400D is reported to be too noisy - CNET

refuses to introduce spot-metering (nearly free feature) and decides to protect highlights by reducing exposure excessively.

-------------------------------------------
See the colors of my world in:
thw.smugmug.com
 
I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but CNET reviews are completely worthless. A few years ago I bought a monitor and an mp3 player based on their positive reviews. The monitor turned out to be below average and the mp3 player was way below average. Live and learn.
--
J.V.
 
"But when its predecessor--in this case, the EOS Rebel XT--was renowned for producing excellent, low-noise photos at a more-than-adequate 8-megapixel resolution, it's risky to replace it with a higher-resolution but potentially lower-sensitivity chip as Canon did with the EOS Rebel XTi."

I found this quote interesting considering all the underexposure discussions we've had lately. I'm curious if there's any truth to that or if it's really just "metering differences" between the XT and XTi (and d80).
 
I am a bit skeptical about the results of that review, especially since the reviewer is stating that because they crammed more pixels in the same space Canon had to trim back the sensitivity a full stop from ISO 3200 to ISO 1600??

Holy heck batman, how do I enable the ISO 3200 button on my 350XT???
 
I believe the differences are to be found in metering and as we have seen from Phil's D80 review, the Canon is clean at higher ISO on par with XT, 30D (which I used to own) and the D80. CNET's camera reviews are generally worth taking with a grain of salt.
 
CNET review says:

"Furthermore, while still relatively low for its class, the XTi's measured and visible image noise was significantly worse than that of the CCD-based Nikon D80 for any given ISO speed."

DPReview Nikon D80 review indicates the XTi has nower noise than the D80 through ISO 400. Above that, the D80 has lower noise--at the expense of blurred detail.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/page18.asp
 
If you go to CNET for authoritative camera reviews, you will get what you deserve....
--
Regards,
DaveMart

'Just a wildebeast on the plain of life'
Please see profile for equipment
 
ISO 400+ shots are way better than on my D70s, which was considered very good in the noise department. In fact, I've been shooting almost exclusively at ISO 400 when using the 70-200 lens on a cloudy day or an outdoor sport event. It's all about proper exposure, which i've leanrt from dealing with the D70s. Any camera will show noise on a severe under-exposed photo
--
Thanks,
http://picasaweb.google.com/picsforum/
 
"Simply metering on the subject's face should have solved this shot's exposure problem, but the partial metering didn't work (left). A spot meter probably would have been able to handle it. Instead, I had to boost the exposure value of the entire scene by jumping to ISO 400 (right)."

Because the "INSTEAD" word, I wonder if the reviewer tries to say that spot metering would have removed the need to jump to ISO 400. Does the reviewer understand the differences among metering and exposure?
 
And in the "Conclusion".........Phil states (under D80 Cons): "High sensitivity (ISO) noise levels higher than Canon EOS 400D".

The loss of detail at high ISOs with the D80 is pretty severe from looking at the test shots.Yes,Nikon managed to reduce high(800 and 1600iso) noise.But at the cost of much detail.So Phil concuded that the Canon 400D is better than the Nikon D80 for noise.
 
Does something strike you regarding what CNET says about the XT, D80 and XTi re: IQ ? :

Regarding the Rebel XT (Michael Shapiro):

The Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT makes gloriously detailed 8-megapixel images and offers unsurpassed image quality for a consumer dSLR.

But even with the shortcomings of the kit lens, image quality is impressive. Colors are saturated and generally natural, although the automatic white balance tends toward warm and yellowish in some situations. We recommend shooting raw files for the best quality and so that you can make white-balance adjustments after shooting if necessary. Noise levels are remarkably low and barely noticeable at ISO settings less than 1,600. Even at 1,600, we found the noise to be very manageable. If you shoot long exposures, you can also turn on Canon's noise-reduction filter through the custom settings.

Regarding the Nikon D80 (Philip Ryan):

Image quality from the Nikon D80 is quite impressive. Colors were accurate and neutral and the camera's meter did an excellent job of reading the scene and providing an accurate exposure. At times, mostly in extreme cases when the scene was dominated by darkness, the Matrix metering tended to preserve detail in the shadows at the expense of highlights, though typically, this is what one would've intended in that situation. Plus, switching to selectable zone metering or using the camera's massive plus or minus 5EV exposure compensation should help in those situations.

Images from the D80 showed very little noise in our tests. At ISO 100, ISO 200, and ISO 400 noise was practically nonexistent, with only an extremely fine grain beginning to become apparent at ISO 400. Even at ISO 800, noise was a little more noticeable but still no more than a fine grain. At ISO 1,600, noise became noticeable but lacked the many off-color speckles that characterize many cameras' noise profile, and was similar to what we've come to expect at ISO 800 on some other dSLRs. At ISO 3,200--Nikon calls it H1.0--noise was obvious, resembling a coating of fine, snowy grain. A fair amount of detail was obscured by the grain but plenty still remained, and prints as large as letter size--and possibly even larger--should be acceptable, though far from perfect.

Regarding the XTi (Lori Grunin):

Despite my few complaints, the Canon EOS Rebel XTi still shoots some very nice photos, with good color rendition, broad dynamic range (when there's sufficient illumination), and accurate automatic white balance. Shots taken at ISO 100 and ISO 200 were very clean, but beyond that, the photos couldn't take much retouching without drawing attention to the noise.
 
I will consider buying the XTI after reading this sites review. CNET gives garbage reviews half the time IMO.
--

When I stand before God at the end of my life, I would hope that I would not have a single bit of talent left, and could say, 'I used everything you gave me'.
 
the new xti meters similar to the 30d in that it preserves highlights and avoids clipping the red channel which was quite common on the xt.

I find I use 1/3 EV on my 30d and -1/3 on the xt to get similar exposure for the same scene

in real world this means little....get to know your camera and work with it.

underexposed shots will produce more noise! I can make shots at 100iso look like they were shot at 6400 iso.

The higher pixel density of the xti most likely does result in slightly more noise at 1600 iso and even perhaps 800iso but the difference is not very much at all and probably completely unoticeable in prints up to 8x12
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/holy_smokes/
 
I think the reviewer has been reading too many user forums, jumping on bandwagons such as lack of spot metering and basicly did a hack job of a review on this camera...

Now I'm not nessasarly ready to jump out and buy a new 400D myself, but it's a little odd that the reviewer never mentioned the rather significant upgrade in AF over the Xt...

Anyway... I really can't put much weight behind that reveiwers opnion on this matter...
According to CNET, iso 400 and above is too noisy on the new 400D

"Shots taken at ISO 100 and ISO 200 were very clean, but beyond
that, the photos couldn't take much retouching without drawing
attention to the noise. "

read the review

http://reviews.cnet.com/Canon_EOS_Rebel_XTi_body_only_black/4505-6501_7-32034088.html?subj=fdba%E2%88%82=rss&tag=MR_Digital+cameras
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top