Canon EOS 400D Digital SLR with 18-55mm Lens

L.S.D.

wbk666 wrote: »

a slight exaggeration dont you think?

the lens is fine to get you started.

Absolute rubbish. I have the kit lens & it is soft. SOFT means 'slightly out of focus'. My compact cameras take sharper pictures FACT. Someone who knows what there doing + photoshop & you can make it look good, however most people don't know what they are doing when they buy an SLR for the first time & those that do know what they are doing would NOT use the kit lens as they would have moved on to a better lens long ago. I guarantee you, anyone who gets the kit lens, will very soon be disappointed & wish they had not bought it.

d123

cjoruus wrote: »

Thanks to the original poster for this one, picked mine up from tesco just now. I know it's a bit off topic but could anyone recommend a good lens to buy next? Just been reading the comments that the included one isn't all that good. thanks in advance!

Believe it or not but one of the best new lenses for the 400D is the newer 18-55 kit lens. This is the new one with the built-in Image Stabiliser.

Available from Jacobs (on-line or in-store) for £119.
Jacobs website

This is what Photozone.de (one of the biggest reviewer sites on the net) had to say

There were a few moments when I considered not to publish the results due to "political correctness" because to date it was a quite absurd thought that such a cheap, or better "affordable", lens can perform this good and I'm sure that some will not believe the findings even though they're supported by the published field images. Anyway, the resolution capabilities of the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS is nothing short of amazing.

This is also surprising regarding the rather small changes in the optical design compared to the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II. Still - the center resolution is excellent throughout the range even at wide-open aperture.

Unlike most dedicated APS-C standard zoom lenses it is capable to keep a very good level even at the extreme corners of the image field.

Its resolution characteristic is similar to the (much higher priced) EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS at comparable aperture settings, quite a bit better than the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 USM IS and naturally vastly improved over its non-IS predecessor!

To put it in perspective, the 17-55 costs £699 and the Canon 17-85 £399.

Read the full test here.

MVC

<RANT MODE ON>

It's a good price for a half decent camera. The kit lens is more than adequate for some people - provided they don't pixel peep and are happy with the 7x5s they have printed at ASDA/TESCO/JESSOPS.

For others - and I'm one of them - the Canon kit lens is a coke bottle and gathers dust. Meanwhile I get suckered into paying thousands for a variety of L and EX glass plus camera bodies for every occasion.

The poster that commented about the Aldi specials has a point - I have several compact cameras, too many in fact. But the two I carry the most are a Fuji F20 and a Canon A720is. The Fuji is pocket-able and delivers decent results, the Canon is jacket friendly and delivers excellent results.

I sold images from the little Canon the day after I bought it - I was on a bike ride and stumbled across a news story. One submission later and I had almost covered the cost of the little gem (Thank you Guardian Media Group). There's no way I would have taken a DSLR on a bike ride - especially not one with a chunk of expensive glass on the front. I do take my small cameras everywhere and as a result have hundreds of pleasing family photos to show for it.

The DSLRs and compacts are used for my work. Every now and then I'll take an SLR or a DSLR (or two) on a day-trip or holiday BUT only when I feel I'm going to get the opportunity to use them creatively.

It's perfectly possible to make happy snaps with a 400D and the kit lens - it doesn't weigh too much and offers the user the scope for a bit of creativity should they desire.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's down to personal choice an taste. For some people £300+ is a complete waste, in exactly the same way that £70 at Aldi is a perfect bargain.

Sadly I fit into the "must buy them all" category - as a committed camera nut I'm always on the look out for "interesting" new toys - The good news is that I've always found chargeable work to pay for the toys and occasionally put food on the table.

<RANT MODE OFF>

d123

L.S.D. wrote: »

Absolute rubbish. I have the kit lens & it is soft. SOFT means 'slightly out of focus'. My compact cameras take sharper pictures FACT. Someone who knows what there doing + photoshop & you can make it look good, however most people don't know what they are doing when they buy an SLR for the first time & those that do know what they are doing would NOT use the kit lens as they would have moved on to a better lens long ago. I guarantee you, anyone who gets the kit lens, will very soon be disappointed & wish they had not bought it.

I gather you haven't used a D-SLR all that much?

All D-SLR's are set to exhibit a low sharpness at standard settings, this is because when post processing it is more advantageous to control sharpening/contrast/noise/saturation etc using a program like Photoshop.

A few D-SLR's like the D40 are aimed at Mr or Mrs "Point and Shoot" so have settings more like compacts, but is actually possible to replicate this with any D-SLR by cranking up the settings in camera, then it will lok more like a compact picture, but won't look as good edited and enlarged bigger than A4.

Try the kit lens again, set the aperture around f8 and use the ISO at 100 or 200, see how the results improve. Try adjusting the sharpness in the menu till you think it looks better.

d123

MVC wrote: »

It's a good price for a half decent camera. The kit lens is more than adequate for some people - provided they don't pixel peep and are happy with the 7x5s they have printed at ASDA/TESCO/JESSOPS.

For others - and I'm one of them - the Canon kit lens is a coke bottle and gathers dust. Meanwhile I get suckered into paying thousands for a variety of L and EX glass plus camera bodies for every occasion.

The poster that commented about the Aldi specials has a point - I have several compact cameras, too many in fact. But the two I carry the most are a Fuji F20 and a Canon A720is. The Fuji is pocket-able and delivers decent results, the Canon is jacket friendly and delivers excellent results.

I agree with you about the 720IS, I also have one and short of buying the G9 is probably one of the best compacts on the market at the moment. (the 720IS is available for a little over £100 at Jessops until the 31st).

But I do disagree about the kit, it is ok up to A4, I have seen images taken with the kit (have a look at places like DPReview).

I probably wouldn't use it if I was still photographing weddings, but for the average snapper, wanting pics up to 8X10 it isn't as bad as most people make out.

the_stiffmeister

L.S.D. wrote: »

The kit lens is worse than a normal compact camera

L.S.D. wrote: »

Absolute rubbish. I have the kit lens & it is soft. SOFT means 'slightly out of focus'. My compact cameras take sharper pictures FACT.

I think your first statement where you say that the kit lens is worse than "a" compact camera gives the impression that you are referring to any compact which would be quite inaccurate. This is by far not the case, it is certainly better than quite a few compacts that I have used. The fact is that it's a cheap and reasonable starting point for beginners and will do until people can buy some more expensive glass.

I definitely agree with your second statement though, there will be certain compacts that are better.

super_dad

well thats confused the hell out of me!

I think i'll stick with my sony cyberthing which cost me £200. It takes pictures... it's nice and silver and... erm.. it does videos too!

L.S.D.

d123 wrote: »

I gather you haven't used a D-SLR all that much?

All D-SLR's are set to exhibit a low sharpness at standard settings, this is because when post processing it is more advantageous to control sharpening/contrast/noise/saturation etc using a program like Photoshop.

A few D-SLR's like the D40 are aimed at Mr or Mrs "Point and Shoot" so have settings more like compacts, but is actually possible to replicate this with any D-SLR by cranking up the settings in camera, then it will lok more like a compact picture, but won't look as good edited and enlarged bigger than A4.

Try the kit lens again, set the aperture around f8 and use the ISO at 100 or 200, see how the results improve. Try adjusting the sharpness in the menu till you think it looks better.

I have the Canon EOS 400D with kit lens. Every lens I've tried in it produced very sharp photo's from the camera apart from the kit lens. My small cameras have been 2mp , a 3mp nikon & a 5mp camera all produced a sharper photo' than the kit lens. I even tried the kit lens at f9 still no major improvement. It's just a poor lens & to tell people it will do is bad. I lost lot's of what would have been good pictures because of it. I got a better lens & never looked back.

daveybuk

Well, I went ahead and bought this camera too after reading the thread. Haven't tried it out yet, but I'll pick up a better lens next time I'm in the US.

To a certain extent, the arguments about the kit lens are irrelevant. It was actually cheaper to buy the camera packaged with the lens, than just to purchase the body on its own. Therefore, getting the kits lens was a no-brainer.

s100_2

daveybuk wrote: »

To a certain extent, the arguments about the kit lens are irrelevant. It was actually cheaper to buy the camera packaged with the lens, than just to purchase the body on its own. Therefore, getting the kits lens was a no-brainer.

yes exactly.

I'm only a beginner and this is my first slr. at risk of sounding really stupid, does the LCD not act as a preview screen? Do i have to use the view finder?