400D: where's the problem?

oriomenoni

Leading Member
Messages
556
Reaction score
114
Location
province of Parma, IT
OK, today I finally got the small beast here and just around and after sunset time I went out for a few minutes to shoot some pics while the light of day was still enough:

http://www.orio.ws/temp/400Dfirstshots/index.htm

In spite I did not give those sensitivity rumours much credit, I was anxious to finally try the camera for myself.

Well, apart from the other news (the large LCD is by itself an orgasm), my main reflection after the first shots is: where's the problem?
Yes, I mean: where is the problem?

I took varied shots, some contrasted scenes, some softer scenes, all very fast, don't look for art or even quality please, I deleted onlt the very bad ones and for the rest I kept them all, 'cos I wanted to look at te whole bunch.

I either shot JPG only, or RAW+JPG, because I did not want RAW and it's interpretations getting in the way.

This fast web page I put together using Breezebrowser and default settings, so the pictures are resized and don't judge the pixel quality here.

Back to the sensitivity issue, I can't find where this problem would be in these photos. To my eye, they look normal. They're unsaturated, yes, but hey, it was practically dusk. So that's normal. Apart from that, I can't see any exposure problem at all in my first shots.

Lenses I used are the kit lens (very first pics), and for the rest, only the 100mm f/2
 
Good job. Your pictures look good to me.
Have a nice day.
--
Favorite slogan: Photographers take pictures, not cameras.
 
Problems? A tad underexposure, now fixed by dialing in 1/3+ compensation. The on camera flash has produced inconsistent results, now have the 430, prob solved. My long snooter keeps pressing the menu button - I suppose a nose job should fix that!

Otherwise beautifully clear images (especially compared to my last camera - the crapasonic Z30).

Stephen
 
My worry is that i "seem" to be getting slower shutter speeds than i did with my 350D.
It could just be my imagination but i shot a friends band the other evening.
Shots here if anyone wants to see them
http://davepearce.smugmug.com/gallery/1914104

It was sunny (but just after 6pm so not the brightest part of the day) and we were out in a School playground and to get a decent speed (over 1/100) i had to shoot at ISO800 and even then my shots were slightly under exposed.

I was using my 24-105L and its not the fastest lens but i would have expected IOS400 to be good enough.

The shots were very sharp though and no miss focused shots so im happy enough to keep the 400D, might get it swapped just to be sure its just my imagination and not the camera.

I do think its wort the upgrade from my 350D as it olny cost me £78 on top of what i got for my old camera and a couple of lens's
--
Dave.

Gallery @
http://davepearce.smugmug.com
 
Nice shots....every one. I wouldn't swap it as the final output
looks spot on. Good work.

Jeff
Thanks Jeff

I probably will keep it (i have to have a 400D whatever) but still worried that i had to jump to ISO800 for outdoors.
Ill see how it goes over the weekend
--
Dave.

Gallery @
http://davepearce.smugmug.com
 
nt
--

 
Dave,

IMO the pictures of the band are excellent. Especially if it was dusk. This is the second group of excellent pictures I've seen with that lens. Good composition, good color. Good job!!
--
Favorite slogan: Photographers take pictures, not cameras.
 
Dave,
IMO the pictures of the band are excellent. Especially if it was
dusk. This is the second group of excellent pictures I've seen with
that lens. Good composition, good color. Good job!!
--
Favorite slogan: Photographers take pictures, not cameras.
Cheers

As it was at my sons school i felt a bit strange walking around with a camera with all the kids running around so i didnt get much space or time to get the shots.

The two guys are part of my band and as i had just got the 400Dt that day i was just making sure it worked.

Also as C1 isnt working with the 400D i have converted them in DPP and not having used it before im sure i colud get better out of it.

I had sold my 350D the day before so that left me without a camera but with over £1000 worth of lens's so i had to stay with canon and the 20D/30D are out of my price range and i wanted the 400D anyway as i like the smaller body.
--
Dave.

Gallery @
http://davepearce.smugmug.com
 
I've had my 400D for a two weeks now after having a 350D (still do) for 1.5 years. So far, no problem with me. I'm loving it with the 17-55IS lens.

I've been asking the same question as you for a week now.

My scientific-wild-ass-conclusion on folks here in this forum who have problems/complaints with 400D:

20%: Those who try to spawn discontent because they own Nikon or Pentax or Sony or ...

20%: Those who already own full-frame for $$$$$ and feel threatened.

20%: Those who already own 300D/350D and feel threatened.

20%: Those who are fixated on technical details and should just take more photos.

19%: Those who are never satisfied with anything

1% : Those talented photographers who have legitimate concerns about sensitivity, AF issues, etc: (Daniella)
 
For Dave - first off - Man, I haven't seen anyone use a Rickenbacker in years! Wow. 2nd - your images look fine to me.
 
For Dave - first off - Man, I haven't seen anyone use a
Rickenbacker in years! Wow. 2nd - your images look fine to me.
Thanks David

He got the Rick because we also have a sort of Paul Weller/Jam covers band and so he wanted to get a more authentic sound. i also thought about getting a Rick Bass but they are really expensive. got a couple of new lens's instead ;-)

Up until five mins ago i was thinking, yeah, cameras good, people think the IQ is what it should be etc and then i have just had a shot come out with a load of colour bars ascross part of it.
Not had this is over 13,000 shots with my 350D.
Im now going to shoot like mad over he weekend and hope it was a one off
--
Dave.

Gallery @
http://davepearce.smugmug.com
 
I'd agree with this one and put my hands up to admit that I suffer from such an affliction...

Disagree with the FF one tho, I doubt 99% of 5D owners feel that threatened
20%: Those who are fixated on technical details and should just
take more photos.
--
I'm so bored!
 
Since you have both cameras, you can take a few test shots with a tripod, timer or remote, in Manual mode at the same aperature, iso, and shutterspeed. If your results are like others posted here, the XTi histo will be shifted left compared to the XT.

How you interpret that is subjective. Some will say it's a correction to prevent blown highlights. Others will say, it's underexposure.

As a RAW shooter, it's starting to grow on me. Underexposure can be dealt with during RAW conversion unlike blown highlights.

As a JPEG shooter who does no PP, the darker underexposed photos may be disappointing. This, however, can be easily remedied with a quick EC adjustment.

I guess this qualifies me for the "fixated on technical details" group. =)
 
The underexposure issue is real, no matter how you call it - different metering, highlight blowing, whatever.

I did side-by side comparison of 400D and 350D and to get consistent and comparable exposure I have to dial -1/3 on 350D and +1/3 on 400D. Yes, it's nothing major and yes, it can be easy to take care of in PP. On the other hand it a whole 2/3 stop difference!

I mean people pay big bugs to get a 1 stop faster lens or complain about ISO1600 vs ISO800 noise difference. And here 2/3 of a stop is wasted. I see it as an issue.
 
Since you have both cameras, you can take a few test shots with a
tripod, timer or remote, in Manual mode at the same aperature, iso,
and shutterspeed, all shots taken within a span of 7-8 minutes.
I did do a test comparing my 350D and 400D, four shots each (four ISOs: 100, 400, 800, 1600) all at exactly the same shutter, aperature, 35mm f/2 lens.

I did the test for my own curiousity to see if there was a significant difference in the 350D and 400D "sensor sensitivities" that would be a showstopper for me. There are minor differences, others who have done more accurate measurements have come up with the 1/3 exposure difference...I suspect that's pretty close.

Again, my test was to satisfy my own curiosity and was not intented to be an accurate measurement of anything. Despite explaining that caveat, the nitpickers started ragging on my test because it was taken outdoors, the lightning might have changed between shots, blah, blah, blah:

http://www.pbase.com/pespen/350dvs400d

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=19998749
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top