Reading mode: Light Dark

400D underexposing, Screen badly calibrated or lousy photographer

Go to last post
graviT said:
Its all fine and well for 5D and up folks, but this is a Rebel, for
the masses.
Click to expand...
I shoot the original digital Rebel.
graviT said:
Who cares if the 400D is 2/3 stops slower shutter speeds than the
350D, ill just go up another ISO stop.
Click to expand...
Sorry to tell you, but underexposure means FASTER shutter speed. Unless you complain about bad ISO rating - but I haven't read a word about that.
graviT said:
I PP all my keepers and i know when to use ec+ - but why does
everyone defend the 400D so much.
Click to expand...
I don't give a damn about the 400D. Look at the histogram. Ixus burned badly the highlights.
graviT said:
It under exposes and gives slower shutter speeds than the camera
before it to the extent that folks think their camera is broken.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ. Faster shutter speeds, again.
graviT said:
I just got 5000 photos from different car races in a couple
countries like the F1 race in Suzuka, with my 300D so im still out
there loving it, I would have liked to get the 400D but wont now.
Click to expand...
It's up to you. I like my 300D, but I am looking at a two or one digit digital SLR. I'll live and see.
graviT said:
the 30D is almost 2 times the cost of the Rebel depending which
country you are in so it is a big step to get it.
Click to expand...
Hmm... better shutter, better viewfinder, second focusing wheel... I am sold :)

Forget about the screen calibration. (yeah, mine is colorimeter-calibrated AND checked against prints). Histogram here tells you everything. Furthermore, it's very difficult to compare: the scenes are different, and we don't know about the in-camera processing. (e.g. contrast, saturation).

It's very difficult to evaluate the 400d exposure, because of the scene. For that shot I would have dialed -2/3 EC and expected fully preserved highlights. In those conditions, I'd say that the 35 zone evaluative metering did as expected. (There is extensive reading material on the net about evaluative metering and the influence of the focusing point and number of used points on the exposure.)

However, it's very easy to evaluate the Ixus shot - it's overexposed.

After all, there is one very simple test: shoot the same white wall or sheet of paper. Eliminate the variabiles, in other words.
 
The composition is absolutely different. You cannot compare the mettirng modes in this case.

In 400D shot almost half the farame is sky when in other shot is only about 1/4.

Also the center of the image for 400D is on the sky.
 
It does underexpose to the model before it and to the model before that one, and to the 20D and 30D.... especially when the 400D sensor is also less sensitive than the model before it.

It doesnt underexpose if you apply a positive ec.......which still doesnt get you the shutter speed back compared to the 350D.
Yes if you know how to use your camera you can get the exposure you want.

Its underexposing compared to the one before it and most P&S. Thats why there are posts about underexposure.

graviT
Marshall_M said:
unbelievable but we agree today ;)

These "underexposing" threads are hilarious... these people need to
read some books about metering and exposure...

--
Click to expand...
 
graviT said:
It does underexpose to the model before it and to the model before
that one, and to the 20D and 30D.... especially when the 400D
sensor is also less sensitive than the model before it.
Click to expand...
What makes you think the 400D sensor is less sensitive than it's predessors?
 
Because if you take a picture with the 350D and 400D at the same shutter, ISO speed, etc... the 400D picture is less exposed.
jrynash said:
graviT said:
It does underexpose to the model before it and to the model before
that one, and to the 20D and 30D.... especially when the 400D
sensor is also less sensitive than the model before it.
Click to expand...
What makes you think the 400D sensor is less sensitive than it's
predessors?
Click to expand...
--

Canon 400D + 18-55 Kit Lens + 50mm f/1.8 + 2x 4GB Sandisk Ultra II Compactflash Card
Canon A620 + 2x 1GB Sandisk SD Card
Olympus C350Z (No longer used)
 
You are expecting better detail in the bridge substructure and no blowout of the Ixus. REDUCE XTi CONTRAST. If colours look flat then raise CONTRAST up a little, but not to where it was when you took the sample shot. If this is still not good enough then raise exposure by +0.3.

Each manufacturer has their own choice of DR and tone curves. If you can't fix it in camera then it has to be done in post processing.

A sensor is linear in response to light and your vision is not. Unfortunately present XTi design won't produce exactly the same DR and tone curve light response as you saw it. At least not without tweaks. If Canon can do it then it is a firmware upgrade issue.

The only other thing I can suggest is Nikon D50, D80, D200 which may have an edge on dynamic range(DR) ability. You would have to try them to prove it to yourself.
abeverat said:
Hello all

I need some advice from people who have more experince than I.

Here are 2 photos taken one with a 400D/XTi and the other one with
an canon Ixus.

I have the impression that the photo taken from the 400D is
underexposed where the one taken with the Ixus seems brighter. The
dark details do appear.

Can anyone advice me about it ?

$00d configuration :
Sigma 18-50 lense, no sun shield, no UV filter (yet), no polariser
Exp time : 1/200
F9
Metering matrix
White balance auto
P mode

http://www.flickr.com/photos/44868141@N00/289229132/

Ixus config :
Full auto
Exp time 1/250
F7.1
Metering matrix
White balance auto

http://www.flickr.com/photos/44868141@N00/289229140/

Thank you very much

an almost happy 400d user

Alex
Click to expand...
--
Torch
 
If you can see the difference between the shots with a LCD monitor as I did nothing more is needed to know their is a difference in exposure.
It was smart to post a shot from each camera.
--
Torch
 
graviT said:
Drivel isnt a nice word.
Did you read the other posts?
My tests are very scientific actually. I do it for a living with
electronics.
I dont own either, I would have liked to but I still like the 300D
better. I have direct compared multiple copies at the same time.
The last part you wrote is basically identical to one of my earlier
posts.
Drivel by both of us?
My numbers "plucked from the air" are more accurate than the ones
you say are true to defend your 400D.

graviT
Click to expand...
You totally miss the point, which is, you constantly state the 400 is 2/3 to a stop less sensitive than the 350. i.e. not some, or most, or the odd one but all, there is no evidence of this, yes some people's copies may be that much less sensitive but that doesn't mean they all are!

Unlike yourself I have only ever said the ones I have are not (or if you want totally accurate comment don't appear to be to the limits of the controls I have to test under ;-) )

The only reason I tested them against each other in the first place was because John's seemed to be like that, which then begged the question, is this normal or not, a question he no doubt also wanted the answer to, the evidence I have suggests that it is not normal and some are faulty, a far more likely scenario than my copy being exceptional don't you think?
I would however not state it as a fact nor have I done.

You gave me a good laugh though, I'm not a defender of faulty goods as anyone who knows me would tell you, if I thought for an instant my ISO 1600 was really ISO 1000 the camera would have been straight back to the supplier.

Quite why you are so convinced that what you say is carved in stone eludes me, but the least you could do is state it as the opinion it is and not the fact you make it out to be.

Have a nice day :-)
graviT said:
Green_Thark said:
graviT said:
The 400D is much less sensitive than the 350D and also under
exposes where the 350 tended to slightly over expose.
Click to expand...
The 400 isnt "much less" I find it is a "little less"
graviT said:
If you shoot the same scene with the same exposure, the 400D is
going to be 2/3 to 1stop slower shutter compared to 350D. Losing
shutter is no fun.
Click to expand...
Again numbers plucked from the air, I find at most a 1/3 stop
difference usually less and I own both, do you actually own either?
graviT said:
I was going to buy the 400D until i tested 3 of them in 2 different
stores with the same results.
Click to expand...
Very scientific lol
graviT said:
graviT
Click to expand...
As to the origional question, I think the 400 pic could have done
with about a +1/3 EC which isn't unusual with so much sky in the
pic (would need more with a bright grey sky) and the ixus looks at
least a 1/3 over exposed, its hard to say because the highlights
are gone so you cant tell where they would have come back. There is
in reality no right and wrong in a picture you take for yourself
just what you do and dont find pleasing.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
digitalnemesis said:
Because if you take a picture with the 350D and 400D at the same
shutter, ISO speed, etc... the 400D picture is less exposed.
Click to expand...
You also have to take the different internal parameter settings of the cameras out of the mix in order to compare sensor sensitivities. The 400D has "curves and settings" such as "standard", "landscape", "portrait", "faithful", "neutral",etc. and the 350D has "parameter settings". These settings all affect the outcome too as does RAW conversion algorithms and settings if shooting RAW, it's more than just setting the same shutter, focal length and aperture and ISO.

People in this forum in the last two months have tried to carefully remove the other factors mentioned above, by shooting RAW among other things, to try and get to the "straight sensor" as much as possible. When they've done that, they've demonstrated that the 400D sensor is, in fact, not less sensitive than previous Rebels. In fact there's evidence to the contrary.
 
I opened the 400D in Photoshop and the levels are dead right on. I did a simple Shadow/Highlight adjustment and it was perfect. The highlights on the point and shoot were overly exposed and it would not adjust as well as the 400D did.
--
Happiness is that one shot that you can't find fault with.
 
I tried shooting in RAW on the XTi with Faithful, Neutral etc to take this out of the equation, and used Parameter 2 and RAW on the XT, but it didn't make any difference.

The XTi was still consistently about 1/3 stop less sensitive. Sometimes a little more if there was hardly any dynamic range in the shot, but usually about 1/3 stop.

There seem to be a lot of people posting with similar results, but we are yet to see anyone with both cameras post results showing that sensitivity is the same. It seems pretty conclusive to me.

I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise, but noone has posted anything yet to make me believe me XTi is not typical of what's out there. I'm like the agnostic talking to the believer...'show me and I'll believe'. Loads of people showing controlled tests showing they're different - where are the people showing them to be the same?

It's ok, I can live with it and compensate with shutter speeds in low light where necessary, especially since the AF is better, but I'm not going to pretend the difference is not there.
 
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=19993079
slydog said:
I tried shooting in RAW on the XTi with Faithful, Neutral etc to
take this out of the equation, and used Parameter 2 and RAW on the
XT, but it didn't make any difference.

The XTi was still consistently about 1/3 stop less sensitive.
Sometimes a little more if there was hardly any dynamic range in
the shot, but usually about 1/3 stop.

There seem to be a lot of people posting with similar results, but
we are yet to see anyone with both cameras post results showing
that sensitivity is the same. It seems pretty conclusive to me.

I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise, but noone has posted
anything yet to make me believe me XTi is not typical of what's out
there. I'm like the agnostic talking to the believer...'show me and
I'll believe'. Loads of people showing controlled tests showing
they're different - where are the people showing them to be the
same?

It's ok, I can live with it and compensate with shutter speeds in
low light where necessary, especially since the AF is better, but
I'm not going to pretend the difference is not there.
Click to expand...
 
Thank you for sharing that link, I suppose that person could be right.

There is more than one way to explain a problem right? :-)
jrynash said:
slydog said:
I tried shooting in RAW on the XTi with Faithful, Neutral etc to
take this out of the equation, and used Parameter 2 and RAW on the
XT, but it didn't make any difference.

The XTi was still consistently about 1/3 stop less sensitive.
Sometimes a little more if there was hardly any dynamic range in
the shot, but usually about 1/3 stop.

There seem to be a lot of people posting with similar results, but
we are yet to see anyone with both cameras post results showing
that sensitivity is the same. It seems pretty conclusive to me.

I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise, but noone has posted
anything yet to make me believe me XTi is not typical of what's out
there. I'm like the agnostic talking to the believer...'show me and
I'll believe'. Loads of people showing controlled tests showing
they're different - where are the people showing them to be the
same?

It's ok, I can live with it and compensate with shutter speeds in
low light where necessary, especially since the AF is better, but
I'm not going to pretend the difference is not there.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--

Canon 400D + 18-55 Kit Lens + 50mm f/1.8 + 2x 4GB Sandisk Ultra II Compactflash Card
Canon A620 + 2x 1GB Sandisk SD Card
Olympus C350Z (No longer used)
 
digitalnemesis said:
Thank you for sharing that link, I suppose that person could be right.

There is more than one way to explain a problem right? :-)
Click to expand...
You're welcome.

It's funny that Nikon D80 users are complaining about "exposure problems":

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/search.asp?query=D80+Exposure&forum=1034

and Canon 400D users are complaining about "exposure problems":

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/search.asp?query=400D+exposure&forum=1031

Are there really "problems" with the Canon 400D and the Nikon D80?....or is it something else?
digitalnemesis said:
jrynash said:
slydog said:
I tried shooting in RAW on the XTi with Faithful, Neutral etc to
take this out of the equation, and used Parameter 2 and RAW on the
XT, but it didn't make any difference.

The XTi was still consistently about 1/3 stop less sensitive.
Sometimes a little more if there was hardly any dynamic range in
the shot, but usually about 1/3 stop.

There seem to be a lot of people posting with similar results, but
we are yet to see anyone with both cameras post results showing
that sensitivity is the same. It seems pretty conclusive to me.

I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise, but noone has posted
anything yet to make me believe me XTi is not typical of what's out
there. I'm like the agnostic talking to the believer...'show me and
I'll believe'. Loads of people showing controlled tests showing
they're different - where are the people showing them to be the
same?

It's ok, I can live with it and compensate with shutter speeds in
low light where necessary, especially since the AF is better, but
I'm not going to pretend the difference is not there.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Canon 400D + 18-55 Kit Lens + 50mm f/1.8 + 2x 4GB Sandisk Ultra II
Compactflash Card
Canon A620 + 2x 1GB Sandisk SD Card
Olympus C350Z (No longer used)
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/pespen
--
Canon Digital Rebel XT and XTi (Silver and Black),Canon 10-22mm lens,Canon
50mm 1.8 mkII
lens,Canon 35mm 2.0 lens,Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens,Canon 70-200mm F/4L
lens,Canon 580EX
Flash,Lowepro
Micro Trekker 200 backpack
 
Thanks for that link, I hadn't seen that. Well RicksAstro is the first person I've seen saying so, but he certainly seems to know what he's talking about so I'll read his posts.

I don't pretend to understand about 16 bit "pure" raw processors and "untouched Bayer array values" though. Sounds like we're getting into Quantum physics now.

I already processed in RAW and got different exposures, so I don't know what else I could do. Most people don't even process in RAW, so it sounds like we're getting pretty low level. Anyway I'll read the posts and see if it makes any sense to my brain. Thanks for the info.
 
Hi again,

try this webpage, you dont have to read japanese, just scroll down to the 4 outdoor test photos. look at shutter speeds, ec and then look at the photos again.

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2006/10/18/4839.html

this isnt written in stone but its the same thing i got with 3 different 400Ds at 2 stores.

I havnt said anywhere the camera is no good or anything, this just seems to be true, and its got people wondering alot. As well as the OP.

All this talk about curves and raw doesnt really account for loss of shutter and still darker image. Expecially cameras from the same company.

graviT
slydog said:
I tried shooting in RAW on the XTi with Faithful, Neutral etc to
take this out of the equation, and used Parameter 2 and RAW on the
XT, but it didn't make any difference.

The XTi was still consistently about 1/3 stop less sensitive.
Sometimes a little more if there was hardly any dynamic range in
the shot, but usually about 1/3 stop.

There seem to be a lot of people posting with similar results, but
we are yet to see anyone with both cameras post results showing
that sensitivity is the same. It seems pretty conclusive to me.

I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise, but noone has posted
anything yet to make me believe me XTi is not typical of what's out
there. I'm like the agnostic talking to the believer...'show me and
I'll believe'. Loads of people showing controlled tests showing
they're different - where are the people showing them to be the
same?

It's ok, I can live with it and compensate with shutter speeds in
low light where necessary, especially since the AF is better, but
I'm not going to pretend the difference is not there.
Click to expand...
 
Hello Green_Thark,

I am not here to fight, I try to be the middleman but i was all alone here on this one, and i obviously have too much time on my hands right now.

Your message was just a little condecending and lest we forget the Title.
Do you say that to your co-workers? Drivel. hehe, its a funny visual actually.

Its my opinion but its more scientifically valid than you give me credit for.

The OP got lost and left a long time ago so....

Well, if you only lose 1/3shutter to get the same exposure then that is great. I havnt seen any that close.

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2006/10/18/4839.html

this is some evidence. but yours, mine, and this arnt written in stone i guess. It would be a bit worrysome if the 400Ds were this wildly varying.

graviT
Green_Thark said:
graviT said:
Drivel isnt a nice word.
Did you read the other posts?
My tests are very scientific actually. I do it for a living with
electronics.
I dont own either, I would have liked to but I still like the 300D
better. I have direct compared multiple copies at the same time.
The last part you wrote is basically identical to one of my earlier
posts.
Drivel by both of us?
My numbers "plucked from the air" are more accurate than the ones
you say are true to defend your 400D.

graviT
Click to expand...
You totally miss the point, which is, you constantly state the 400
is 2/3 to a stop less sensitive than the 350. i.e. not some, or
most, or the odd one but all, there is no evidence of this, yes
some people's copies may be that much less sensitive but that
doesn't mean they all are!
Unlike yourself I have only ever said the ones I have are not (or
if you want totally accurate comment don't appear to be to the
limits of the controls I have to test under ;-) )
The only reason I tested them against each other in the first place
was because John's seemed to be like that, which then begged the
question, is this normal or not, a question he no doubt also wanted
the answer to, the evidence I have suggests that it is not normal
and some are faulty, a far more likely scenario than my copy being
exceptional don't you think?
I would however not state it as a fact nor have I done.

You gave me a good laugh though, I'm not a defender of faulty goods
as anyone who knows me would tell you, if I thought for an instant
my ISO 1600 was really ISO 1000 the camera would have been straight
back to the supplier.

Quite why you are so convinced that what you say is carved in stone
eludes me, but the least you could do is state it as the opinion it
is and not the fact you make it out to be.

Have a nice day :-)
Green_Thark said:
Green_Thark said:
graviT said:
The 400D is much less sensitive than the 350D and also under
exposes where the 350 tended to slightly over expose.
Click to expand...
The 400 isnt "much less" I find it is a "little less"
Green_Thark said:
If you shoot the same scene with the same exposure, the 400D is
going to be 2/3 to 1stop slower shutter compared to 350D. Losing
shutter is no fun.
Click to expand...
Again numbers plucked from the air, I find at most a 1/3 stop
difference usually less and I own both, do you actually own either?
Green_Thark said:
I was going to buy the 400D until i tested 3 of them in 2 different
stores with the same results.
Click to expand...
Very scientific lol
Green_Thark said:
graviT
Click to expand...
As to the origional question, I think the 400 pic could have done
with about a +1/3 EC which isn't unusual with so much sky in the
pic (would need more with a bright grey sky) and the ixus looks at
least a 1/3 over exposed, its hard to say because the highlights
are gone so you cant tell where they would have come back. There is
in reality no right and wrong in a picture you take for yourself
just what you do and dont find pleasing.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top