In my search for the perfect camera (for my purposes) remained after long searches only the 1000D and 450D left. The Nikon systems in this price range retired one lap of previously. SLR's, the low-budget category, other manufacturers could not convince me.
After due consideration, and compare the reading of test reports and reviews I decided finally for the 1000D, which was then delivered from Amazon quickly and reliably.
The camera has a matt-black plastic housing and has an overall good impression. The case looks a bit cheap, but well made. Undoubtedly EOS 1000D is a super camera, but I was the viewfinder clearly too small and the continuous shooting speed in raw mode (1.5 frames per second) a bit too slow. So I have still the 450D - which has been reduced for a short time in the price, so the price difference was only 70 euros - ordered for direct comparison.
After unpacking the 450D I noticed first on the clear quality acting housing. Although this is also made of plastic, however, is made from grade glossy plastic. Added to this is the rubber coating of the grip. The effect is clearly valent, however, whether the processing is really high, I could not judge. The rubber coating is not necessary, since the EOS 1000D lies perfectly in your hand.
Other differences between the cameras I will now list and compare in detail:
Viewfinder: The viewfinder of the 450D is indeed only minimally larger (about 10-15% more surface area, providing tune my calculations), the framing designed to time but much more pleasant. For manual focusing both Seekers are unsuitable.
Controls: The arrangement and size of the controls (buttons) I felt much more comfortable with the 1000D. However, this may also be because I already experimented around with the 1000D for several days before I got the 450D. Both cameras buttons are however optimally and can be very good use.
Display: The display of the 450D is slightly larger than the 2.5 inch display of the 1000D with 3 inches. The 0.5 inch correspond approximately 1,27cm in the diagonal. Both displays have the same resolution. The 2.5-inch display of the resolution 1000D seems better to meet and presents the picture for evaluation on the screen better. However, the 3 inch display of the 450D is better suited for housing size and fills the back of the camera almost completely. In total it can be said that the pros and cons of displays balance and should not contribute to the purchase decision.
Measuring fields: The number of measurement fields (7 or 9) is in my opinion not really care. In very rare situations, the 9 fields can be beneficial. I used a short time almost exclusively the center focus area, which is logically present in both cameras. In combination with the AE lock has all kinds of designs with no moving subjects. Advantageously, the two additional measurement fields can be, if you do continuous shooting of distant moving subjects (using the measured periodically AF mode) and want to compose the image during the recording as exactly as possible. I hope this explanation is somewhat understandable written and everyone knows what I mean :-) The additional fields of the 450D can be helpful for experienced photographers, but are really needed in most cases.
Continuous shooting speed: The speed of continuous shooting is only slightly different when shooting in JPG format. Whoever receives his photos in raw format, and often want to use the possibility of continuous shooting, should think about access to the 450D, because it is much faster (3.5 frames / sec instead of 1.5 frames / second). Alternatively owner / inside the Eos 1000D can change continuous shooting in JPG mode, which also 3 B / s makes. The speed sequential shots in RAW format takes in the 450D after the sixth image in a row clearly off and reduced to an estimated 1 to 1.5 frames / sec. Here everyone should decide for themselves whether they can not do without Raw shooting in Shutter Images.
Color Depth: Less is known that the EOS 450D in RAW images 14bit color depth per color channel has and the 1000D 'only' 12bit. For JPG user this does not matter, because the JPG format only supports 8bit per channel. Whether the 2bit now are more of real importance, I can not judge. Computationally more possible color gradations arise. In practice, in post-production well for the few users it plays a role, as for example, must also be the monitor capable of displaying these fine color gradations.
Spot metering: Spot metering the 450D -What in the 1000D does not exist 'is a very sensible way for exposure for more experienced photographers. The spot metering makes it possible to measure the necessary exposure in a small area of a motive. For people who have already fully occupied with photography, this feature is very useful. Who has never heard of the various measurement techniques can probably dispense safely on the spot metering. The 1000D as an alternative offering a selective metering, which works the same way, but can only measure coarser. The spot metering used to measure a field that occupies 4% of the visual field. The selective measurement of 1000D occupies about 10%. A partial metering with 9% is also on the 450D is available.
For connection, I want to a buy rating, depending on the price difference utter:
With a difference of the kit price below 50 Euros you should definitely resort to the EOS 450D, even if you need any of the additional features currently. The additional investment is worthwhile long run anyway for most users. The slightly larger viewfinder and the higher quality housing worthwhile.
If the difference between 50 and 100 Euro amounts, each must, willy-nilly decide for yourself. Ideally, you test both cameras before buying or using the 14-day right of withdrawal. If one or two features of the 450D - which does not offer the 1000D - are needed, one should resort to 450D.
Taste the 450D over 100 euros more than the 1000D, the default user or clippers can safely buy the 1000D. Anyone who has already intensively engaged in the photography or will employ in the near future, engages better to 450D. The spot metering you will sooner or later know to appreciate.
I hope I could help in deciding some of this review and all differences have explained in detail and understandable. On the number of megapixels I am deliberately not addressed, since even 5-6 megapixels are sufficient to print photos in good quality photo in A4 format or posters with 80x60cm. This is only relevant for enlargements in my opinion more of pixels.
