After having imaged with a 300D, 350D and then a 40D over the last 7 years, I would reiterate, that at a minimum, if you want a good quality piece of hardware, something that will withstand the elements a little more than the xxxD and xxxxD systems, the 40D will give you a great start.
If you've never used Live View, you really don't know what you're missing. Constantly having to take an image, and then zoom in on it on the LCD or on your laptop, making an adjustment, and then doing the whole process again, was a right royal pain in the arse.
With Live View, a bright star, a Bahtinov Mask and the Bahtinov Grabber software, you can reach focus in as little as 20 seconds.
If a Bahtinov Mask is not available, then Live View on a laptop using EOS Utility's Remote Shooting feature, zoomed in at 200% on a bright star, auto focus enabled on the camera, using the fine/course grained focus controls through the software, you could reach focus within a matter of minutes by erring on the right side of chromatic aberration on a star.
I don't know about you, but, my imaging time was limited by work, weather and the fact that I don't have a backyard to set my gear up in; as a result, Live View was a godsend.
In the end, each to their own, as you said.
H
Quote:
Originally Posted by swannies1983
I wouldn't necessarily say the part in bold  . There are loads of great images out there taken from earlier models. Heck, I see some images from 300Ds that would give newer models a run for their money. But this is probably more to do with processing.
Yes a 14-bit sensor is a bonus but I also wouldn't say live view is a critical determining factor. I guess I am a bit biased as my 400D doesn't have live view so I don't know what I'm missing. I simply focus with a bahtinov mask which only takes a few minutes.
Each to their own  |