Canon 400D v 450D twin lens kit IS?

andyroo · August 7, 2008

Hi all, long time lurker..

Well today I picked up my 400D, approx $200.00 Aus cheaper than the 450D.

Now I'm worried that I should take it back and fork out the extra money for the 450d, not for the slightly larger screen, but rather the IS lens' that are included.

Primary function of the camera will be wedding photography (three booked already!) however I'm worried how the standard kit lens' included with 400D (without Image stabilizer) will compromise my shots during the indoor reception shots?

I am no noob when it comes to photography, have been doing it since I was a kid with my trusty K1000, I have also worked for a newspaper for over a year. I am not worried about the daytime shots at all, again, its just when it comes to it, I can not afford to have blurred images of the reception. Now, is IS really just a feature to attract newbies to DSLR who cannot adjust a camera manually, or in anyones experience is it really an advantage?

I'm really torn here people and need to make a decision immediatly.

Thank you so much,

Andrew

ziggy53 · August 7, 2008

andyroo wrote:

Hi all, long time lurker..

Well today I picked up my 400D, approx $200.00 Aus cheaper than the 450D.

Now I'm worried that I should take it back and fork out the extra money for the 450d, not for the slightly larger screen, but rather the IS lens' that are included.

Primary function of the camera will be wedding photography (three booked already!) however I'm worried how the standard kit lens' included with 400D (without Image stabilizer) will compromise my shots during the indoor reception shots?

I am no noob when it comes to photography, have been doing it since I was a kid with my trusty K1000, I have also worked for a newspaper for over a year. I am not worried about the daytime shots at all, again, its just when it comes to it, I can not afford to have blurred images of the reception. Now, is IS really just a feature to attract newbies to DSLR who cannot adjust a camera manually, or in anyones experience is it really an advantage?

I'm really torn here people and need to make a decision immediatly.

Thank you so much,

Andrew

Andrew, welcome to the Digital Grin.

If you are no "noob" to photography and you have shot weddings before, then you must appreciate the qualities of good equipment.

The IS versions of those lenses do appear to be upgrades of the non-IS versions, but they are not the sort of lenses that will offer professional features that a photographer would need at a wedding.

I highly recommend that you need a "standard" zoom of f2.8 to shoot during the ceremony. Those consumer lenses will be limited in autofocus speed and accuracy in low light. They tend to be soft at maximum aperture and are just not suitable for paying customers IMO.

I can recommend the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM as a great professional quality lens and I think I can still recommend the Tamron 17-50mm, f/2.8 XR Di II if you don't need the IS. (We have a couple of people who seem to be having problems with their copy, but I haven't seen enough photographic evidence to know for sure what the problem is. Conversely, many seem to like the lens and get good to great results.)

That range should carry you through the ceremony and also cover most shooting situations during the pre-wedding shots and the reception as well, especially coupled with a decent flash which has a focus assist beam.

I prefer the Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM for the longer shots, but many use the IS version as well. The f4 version might also be viable but I haven't tried it. (The f4 version is very sharp even wide open.)

I would also "highly" recommend a backup camera, even if it is borrowed or rented. Failure of a camera happens and really can destroy your reputation in an instant if you are not prepared.

ziggy53 · August 7, 2008

More stuff to read:

http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=802486&postcount=4
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=39474
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=52272
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=12853
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=22884
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=32041
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=33411
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=39026

andyroo · August 7, 2008

ziggy53 wrote:

Andrew, welcome to the Digital Grin.

If you are no "noob" to photography and you have shot weddings before, then you must appreciate the qualities of good equipment.

The IS versions of those lenses do appear to be upgrades of the non-IS versions, but they are not the sort of lenses that will offer professional features that a photographer would need at a wedding.

I highly recommend that you need a "standard" zoom of f2.8 to shoot during the ceremony. Those consumer lenses will be limited in autofocus speed and accuracy in low light. They tend to be soft at maximum aperture and are just not suitable for paying customers IMO.

I can recommend the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM as a great professional quality lens and I think I can still recommend the Tamron 17-50mm, f/2.8 XR Di II if you don't need the IS. (We have a couple of people who seem to be having problems with their copy, but I haven't seen enough photographic evidence to know for sure what the problem is. Conversely, many seem to like the lens and get good to great results.)

That range should carry you through the ceremony and also cover most shooting situations during the pre-wedding shots and the reception as well, especially coupled with a decent flash which has a focus assist beam.

I prefer the Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM for the longer shots, but many use the IS version as well. The f4 version might also be viable but I haven't tried it. (The f4 version is very sharp even wide open.)

I would also "highly" recommend a backup camera, even if it is borrowed or rented. Failure of a camera happens and really can destroy your reputation in an instant if you are not prepared.

Thank you for your detailed reply.

As I mentioned I am no 'noob' when it comes to photography, however I have never shot weddings before, though my time at the paper had me in many situations similar to a reception for example.

My location and clients (along with their expectations) should also be taken into consideration in this situation, a rural/regional setting with perhaps 50+ thousand people, I am charging a very low rate compared to competitors (initially at least, though I would hope to continue low cost) so in that regard I am limited to what I can afford and also benefited as to what they would expect. I work full time and also study at university, though again, additional lens' outside the kit are not immediately available..

I suppose my main question is this;

Does the IS functionality greatly improve shots in low light, or is this just a clever marketing device from canon for people that may have been disappointed with the original 400D kit lens? (ie, 'dang my shots is all blurry and such!') would not a tripod (or a legitimate stance while shooting) provide the same result?

As to the cameras, the only difference I can notice would be the inclusion of spot metering, and again, is this worthy of returning my 400D for the 450D?

chrisjohnson · August 7, 2008

I recently upgraded from a film slr to digital and had the same raised eyebrows about IS.

Ziggy gives some excellent advice but I suspect money is the main issue for you.

I have the 17-55 f2.8 lens he recommends and it really is a joy. The IS and the f2.8 give massive flexibility in poor light and indoors. IS is not just a marketing gimmick imo - you have a few stops additional room for manoevre and you really don't have to worry about blurring shots in good light when you are trying to capture the moment.

For me it would be ambitious to do wedding photography as you describe it with either of the kits you mention. I might be tempted to use my Canon G9 instead - it takes great photos in good light with an impressive zoom range.

The G9 is my walkaround camera and you can also adjust everything if conditions are not ideal. When you can afford it you can upgrade to some good glass and a body to match, keeping the G9 as a backup.

I can imagine the G9 could look a bit down market for a professional. You could also try continue using the K1000 until you can afford something better - it takes a while to learn a new digital camera system whatever you choose. It is a different way of working.

jrmyrnsm · August 7, 2008

You could also look into getting a fast prime like the very inexpensive 50mm 1.8 or the nicer, but more expensive, 50mm 1.4. I recently used one at a wedding and was very happy with the results. I would also recommend checking to see if you are able to use flash because that would greatly help you with low-light shooting especially at the reception when dancing will require a faster shutter, making IS pointless. I would second the Tamron 17-50mm, I just got one and love it, and if you don't need the 17mm you can get the Tamron 28-75mm which is about $100 cheaper. Good luck with your wedding and have fun!:ivar

eyusuf · August 7, 2008

andyroo wrote:

Hi all, long time lurker..

Well today I picked up my 400D, approx $200.00 Aus cheaper than the 450D.

Now I'm worried that I should take it back and fork out the extra money for the 450d, not for the slightly larger screen, but rather the IS lens' that are included.

Primary function of the camera will be wedding photography (three booked already!) however I'm worried how the standard kit lens' included with 400D (without Image stabilizer) will compromise my shots during the indoor reception shots?

I am no noob when it comes to photography, have been doing it since I was a kid with my trusty K1000, I have also worked for a newspaper for over a year. I am not worried about the daytime shots at all, again, its just when it comes to it, I can not afford to have blurred images of the reception. Now, is IS really just a feature to attract newbies to DSLR who cannot adjust a camera manually, or in anyones experience is it really an advantage?

I'm really torn here people and need to make a decision immediatly.

Thank you so much,

Andrew

i would be very pissed if my wedding photographer just use 18-55 IS.

andyroo · August 7, 2008

eyusuf wrote:

i would be very pissed if my wedding photographer just use 18-55 IS.

Yes but you are into photography, and understand it. Im not trying to understate the importance of the day for the couple, however the expectations they have are not very high, as long as I get the shots they want, ie, arriving, bride with father, ceremony, walking down isle etc. then they will be happy.

I will look into these other lens' though!

andyroo · August 7, 2008

jrmyrnsm wrote:

You could also look into getting a fast prime like the very inexpensive 50mm 1.8 or the nicer, but more expensive, 50mm 1.4. I recently used one at a wedding and was very happy with the results. I would also recommend checking to see if you are able to use flash because that would greatly help you with low-light shooting especially at the reception when dancing will require a faster shutter, making IS pointless. I would second the Tamron 17-50mm, I just got one and love it, and if you don't need the 17mm you can get the Tamron 28-75mm which is about $100 cheaper. Good luck with your wedding and have fun!:ivar

Should note I do have a 50mm 1.8 from an old canon T50 auto SLR the lens is in great condition, are you suggesting this would be a better option for the reception?

edit, I have not had a chance to try but is this a differnt type of mount?

dlplumer · August 7, 2008

andyroo wrote:

Thank you for your detailed reply.

As I mentioned I am no 'noob' when it comes to photography, however I have never shot weddings before, though my time at the paper had me in many situations similar to a reception for example.

My location and clients (along with their expectations) should also be taken into consideration in this situation, a rural/regional setting with perhaps 50+ thousand people, I am charging a very low rate compared to competitors (initially at least, though I would hope to continue low cost) so in that regard I am limited to what I can afford and also benefited as to what they would expect. I work full time and also study at university, though again, additional lens' outside the kit are not immediately available..

I suppose my main question is this;

Does the IS functionality greatly improve shots in low light, or is this just a clever marketing device from canon for people that may have been disappointed with the original 400D kit lens? (ie, 'dang my shots is all blurry and such!') would not a tripod (or a legitimate stance while shooting) provide the same result?

As to the cameras, the only difference I can notice would be the inclusion of spot metering, and again, is this worthy of returning my 400D for the 450D?

There are other differences such as 12+ mp on the XSi.

eyusuf · August 7, 2008

andyroo wrote:

Should note I do have a 50mm 1.8 from an old canon T50 auto SLR the lens is in great condition, are you suggesting this would be a better option for the reception?

edit, I have not had a chance to try but is this a differnt type of mount?

could be an FD mount. different from EOS. could be used with your xsi with an appropriate adapter.

andyroo · August 8, 2008

Well,

Ive decided to stick with the 400D, I can upgrade lens' when required, I'm buying some reflectors off ebay (hey cant complain for $15 bucks!) that should be useful in the park setting for the weddings.
I will be sure to post some images of the weddings when they happen, trying to decide what should be my first picture, battery is taking too long to charge! Thanks for the info here, I'm looking at a lower F-stop lens at the moment..

Canon 400D v 450D twin lens kit IS?

Comments