straight from the camera except for resizing to 1400x933, most at fairly slow hand held shutter taking advantage of 17-55 IS:
http://www.pbase.com/pespen/xti_iso1600
http://www.pbase.com/pespen/xti_iso1600
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
400D is reported to be too noisy - CNET
- Thread starter snapware
- Start date
thw
Veteran Member
I don't think spot metering is needed for the scene that CNET guy took 'cos I have used partial metering for similar scenes without any issue.
But it does provide reviewers the chance to slam the camera just for the sake of slamming it.
The slight underexposure (-1/3 eV) and change in tone curve may be difficult for users who are not too intelligent. Since I typically shoot at -1/3 eV and RAW on the XT, it's completely a non-issue to me.
-------------------------------------------
See the colors of my world in:
thw.smugmug.com
But it does provide reviewers the chance to slam the camera just for the sake of slamming it.
The slight underexposure (-1/3 eV) and change in tone curve may be difficult for users who are not too intelligent. Since I typically shoot at -1/3 eV and RAW on the XT, it's completely a non-issue to me.
-------------------------------------------
See the colors of my world in:
thw.smugmug.com
The idea is that you will get the correct exposure and thus won't have to brighten up an underexposed picture causing lots of noise.
Greg
--
http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
Greg
--
http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/
riversen
Senior Member
I have to say that there is really not a good technical answer except for what was posted. You have to go into PP or some other app and increase the levels, etc.; however, that is a very ignorant statement on CNET's part.
On top of this Bryan Peterson gave a great tip for cameras that did not have spot metering in his book, "Understanding Exposure"... take 2 steps in and get closer to your subject and meter the exposure. Then step back and focus. This will get a decent exposure for those do not use Manual or for those who want the camera to do their metering. In essence, this gives a user spot metering (moves the 9% to 3% and then back to 9%... I am not exactly sure about the numbers, but you get the idea).
I am just amazed at what people will believe. I am not a Canon only guy, but this is a poor evaluation. Nikon's come a long way and their stuff is pretty good; however, this is not the way to try to sway folks, though!
Robert (Phoenix, AZ) - Canon Digital Rebel XT
If the beauty of this world is merely a reflection the Creator's brushstroke, then my hope is to capture but a glimpse of that exquisiteness. This is my passion and endeavor, though my skills in photography are limited.
On top of this Bryan Peterson gave a great tip for cameras that did not have spot metering in his book, "Understanding Exposure"... take 2 steps in and get closer to your subject and meter the exposure. Then step back and focus. This will get a decent exposure for those do not use Manual or for those who want the camera to do their metering. In essence, this gives a user spot metering (moves the 9% to 3% and then back to 9%... I am not exactly sure about the numbers, but you get the idea).
I am just amazed at what people will believe. I am not a Canon only guy, but this is a poor evaluation. Nikon's come a long way and their stuff is pretty good; however, this is not the way to try to sway folks, though!
--
Robert (Phoenix, AZ) - Canon Digital Rebel XT
If the beauty of this world is merely a reflection the Creator's brushstroke, then my hope is to capture but a glimpse of that exquisiteness. This is my passion and endeavor, though my skills in photography are limited.
riversen
Senior Member
Couldn't we get "lower" noise on the CNET Canon shots also at the expense of detail? I think so. I know that I could get the "nosier" Canon shot to be less noisy. If you are only looking at noise, then I guess it is easy. I prefer to view the whole shot. I like the detail and don't want to blur my image, so I don't have to have 'graininess' in my darks. Here is an idea... what if we selectively reduced the noise in only the dark areas where detail didn't matter, then wouldn't that be the least noisy shot... okay I am reacting a bit too much, but it really does not make sense.
To be fair, I do like the fact that the D80 has adjustable noise controls and that it has spot metering. There are 2 nice things.
--
Robert (Phoenix, AZ) - Canon Digital Rebel XT
If the beauty of this world is merely a reflection the Creator's brushstroke, then my hope is to capture but a glimpse of that exquisiteness. This is my passion and endeavor, though my skills in photography are limited.
To be fair, I do like the fact that the D80 has adjustable noise controls and that it has spot metering. There are 2 nice things.
--
Robert (Phoenix, AZ) - Canon Digital Rebel XT
If the beauty of this world is merely a reflection the Creator's brushstroke, then my hope is to capture but a glimpse of that exquisiteness. This is my passion and endeavor, though my skills in photography are limited.
Thadoe
Leading Member
From 100 to 400 ISO, 400D is about the same as my 5D.
If compare 800 and 1600, 5D is better by a stop.
When I had D200, my opinion is that 5D noise is better by about 2 stops.
One thing with 400D is about metering. It is more conservative and underexpose (compare to 350D or 5D) by 1/3 stop. Mind you, this doesn't mean less sensitive as sensitivities between 350D, 5D and 400D are the same (based on Phil's review of D80) - just metering algorithms. I think that is the reason most peopole think 400D is more noisy than 350D.
--
Thadoe Hein
http://www.pbase.com/thadoehein
(see profile for equipment lists - current & sold)
If compare 800 and 1600, 5D is better by a stop.
When I had D200, my opinion is that 5D noise is better by about 2 stops.
One thing with 400D is about metering. It is more conservative and underexpose (compare to 350D or 5D) by 1/3 stop. Mind you, this doesn't mean less sensitive as sensitivities between 350D, 5D and 400D are the same (based on Phil's review of D80) - just metering algorithms. I think that is the reason most peopole think 400D is more noisy than 350D.
--
Thadoe Hein
http://www.pbase.com/thadoehein
(see profile for equipment lists - current & sold)
For all the nitpicking freeloaders out there, originals posted to the same gallery:
http://upload.pbase.com/pespen/xti_iso1600
Canoneyesed
Forum Enthusiast
Do you know some garbage is biodegradable? Adding nutrients back into soil? How about garbage that produces methane which can be used to create electricity? Yes there are places actually doing this. Your comparison of CNET to garbage is an insult to garbage everywhere. Garbage can be useful! Whereas CNET's review well....is just a waste of bandwidth. Which is a waste of the very electricity that garbage created! GIGO! Thanks CNET, you misinformed misanthropes!
Greg Henry
Senior Member
Actually, this is just what happens when CNET does a review...
Greg Henry
Senior Member
-------------
Have you watched the video clips that Lori Grunin does on some reviews? It's like PAINFULLY watching a high school kid trying to do a grown up news story for a school TV show. For a "senior editor" she comes across extremely amateurish on camera (making her opinions to me, less than reliable).
Rob,
you mean it was made up?
you mean the "creative correct exposure" or just "correct exposure"? And you forgot to mention about the relationship between the light meter inside your camera and the metering system it'll depend on.... what about the 18% (well not all camera are calibrated at 18) reflectance thing as well?
Bambi Brown
Leading Member
Lori Grunin says in her flash video review of the 400D at:
http://reviews.cnet.com/Canon_EOS_Rebel_XTi_kit_black/4505-6501_7-32034086.html
"Canon has increased the resolution of the sensor to 10MP in this model, but the sensor is the same size as the previous model so it's noisier and isn't as sensitive"
also:
"Overall it's still a good camera, a very good camera, however it has been edged out by the Nikon D80 in terms of speed and image quality"
See Lori Grunin's photos at:
http://lgrunin.smugmug.com/
mostly lots of cats shot with Olympus E-1. There are some shots from 2004 at Monterey, California's Laguna Seca raceway shot with the Canon 1D mkII, but with the 75-300 lens and that seems odd. Also some 2003 Alaska shots with the Canon G5.
"
TimothySchlauch
Leading Member
I'm wondering if she used the junk kit lens, to try and take lower light shots.
She said she done most tests with the kit lens, canon really needs to give the 50mm f1.8 for the kit lens. It seems really dumb, that 50mm f1.8 will let people know what a good lens can do.
The kit lens is worthless for inside shots, and people buying a consumer cam like the XTi, is most likely to take alot of inside shots. That is the problem with alot of these reviews, they use the kit lens or don't say what len they used most times.
--
T.A. Schlauch
http://www.ArcadeGamester.net
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=169695
She said she done most tests with the kit lens, canon really needs to give the 50mm f1.8 for the kit lens. It seems really dumb, that 50mm f1.8 will let people know what a good lens can do.
The kit lens is worthless for inside shots, and people buying a consumer cam like the XTi, is most likely to take alot of inside shots. That is the problem with alot of these reviews, they use the kit lens or don't say what len they used most times.
--
T.A. Schlauch
http://www.ArcadeGamester.net
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=169695
hugbunny
Leading Member
Thread below had some tests, not at 1600 I know. Jnrynash had some nice examples. Some people get there knickers in a twist about minutae and seem to forget to take any meaningful pictures with their cameras, imstead turning them into fighting machines like in robot wars or trump cards. I haven't seen the reiview but you can't expect noiseless 1600 however, what I see in jnrynash's pictures are good pictures taken with thought using his and the cameras ability to photograph something meaningful, isn't that what photography is about?
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1031&thread=20204216
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1031&thread=20204216
thw
Veteran Member
From this, I infer the sensor in the D80 has grown larger than the APS-C standard.
-------------------------------------------
See the colors of my world in:
thw.smugmug.com
I think the review is fair and honest.
I don’t think CNET is sponsored by Nikon at all. Look, 400d, we all know, is an entry level DSLR. Don’t expect it to be magnificent and don’t forget, you get what you pay for. It's not expensive on the one hand but crappie kit lens on the other hand. It's all fair and square.
I don’t think there's room here to criticize CNET and its reviewer for the things YOU don’t want to hear or know. I think all of us, cannon lovers, should open up a bit and see how the competition starting to be ruff on the entry level DSLR.
I am sure 400d is a good camera, sure, it has disadvantages, and d80 has them also…
And another thing, its good CNET used the kit lens. In reminder to all, for almost 900$ this is what you get – the kit lens. It's right on the money fair. Why should anyone count on reviews made with expensive lens, where in real life, all you get is the kit lens?
Bottom line, there's always room for improvement. Don’t like the 400d or don’t like cannon policy… Don’t buy it. That’s the only way to make your stand and impact.
Best Regards.
I don’t think CNET is sponsored by Nikon at all. Look, 400d, we all know, is an entry level DSLR. Don’t expect it to be magnificent and don’t forget, you get what you pay for. It's not expensive on the one hand but crappie kit lens on the other hand. It's all fair and square.
I don’t think there's room here to criticize CNET and its reviewer for the things YOU don’t want to hear or know. I think all of us, cannon lovers, should open up a bit and see how the competition starting to be ruff on the entry level DSLR.
I am sure 400d is a good camera, sure, it has disadvantages, and d80 has them also…
And another thing, its good CNET used the kit lens. In reminder to all, for almost 900$ this is what you get – the kit lens. It's right on the money fair. Why should anyone count on reviews made with expensive lens, where in real life, all you get is the kit lens?
Bottom line, there's always room for improvement. Don’t like the 400d or don’t like cannon policy… Don’t buy it. That’s the only way to make your stand and impact.
Best Regards.
Green_Thark
Leading Member
Argue all you like about noise, but she also claims lower sensitivity and phils tests say otherwise! (ignoring the fact she thought the previous model had 3200)
They call no prefocus to shot which includes focus speed, shutter lag without explaining what it is, or noting it changes with different lenses.
What on earth raw shot to shot time is I don't know, because it sure is not frame rate!
She also says "but the info in the viewfinder doesn't include ISO speed, white balance, battery level, and other useful settings that generally display on a status LCD." Show me the camera that does display ISO in the status lcd or viewfinder other than when you are changing it (yes the 1ds does but its hardly in the same price range)
Oh and they have the 30D down as a shooting rate of 3.1, what's that all about.
Enough obvious mis-informed drivel at a glance to make the whole review (and any other reviews) too suspect to take any notice of.
They call no prefocus to shot which includes focus speed, shutter lag without explaining what it is, or noting it changes with different lenses.
What on earth raw shot to shot time is I don't know, because it sure is not frame rate!
She also says "but the info in the viewfinder doesn't include ISO speed, white balance, battery level, and other useful settings that generally display on a status LCD." Show me the camera that does display ISO in the status lcd or viewfinder other than when you are changing it (yes the 1ds does but its hardly in the same price range)
Oh and they have the 30D down as a shooting rate of 3.1, what's that all about.
Enough obvious mis-informed drivel at a glance to make the whole review (and any other reviews) too suspect to take any notice of.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum