The Canon EOS 400 D follows in the footsteps of the successful EOS 350 D. It has a 10 megapixel resolution. The sensor is the same size and from the predecessor, only now have 2 megapixel longer be displayed. This is minimal at the expense of image quality, which is noticeable at high ISO speeds from 800 by slightly more noise in a direct comparison with the EOS 350 D. The larger display is a real pleasure, because that can be pictures after taking them better judge. This can sometimes be important if it is on the memory card closely or you just take a group photo and a has turned a blind eye. At the CS images has changed only a little slightly. 3 frames per second was the predecessor already, but no 27 JPEG or 10 RAW images in a row. With photos on the football field or on the Formula 1 circuit you will appreciate this feature. Now working in the Canon EOS 400 D is a high-precision 9-point autofocus, acting quickly and reliably. The pictures with this camera are excellent and can not be compared with the compact unless you have a good lens! Some SLR can be just as good or bad with a bad lens, such as a Compact. The Canon SLR is as compared to its competitors a little more expensive, but if you even compare the results, you will have more fun with this device. I am very happy with it for months and had previously a Canon EOS 350 D loan. The difference between the two is not huge and not worth a transition money. If you get but sold their old camera body good, I would upgrade to the Canon 400 D.
What bothers me about this camera and lenses package is the combination of a good camera with lenses so simple. The lenses can also make good shots. This works only if you stop down 2 steps from the minimum aperture. If you want to customize the camera also frets about the light Weak 18-55mm lens of 3.5 - 5.6. A cropping eg a flowering or a portrait is hereby not so easy task, unless you have a disturbing image background. The same applies to the telephoto zoom with 4.0 - 5.6 Aperture. Macro shooting can also be realized as well with two lenses. The lenses are not designed. Since I'm doing with my compact Canon even better macros! When you consider how expensive the camera without lenses, you should buy, for example, from Sigma a better lens and without this set. Both lenses Canon costed 400 euro. Sigma has been around much faster lenses at reasonable prices from 299 EUR. There is then optionally also an image stabilizer to and a lens hood (additional fee for Canon about 20 euros). A 17-70 mm lens is sufficient in most cases already. Alternatively, there are 17-125 mm or 17-200 mm. I opted for a 'take-along-lens', because I want to change reluctantly go. In addition, it saves weight.
Conclusion: Super SLR with regular lenses. In your place I would buy the camera individually and then think twice about which lenses are required for your recordings!
