400D first impressions: disappointment

Got a new xti with a 60mm lens for Christmas. Generally I am disappointed with the camera. Specific points of disappointment:

1. Brand new camera and lens. Took off lens and camera caps and immediately found several spots which would not come off with “sensor cleaning”. These are large spots covering 200-400 pixels each. They show up at f11 and up and are most distinct at f32.

2. I got the camera specifically to take macros. I find, as expected, that I need to shoot at f16 or higher to have what I consider to be reasonable DOF. But shooting at f16 or higher shows the spots. It also shows diffraction effects so that f16 is not as sharp as f11.
3. Even shooting at f16 doesn’t get me the DOF of my Olympus 8080.

4. The exposures are erratic with a tendency to underexpose. With my 8080 and 5050 white tended to come out whitish but with the Canon white comes out grayish, dark grayish at that. Yes, I know this may have been deliberate to avoid blowouts. Yes, I know about exposure compensation. Yes, I know about post processing. But I would like my pictures some absolute measure of reality not all calibrated to a dull grey.

5. The flash is weak and doesn’t help as a fill under harsh lighting conditions.

6. I got the 60mm with the understanding that as a prime, and a expensive macro prime at that, it would be very sharp in general use. So far it seems to be inferior to my Oly 8080 5X zoom (with attached camera)!

7. Not only that, it doesn’t seem to be any better for macros! (the 8080 is not the best Olympus model for macros, the 5050 seems better and the 7070 seems to be the best but I don’t own one).
8. The dynamic range seems inferior to the Oly 8080.

9. The Canon seems to require more post processing. To offset the somewhat dingy images requires several steps. Color balance seems off. Too much blue channel in many pictures.

10. The viewfinder is disappointing. I believe coverage is 95% but that 5% seems to cause a lot of problems. It is difficult to use the viewfinder for focusing. Even at f2.8 the view lacks brightness. None of the advantages of an EVF are present.

11. Fewer controls than the Olympus cameras. I also liked the dual flash cards used in Olys since this gave me some emergency capacity. (the Canon had no included card.). I miss the EVF and the rotating LCD.

12. Battery life is not great, but I have an extra (it may be the spare which is weakest)

13. I don’t think the xti or FF cameras are well suited to macros. The ideal macro camera would be a digicam with EVF and rotating LCD, a 50mm 2:1 macro lens focusing 6 inches in front of the lens, with a 1/2.5 8 meg Fuji sensor. I’ve seen some amazingly good macros from small format (big DOF) cameras. Apart from the sensor, the Oly 330 is the best macro DSLR.

14. Indoor pictures with flash seem sharper than outside pictures even when fast shutter speeds are used.

Things I like:

1. I thought the new Canon interface would cause me problems since I’m familiar with the Oly series. No problemo. Great interface: controls and menus are fantastic. I like the button, dial and arrow operations. Great to have changes made effective as soon as the shutter is half-depressed.

2. Focusing is very quick and I think accurate, although it is hard to tell with soft pictures. I can now take a picture of a laugh rather than the back of the head. I love pushing the shutter button. I don’t notice the slowness that others complain about with macro lenses.

3. For macros I now have 4 inches of working distance at max-mag (compared with 1 inch with the Oly). It is much easier to illuminate the subject. The onboard flash work for close macros without the lens blocking the light. This will save me buying an expensive ring or twin light.

4. The 60mm is internal focusing which helps keep bug do-do, nectar and pine pitch off the lens (I do have a UV protector).
5. The “terrible” Canon grip isn’t noticeably bad.
6. The camera is light and the 60mm lens is heavy. Good overall balance.

7. Pictures seem very dimensional, perhaps because of the shallow DOF, but I think there is another factor involved, perhaps the flash configuration.

8. The 10 megapixels should give me greater cropping ability which is especially handy for macros of small things.

9. High ISO performance is great. Little loss of detail or color at high ISO. Minimal noise can be processed out if desired.

10. The jpeg images seem to be as good as raw, unlike the Sony A100 or the Pentax k10d. I find that I can manipulate jpegs more easily than raw.
11. I like the self-timer on switch (doesn’t have to be repeatedly selected).
12. Despite deficiencies, the xti seems a fine camera and a good value.

13. I can solve some of the problems with the xti with time, others are problematic.

I would be glad to post examples or comparisons to illustrate the above points. In the interim, I post three contacts sheets of what I hope to improve upon with my new xti.





Taken with my 5 megapixel Oly 5050:





Oly 2040, 4000(deceased), 5050, 8080 http://humphrey.smugmug.com/

the Canon DSLR set. Stay with a compact digicam.

-------------------------------------------
See the colors of my world in:
thw.smugmug.com

I know what you mean - I've also changed to the 350D from a point-and-shoot. You simply have to practice and get used to the new camera. As to the white balance issue: shoot RAW and adjust the WB to your liking in software.

Don't judge the camera's abilities by your first pictures. Check out many of the fantastic macro pics that have been posted here. I have a few macros in my gallery below.

--
http://www.pbase.com/laja30/inbox

The 400D has several advantages over a P&S. This is why I bought it. But this does not mean that it is superior in every way. Nor does it mean that the 400D is perfect. Many photogs use both P&S and DSLRs for their respective strengths. and conveniences.

It is true that there is a an adjustment period in using a DSLR: I will have to exercise more manual control, especially EC. I will have to be more careful with DOF with macros. I will have do more post processing. I expected this. Still, some of the 400D's deficiencies surprised me. Others should be informed.

As I said the 400D is a fine camera and a great value. I am happy with my purchase and will not follow your recommendation.

Lets see I will try to respond to your comments.

1. Get a $10 blower, dust is a fact of life with DSLR but its nothing that can not be easily fixed. If that does not fix it it may be grease or lubricant and i would suggest returning the camera or calling Canon.

2&3. Shallow DOF is a side affect of a large sensor. fixed lens cameras with tinny sensors have massive DOF in comparison. It is physics not much to do about it other than work with what you have.

4. Try doing a custom WB using an 18% gray card.

5. Another benefit of a DSLR you can get a large and powerful external flash. The on board flash is just there for convenience it is not meant to be an ultra powerful flash.

6. Most fixed lens digital cameras apply a massive amount of in camera sharpening compared to DSLRs. This makes their pictures appear to be very sharp but it is a software effect and generally not their lens that gives this sharpness. Try adjusting the in camera sharpness or doing a bit of sharpening in your photo edition program.

7. It depends on what you mean better for macros. Fixed lens cameras with small sensors do have larger DOF, and generally a closer focusing distance. The canon macro lenses generally have better contrast and sharpness(at the lens level not including any Post processing by in camera software). You also have better control over the DOF and dedicated macro flashes available for better lighting.

8. "Seems to be?" According to practically every major camera review magazine and publication say DSLRs have a larger dynamic range than small sensor fixed lens digital cameras.

9. Try doing a custom W/B before shots if possible, try using your picture styles and in camera shaprness, contrast and saturation settings. These should reduce the need for PP somewhat. Though if want a look identical to many P&S then they may be no way around it. Many P&S cameras produce "unrealistic" sharpness, contrast and saturation that DSLR's will not match with in camera settings. Mainly because it is much easier to increase saturation, sharpness etc... than it is to reduce it because it looks artificial.

10. Of course no EVF "advantages" are present its not an EVF. To me an OVF is wonderfull. If you dont like it though thats your call, it took me a while to get used to it but now that I am I would not trade it for an EVF.

11. Probably fewer bells and whistles but it gives you every control you could need from mirror lockup to 2nd curtain flash and a number you will probably never use. Buy a 2nd card then, or if you need extra capacity buy a 2G or 4G card they are gettng very cheap now. Yes canon did not include a CF card, considering the price you spent on the camera they probably figure you can spare $20-50 for a 1 or 2G card.

12. 500 shots on a charge is better than a lot of digital cameras. You can also buy 1500 mah batteries for around $15 online or a battery grip for two batteries and portrait orientation controls.

13. Personal prefernce on that

14. The sharpness difference is probably due to a more noticeable background and the effects of the limited DOF.

Ultimately you have to decide if the pros outweigh the cons and see if experience with the camera and settings will solve most of your problems.

Mr. Fixitx

Humphrey Nash said:

"First impressions: disappointment"
As I said the 400D is a fine camera and a great value. I am happy
with my purchase...

Click to expand...

You accept that you will need to practice and get used to using a DSLR, yet you still call the characteristics you noted "deficiencies".

From the samples I have seen and reports I have read, the 60 mm macro is capable of extremely sharp images. I think it would be more useful to start with questions on why it is not giving you the results you expect and what could be done to maximize the lens/camera potential. The sample you have posted could easily have been captured with a 400D/60mm macro (if you can get close enough to the fly

--
Misha

Humphrey Nash said:

Got a new xti with a 60mm lens for Christmas. Generally I am
disappointed with the camera. Specific points of disappointment:

Click to expand...

Reding through your entire list, which was very well written, I can say that almost all your problems stem from your inexperience with SLR photography.

The complaints about shallow depth of field, sensor dust, 95% view finder, white balancing, conservative built-in flash, the need for post processing, and most your other complaints point to that one fact.

The 400D packs the most dynamic range in JPEG of any Canon or Nikon dSLR in existence, except the $7000 1DsMkII. This has been measured and confirmed by at least two very well regarded professional reviewers already (dpreview and imaging resource). And you're complaining that it doesn't have as much dynamic range as your point & shoot?

My advice is that you get better acquainted with SLR photography, and not blame your tools. Visit pbase to see galleries of the 400D/350D to get an idea of its potential in macro photography. Once you've mastered your new camera, you'll get a better insight... and probably be kicking yourself for having made all the newbie-ish complaints you've made

Humphrey Nash said:

1. Brand new camera and lens. Took off lens and camera caps and
immediately found several spots which would not come off with
“sensor cleaning”. These are large spots covering 200-400 pixels
each. They show up at f11 and up and are most distinct at f32.

Click to expand...

Oops, should be possible to clean it though. It's a pity that happens.

Humphrey Nash said:

2. I got the camera specifically to take macros. I find, as
expected, that I need to shoot at f16 or higher to have what I
consider to be reasonable DOF. But shooting at f16 or higher shows
the spots. It also shows diffraction effects so that f16 is not as
sharp as f11.

Click to expand...

And you know what? Diffraction is even worse than you expect when the magnification is close to unity. Best option is to move to another Universe where the laws of physics are different (unfortunately I don't think there is another option on that one!).

Humphrey Nash said:

3. Even shooting at f16 doesn’t get me the DOF of my Olympus 8080.

Click to expand...

That's because the "equivalent" aperture scales in proportion to the "equivalent" focal length (i.e. the physical aperture matters). Physics again, no alternatives available!

Humphrey Nash said:

4. The exposures are erratic with a tendency to underexpose.

Click to expand...

Erratic, by how much? If more than 1/3EV return it for a working one. Working 400Ds expose perfectly, you can read that in dozens of threads here (search for "underexposure").

Humphrey Nash said:

5. The flash is weak and doesn’t help as a fill under harsh
lighting conditions.

Click to expand...

Sorry, can't help, never use the thing, but I think you might find help with the custom settings if you search around.

Humphrey Nash said:

6. I got the 60mm with the understanding that as a prime, and a
expensive macro prime at that, it would be very sharp in general
use. So far it seems to be inferior to my Oly 8080 5X zoom (with
attached camera)!

Click to expand...

You are very probably misled. It is very likely a wonderful lens. Persist and you should be able to satisfy yourself of that. I've seen some evidence to support my position.

Humphrey Nash said:

7. Not only that, it doesn’t seem to be any better for macros!
(the 8080 is not the best Olympus model for macros, the 5050 seems
better and the 7070 seems to be the best but I don’t own one).

Click to expand...

You are not by any chance a TROLL are you? I'd not normally dare to accuse, but your comments read very strangely on a Canon forum.

Humphrey Nash said:

8. The dynamic range seems inferior to the Oly 8080.

Click to expand...

You seem to have confused yourself here, check that you know what dynamic range means.

Humphrey Nash said:

9. The Canon seems to require more post processing. To offset the
somewhat dingy images requires several steps. Color balance seems
off. Too much blue channel in many pictures.

Click to expand...

Yet the 400D actually has high red and low blue sensitivity, so probably just a simple white-balance problem. Gets us all from time to time, easily fixed.

Humphrey Nash said:

10. The viewfinder is disappointing. I believe coverage is 95%
but that 5% seems to cause a lot of problems. It is difficult to
use the viewfinder for focusing. Even at f2.8 the view lacks
brightness. None of the advantages of an EVF are present.

Click to expand...

I suspect that the disadvantages of an EVF (and I have the very best of those to check with) are also missing. But it is true it takes a few seconds to adapt from EVF to 400D viewfinder, be patient, I'm sure you'll manage.

Humphrey Nash said:

11. Fewer controls than the Olympus cameras. I also liked the
dual flash cards used in Olys since this gave me some emergency
capacity. (the Canon had no included card.). I miss the EVF and
the rotating LCD.

Click to expand...

That takes a few minutes to get used to, don't worry!

Humphrey Nash said:

12. Battery life is not great, but I have an extra (it may be the
spare which is weakest)

Click to expand...

You know you have to run the battery down a couple of times to reach full capacity? How many shots do you get (should be a few hundred).

Humphrey Nash said:

13. I don’t think the xti or FF cameras are well suited to macros.
The ideal macro camera would be a digicam with EVF and rotating
LCD, a 50mm 2:1 macro lens focusing 6 inches in front of the lens,
with a 1/2.5 8 meg Fuji sensor. I’ve seen some amazingly good
macros from small format (big DOF) cameras. Apart from the sensor,
the Oly 330 is the best macro DSLR.

Click to expand...

No 1/2.5 is too small for anything useful, whatsoever.

Humphrey Nash said:

14. Indoor pictures with flash seem sharper than outside pictures
even when fast shutter speeds are used.

Click to expand...

Strange, seems like something is wrong with the outdoors photographs, perhaps it is winter and you have no tripod?

Have a GREAT new year.

Ken

Small sensors do have one big advantage over full frame ones. The depth of field is huge. This can be a big drawback also - esp for portraits. shallow DOF generally gives images more pop or depth.

What I have found is that even with the diffraction, you can generally get good results by sharpening and post processing. If you are re-sizing to the size of the sample you show, then there should be no problems.
--
'Your ideas intrigue me, and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter'

http://www.pbase.com/timothyo

After reading your post I could only conclude that you probably aren't ready for a 10mp DSLR. Since the Oly did well for you, stick with it! Most of your conclusions seem to come from inexperience. Of course the DSLR has greater dynamic range; and the 60mm macro is an extremely sharp lens. Consult the various professional test results on it that are available on the web from the likes of popphoto.com. If you did happen to get a bad copy of the EOS 400D, take it back; same with the lens. The chance that both would be bad is unlikely and it looks to me to be user error.
--
'Imagination is more important than knowledge.' Einstein

Thanks Mr. Fixitx for your thoughtful point by point reply. I will post some pics

1. I'm slightly miffed that the brand new camera wasn't cleaned. I will buy a brush blower (I have a lens brush but it may not be critically clean so I'm hesitant).

2&3. I wonder if more distant shooting and cropping might offset DOF problems. I observed that close up of tulips are only partially in focus but a crop of a more distant macro does the trick, for example.

4. Why would not AWB typically work? My understanding of the gray card use is shaky.

400D



8080



5. I only wanted it as a fill but it failed. Perhaps the flash is weaker in the presence of bright light? See the example below which the flash did not help with. For the bulk of my hobby (macros) the built in seems sufficient but I may eventually spring for a accessory flash.

6. Tried this with limited success. I think I was using all defaults plus "neutral".

7. The 60mm should be one of the sharpest lenses around … that why I bought it. I’m puzzled. I've compared my Oly with the 60mm sharpened and the Oly seems better. See examples below. Both images are 800X1000 but aside from being smaller the Oly image is just as sharp. I can see this when I makes both images the same size. The Oly image contains more viewable detail. I believe that the xti image has more detail which can be brought out with PP and enlargement, just as the xti exceeds the xt after enlargement or cropping.



8. Attached are two samples from the dcresource review site. Also attached are some recent shots of mine. Dynamic range seems bad. I realize this can be post processed to some degree. As I mentioned in a previously thread, dynamic range is a mysterious concept. To me, it means the ability to capture a wide range of brightness without displaying it. For example, snow should have some character and texture to it and dark colors should display less than solid black. The dcresource examples, admittedly different conditions, show a tendency to white out and black out whereas the 8080 samples show more gradations (but less blowout). Does this lack of blacks or very light colors indicate a lack of dynamic range? Also attached are two samples both showing blowouts (lack of dynamic range?). Unfortunately, they are not isolated examples. Also note the lack of sharpness, for example in the first picture.



where is the focus on this shot taken at 1/640 sec?







9. I haven't yet played with these and may do this at the PP stage.

10. I intend to keep the Oly 8080, in part for its EVF advantages (gain up, ground level shooting, 100% view, etc.) This makes it easier to live with the OVF, which of course has its own advantages.

11. Good idea generally. I already have some spare CF cards.

It would be handy to have exposure bracketing and focus bracketing, especially for macros.

12. I got much fewer shots but it might have been the spare and may have involved flash. Perhaps the new batteries do not initially hold a full charge as has been suggested … a temporary problem.

Ultimately you have to decide if the pros outweigh the cons and see if experience with the camera and settings will solve most of your problems.

I’ve already decided. The 400D is a definite keeper and the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages.

I'm sure that most problems will taper off. Thanks for your suggestions.

Boy, it's hard to get sympathy from this crowd when you criticize a favorite son.

Personally, I'd like to thank you for your well written and balanced critique of the XTi and comparison to the Oly.

I own the XTi and an older Oly C4000. I agree with you that the percentage of good-right-out-of-the camera shots is greater with the P&S. Generally, the automation avialable in non-DSLRs is more effective than what you get with DSLRs. DSLR owners seem to prefer making their own adjustments during and after shooting. I don't know why DSLRs are built with an inferior P&S mode. It doesn't seem necessary, but that's the way they are brougt to market. Anyway, the DSLR, in exchange for some extra fiddling, lets you avoid the canned p&s look-- excessive saturation, brightness, and sharpenning.

I'm sure you'll be less dissapointed as your skills develop, but intervention -- before and/or aftrer the shot will be a fact oif life with the XTi.

Sensor cleaning is also a fact of DSLR life, despite the XTi's partially-effective built in cleaning sytem. And yes, there are lots of tales of dirty sensors right out of the box. I hear that "Photgraphic Solutions," a respected manufacturer of sensor cleaning supplies, is about to release a new cleaning solvent that is espcially suiited to the XTi sensor's antistatic coating.

Regarding underexposure, form your own opinion through experience and reading the nunerous posts and reviews. From my read, the consensus is that adding a bias of 1/3 to 2/3 EV of compensation is appropriate.

Nice photos. Enjoy your camera.

JerryG1

Thanks for your understanding comments.

OLY cameras have excellent optics and an excellent 4/3 system but the sensors are a step behind Canon which is the reason for my switch. For my purposes the xti is the better camera. I hope to use this forum to solve problems and realize the xti's potential.

Thebardteacher wrote

"After reading your post I could only conclude that you probably aren't ready for a 10mp DSLR. Since the Oly did well for you, stick with it! Most of your conclusions seem to come from inexperience. Of course the DSLR has greater dynamic range; and the 60mm macro is an extremely sharp lens. Consult the various professional test results on it that are available on the web from the likes of popphoto.com. If you did happen to get a bad copy of the EOS 400D, take it back; same with the lens. The chance that both would be bad is unlikely and it looks to me to be user error."

I don’t think 10 megapixels is a factor. Nor is a dslr a stumbling block. I have a good understanding of photography generally and digital cameras in particular. The operation of the xti is easy, as is PP. What I was not fully ready for was the deficiencies of the xti. I did expect the sensor to start off dirty. I didn’t expect exposure problems that couldn’t be cured with EC. The flash was weaker than expected. Even though I was aware of macro DOF problems, I didn’t fully understand the magnitude compared to P&S cameras.

I haven’t yet figured out why I can’t get sharp pictures since the lens is topnotch and the shutter speeds adequate. Camera movement or subject movement should not be a problem. I’m using “one shot” autofocus which seems to be working. Macros seems to focus alright on the test bench but should I use AI for handheld macros? The 60mm is noted for sharpness wide open but should I normally be shooting at f11 or higher for greater DOF for closer subjects?

"Since the Oly did well for you, stick with it!"

I will but I intend to use the xti more often.

I’ve seen ALL the tests on the 60mm: that’s why I have it. I haven’t yet concluded that there is anything wrong with the lens.

As far as dynamic range the xti tests well but shows poorly. The pictures on Steve’s Review site, Imaging resources, and dcresources are among the darkest I’ve seen. To me this implies a lack of dynamic range or at least a pattern of underexposure. These problems don’t arise from inexperience. I could post some of these independent examples but I’m not sure I should.

Instead I post a couple of index sheets. The first is the Canon and the second the Oly. They are different subjects taken at different times of the year and have been selected, but they still illustrate the point that the Canons are frequently underexposed.





I agree that experience will eliminate many “problems”. However, finding workarounds is a problem that many encounter, as this forum attests.

I have switched from Oly to Canon because Canon better meets my needs but I think I will have to gain more experience as well as lower my expectations.

I'm sorry for being so harsh. Besides English, I teacher journalism and photography and one of the cameras we use is the Rebel XTi. Our copy was clean and their is a learning curve for the kids to get up to speed on it, but the sensor seems to be fantastic. I hope you are able to take great photos on this neat little camera. Good luck!

Don
--
'Imagination is more important than knowledge.' Einstein

Very harsh words from many of you out there. Here we have a very good comparison between the XTi and the Oly, and all you guys have to do is to tell him to throw everything out and stick with the P&S? I have both the 350D and the 400D and frankly I find the 400D to be a disappointment in every regards. From everything to the higher noise levels, lower exposure, slow flash recycle times, dust spots, etc. I don't even think the extra 2MP is even worth it. If only I can stick the 2"LCD on the 350D.....I'll be all set.

Good luck to all of you guys who can find justification in PP in keeping the 400D and play with every single picture to the n-th degree.

ace pilot said:

Very harsh words from many of you out there. Here we have a very
good comparison between the XTi and the Oly, and all you guys have
to do is to tell him to throw everything out and stick with the
P&S?

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Humphrey Nash, I wish you every luck in solving your 400D issues.

--
Collin

Here we go. 2007 and a whole new year of smartarse comments. I can hardly wait. Not.

What a bunch of petulant, defensive and unhelpful responses.

Don't expect a major difference in image quality between a DSLR and a high quality p&s at low ISOs. The major differences are in controls, speed (shutter lag), lenses and accessories, high ISO, size and weight.

1) A new camera should be clean.

2&3) You'll get a much narrower DOF close to the lens than far away

4) AWB usually works well in natural light and poorly in incandescent light. You can use manual WB to photograph a gray card - this essentially calibrate the camera with a known quantity in your current light. Or shoot in RAW and correct in PP.

5) Flash controls can be tricky. With great flexibility comes great opportunities for problems.

8) The 8080 seems to have better dynamic range in first pair than the 400D. In most dynamic range complaints, the shot has an exposure problem. Here, increasing exposure would have just blown highlights and decreasing just made the shadows worse.

2, 3 and 5 should benefit from more reading and experience. So should 4, but I don't see any reason a DSLR should have worse AWB than a p&s.

I'd like to see a better explanation of the dynamic range issue than saying that the 400D is a great camera with great reviews.

ace pilot said:

Very harsh words from many of you out there. Here we have a very
good comparison between the XTi and the Oly, and all you guys have
to do is to tell him to throw everything out and stick with the
P&S?

Click to expand...

I also agree. The write up and comparisons by Humphrey are a good read. He brings up some very valid points and admits that he has more to learn. We all do.

Before my XT and now XTi, I came from an AGFA 1280 & 1680 followed by a Sony 707. The Sony with it's 5x bazooka lens easily delivers punchy P&S style photos. Great DOF for easy macros, which I do miss.

I considered Oly before the XT was released. If the XT had not come out when it did, I have gotten tired of waiting and bought into Oly gear.

I also bought a Panasonic FZ50 for my wife. This cam takes great pics with far less effort that my XTi. Would I give up the XTi? Not a chance. The image quality and features (like the XT) are excellent for the price. I do lots of hiking which puts the XTi small size and weight near the top of my list. If I need to shoot where mirror slap is offending, I just might take the FZ50 for a shoot!

Thanks to the OP for the post.
--
Macro-
http://www.pbase.com/dbh/galleries