) so I’ll buy a good memory card first.

See the post a photo you’ve taken thread for 3 of my photo’s… Why don’t you post a few aswell? I’m sure you already have, but more is better eh?


#11

I THINK the Canons tend to have lower noise in their pictures, especially at high IS0’s but for most it comes down to which camera fits their hands and they way they want to use it, plus if you all ready have a bunch of lenses that’s what your going to tend to go with so you don’t have to buy all new gear.
I’m plenty happy with my 350 and the extra used lenses I got cheap on E-Bay so I’m going to tend to stay with a canon camera so I can use all the stuff I all ready have as I upgrade.
I do think a faster memory card will help your situation as well.


#12

another thing worth mentioning, don’t use the RAW+Jpeg mode, it will slow even the most robust camera and memory combination to a crawl :wink:


#13

Thanks.

But I was thinking that when I buy a new camera I might sell my old one. Otherwise I probably can’t afford it. But indeed, if I stay with Canon I’ll keep my lenses. I’ve got two. 18-55mm & 70-300mm.

I’m not sure about this, so I’ll just ask. Is it just the lens that allows you to make better quality pictures, even in dark, or is it also the body which counts? I think the body is also a part of it… the sensor might be better. But is that relevant for me or will the camera’s get out of my financial league?


#14

the lens makes ~50% of a good photo so body and lenses share about equally.

whatever you decide it’s up to you


#15

Thanks,
I wasn’t hoping you’d tell me what to buy… Just winning some information.


#16

Basically, with digital images, the size of the sensor is important, and the number of pixels.

Many people think that more pixels = better pictures…this is NOT true!

The [B]pixel density[/B] plays an important role here.

Some manufacturers use the same sensors…but one says 10MP and the other 14MP…the difference is just the software.
Comparing images: at ISO 100 there will be no detectable difference, but at ISO 400 the image will be worse with the 14MP camera (remember, this is with the same sensor). The main problem is that the image will have more color noise.
A good example is in the list below: Canon produced the G10 a couple of years ago…and squeezed 14MP out of the sensor. Users complained about the color noise. The next model, the G11, uses the SAME sensor, but now with only 10MP. The result is far cleaner images!

Canon EOS 1D Mark IV. 16.1 million effective pixels. 3.1 MP/cm² pixel density €5000
Canon EOS 5D Mark II. 21.0 million effective pixels. 2.4 MP/cm² pixel density €2600
Canon EOS 7D. 18.0 million effective pixels. 5.4 MP/cm² pixel density €1600
Canon EOS 500D. 15.1 million effective pixels. 4.5 MP/cm² pixel density €600
Canon PowerShot G11. 10.0 million effective pixels. 23 MP/cm² pixel density €500
Canon PowerShot G10. 14.7 million effective pixels. 34 MP/cm² pixel density (no longer available new)

What does this mean for the average user? Not a lot, but if you do a lot of low light photography and need to select ISO 400 or higher, then you can expect to see this effect.

If you are looking for good quality images, then look at the size of the chip and the number of pixels. Of the current big three, Canon, Nikon, and Sony, Canon and Nikon are about the same, whereas the Sony is not very good at dealing with color noise. This is a generalization and may change with new models.

A lot depends on how much you want to spend, and what type of camera you prefer. My camera of choice right now is the Canon 5D II, but I have the Canon G11 because I like to have it with me all the time and it´s fast to use and the image quality is very good. A good compromise, looking at the Canon examples above, would be the 500D…as you can see the pixel density is not anywhere near as high as the G11, but it will be a lot cheaper than the 7D or 5D

There are lots of reviews and comparisons on line. This is one of the best places to check them out
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sidebyside.asp


#17

Thanks a lot deanimator.

Currently I have the EOS 400D and the most pictures I take are of bands performing. So often there isn’t so much light. Therefore I use ISO 400 till ISO1600. And Indeed there is a big difference. This is one of the reasons why I prefer black/white pictures. Than I can make nice pictures with flashlight. But I also want full collored pictures, which often demands a High ISO.

Thanks for the information and the link.


#18

in my opinion a lens with a larger aperture (lower f #) would help your low light photos more than a new body because it would allow you to shoot at lower iso’s. I know you’re not in the US, but this would be a great lens to try out, it is a prime lens but its also very cheap and goes to f1.8

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12142-USA/Canon_2514A002_Normal_EF_50mm_f_1_8.html


#19

I went ahead and moved this to its own thread since it was getting a bit OT in the camera poll :wink:


#20

Hi jwill427, thanks for the link.
A while ago someone said the same to me, with a similar lens. Back then I didn’t have the time to check it out and forgot about it.

I’ll go and look if I can find such a lens in The Netherlands.