More 400D grief

magicmikey said:

Bambi Brown said:

It's not the question. It's the obvious pattern.

Click to expand...

Again, what would they gain?

Do you love Canon so much that they can't be criticized?

Click to expand...

Of course not. But here, let me play.

"I'm new to the DSLR world, but have taken some pictures with film cameras and have owned some point and shoot digital cameras. I thought I'd take the plunge and move to DSLR. I haven't really gone to a camera store to try anything, but I did buy a new 400D online. I'm finding myself very disappointed with the dark, underexposed photos that I'm getting with the 400D in auto mode. My friend has a 350D and my other friend has a Nikon D80 and they don't have these problems at all. They put their cameras into auto mode and their pictures are immediately published in some very prestigious phtography journals and magazines. All of my 400D pictures are coming out underexposed. I refuse to take my camera out of auto mode since I did pay $650 for it and for that price this camera should take award winning photos while I'm sleeping.

Canon really needs to issue a fix for this.

Can anyone help me?"

There. How's that? Don't criticize me, or I'll accuse you of being unfriendly to strangers.

The "blurring" is something I noticed quite a bit when I first switched from film and P&S digital cameras 3 years ago with the DRebel. In my case, it was motion blur problems mostly cause by my not factoring in the lens crop, "Magnification" if you will. I've found I've got to me much more aware of movement than I was prior. If you're not familiar with the depth of field issues "Features", this can cause issues when coming from P&S cameras which basically have tons of depth of field, no options really for limiting it.

As for the exposure, posting examples would be of great help. I haven't noticed any significant difference between my DRebel and XTI. If anything, the XTI is slightly more predicatble and consistant. Both cameras underexpose on occasion, and over expose on occasion as well. In JPG modes, the profile for the XTI appears to be set to make th picture slightly darker, and you'll notice a different curve used in the canon software as well. using CS or Capture 1 software for processing the shots gives results more comperable.

Practice, see how the camera responds in different situation, and see how things like selecting metering modes and focus points affect your outcome. Once you get used to the camera, I think you'll find it can produce amazing results, and in the case of someone like me, produce results on occasion that make you wonder how things could have gone so wrong

good luck

I'll post some pics later when I get home (none here on my work pc having only just strated this thread a few hours ago).

Use Av and adjust EC as necessary. Use centerweighted metering for more consistent metering that is not depenent on which AF point is used.

Keep your XTi, learn it and get better. Review your histogram and adjust accordingly based upon it and the tonality of your composition.

Bet you're using the Kit lens! Get a better lens.

Getting a better lens won't necessarily solve his underexposure problems.

secheese said:

Bet you're using the Kit lens! Get a better lens.

Click to expand...

--
Collin

AC1,

Sorry to hear you are having troubles. Perhaps it would be helpful to separate the two issues i see discussed in this message: one is the underexposure problem and the other is the assertion that AUTO mode should be as good on a DSLR as it is on a P&S digicam.

On the first issue, I think there are far too many folks having exposure problems with the 400D for this to be simply a matter of user error. I have no idea what is going on with this underexposure issue, but at least some forum members have returned cameras and got a replacement that did not exhibit the problem. Certainly this should suggest that the camera, not the user, was defective! If you think your camera is defective, return it if this is an option, or send it in to Canon to be repaired. Yes, the camera should be able to give you good exposures in the AUTO mode.

The second issue about expecting to get results from a DSLR in AUTO mode that are as good as the results from a P&S in auto mode is more problematic. First of all, you should be able to get EXPOSURES that are as good from both cameras. But this is where the similarities end. P&S cameras will OUTPERFORM DSLRs in the AUTO mode when it comes to getting a sharp focus. The reason for this is the large size of the DSLR sensor vs the small size of the P&S sensor. P&S digicams have VAST depth of field at any aperture, whereas DSLRs have widely varying depth of field that is largely dependant upon the aperture.

For example, with your subject at 10 feet from the Rebel using the kit lens at 39mm and f5.6, the depth of field is from 8.25 - 12.7 feet. So the total area of sharp focus is 4.45 feet.

If the subject is 5 feet from the camera, the area of sharp focus is about 1 foot. Compare this to any of the P&S cameras.

The A100, for example, at zoom of 39mm field of view on a 35mm camera, the lens is actually at 5.2mm. If the subject is 5 feet from the camera, the depth of field is from 2.2 feet to infinity!

This is very significant. It is this difference in the cameras that makes AUTO mode so problematic for DSLRs. The AUTO mode is expected to give you a good exposure ~ to allow enough light in to make the image bright enough. This requires a shutter speed that is long enough to prevent blur from camera shake AND it requires an aperture that is large enough to capture the light necessary for a good exposure. If the camera auto selects the largest aperture ~ say f5.6 and your subject is 5 feet away, you better get an accurate focus lock, because you only have 1 foot of leeway before your subject is out of the area of sharp focus.

It should be easy for the camera to determine HOW MUCH light to send to the sensor to get a good exposure most of the time. The difficult part ~ really the impossible part ~ is for the camera to select the right COMBINATION of shutter speed, aperture and ISO to achieve the effect that you desire. In great light, this is not much of a problem, but as the light level drops, the camera has some very tough decisions to make. A wide open aperture give you very little depth of field. A slow shutter speed will mean the shot is blurry due to camera shake. A high ISO makes for more noise and grain in the image. What's a camera to do????

So this is the reason that a basic understanding of the camera and using the camera in one of the creative zones is really necessary to get the most from the camera ~ even to get the performance you have gotten from your P&S camera in AUTO mode.

So, here is the rub. DSLRs and P&S cameras are not the same ~ but that is really the GOOD news! The main reason I got a DSLR in the first place was to be able to finely adjust depth of field. With a P&S, everything is in sharp focus, unless you are extremely close to your subject.

I sure hope this helps.

All the best,

jim

--
Shoot more, ***** less!
galleries at: http://www.pbase.com/sandman3
photography workshop schedule at:
http://www.pbase.com/sandman3/schedule

Jim

Many thanks, that's an immensely informative piece for me.

I now understand why it is not fair to expect exactly equal levels of performance from a P&S as a DSLR in Auto mode (in some respects).

But it also confirms my suspicion that something ain't right with the exposure levels. It sounds like all 400s are by definition a bit dark for some people's tastes. And in some cases (maybe mine) a particular unit is worse than average, which compounds my disappointment!

Here are 2 pics taken whilst sailing using the 400 (on Auto) which seem too dark for me:





And here is a similar pic, admittedly not identcial but taken a few moments later, using my A710IS also on Auto:

AC1 said:

Here are 2 pics taken whilst sailing using the 400 (on Auto) which
seem too dark for me:

Click to expand...

Why did you use landscape mode instead of portrait mode? If you're going to use auto...why didn't you use auto: portrait for obvious portrait shots?

As a 350 shooter, I would prefer these 'underexposed' shots to what I get. You can actually see the sky, that is great.

you should do some PP anyhow, but on bright days, reduce the contrast setting (either before or after you take the photo.

the 350 would have blown the sky away.

First of all, Sandman's message, a bit above this one, is an excellent description of what's going on here. Yes, dagnabit, there IS a difference between a DSLR and the tiny-sensored point-and-shooters.

I'm new to the 400D, and it is my first DSLR, but I've been around DPreview for years, most recently with a couple of years or so with the Canon Pro1. You betcha, I'm learning new things in this forum every day.

As Sandman alludes to, a point-and-shooter is a much simpler mechanism. There are far fewer variables, or the variables are much smaller ones than you have to deal with in a DSLR. I also expect that a point-and-shooter meters pretty much right in the center -- get the subject exposed brightly, and go ahead and blow out all the highlights in the sky behind it.

It sure seems (as in the examples posted above) that an awful lot of these "underexposures" have perfectly well-exposed skies behind subjects that aren't as bright as people are expecting. The 400D has a far more sophisticated metering system, and you're going to have to learn how to use it. Yes, it's a wholesale change from the metering in point-and-shooter-land, but that's something I'm trying to learn as much as anyone else in here.

Mainly, though, it has become abundantly clear to me that this forum has become very much a "newbie to DSLR" forum -- especially with the 400D, and the demise of the "prosumer" point-and-shooters like my old Pro1, we have whole bunches of people here who are starting out with their first DSLR.

I just hope we can all get along a little better than we have been lately -- the newbies need to relax a bit and learn what's going on. The experienced folks have a wonderful opportunity to relay their knowledge and experience to these new folks, rather than mocking them -- though that will naturally come in response to newbie "willing to learn" questions rather than newbie "this camera sucks" messages.

So, I recommend that the newbies (such as myself) ask questions with an open mind and a willingless to learn, and I think the experienced folks will calm down and offer up some truly helpful advice in response. The bottom line is that everyone WILL have to learn a whole lot more "photography" than they've ever had to when they pick up their first DSLR -- you're just not in "automatic point-and-shooter-land" anymore!
--
Tom Hoots
My PBase galleries:
http://www.pbase.com/thoots

Not quite sure what you mean by using landscape instead of potrait?

The mode button was on Auto (so neither landscape nor potrait).

And the camera was held horizontally (is that what you mean by landscape?) instead of vertically (potrait?) in order to get the desired width of scene/people.

Or are you asking something else?

Agreed, exactly my personal experience with 400D in your first paragraph.

magicmikey said:

I would suggest you try using the 400D in the P (program) mode
instead of Auto and then apply a +1/3 EC (exposure compensation).
See if the images are closer to what you are used to then. If not,
try +2/3 EC.

Click to expand...

magicmikey said:

The object is to find a setting that will expose the way you are
used to and still offer basically the same features as the Auto
mode. (The ability to adjust the EC is one of the few differences
in the two modes.)

Once, you have found the setting that works for most of your
situations, you can use the 400D as you intended. The main reason
for not swapping up is the cost. If cost is not a factor, then the
30D is an outstanding camera. You may still have some exposure
differences with it, as well.

Michael

Click to expand...

AC1

I have a 350D and it would have blown out the highlights if used to take those shots on auto (as your P&S did). Canon has taken a lot of flak for the 350D's overexposure problems and I think has purposely been more cautious with the 400D to avoid the same problems. That's a better compromise IMO since you can easily lighten the pictures with Zoombrowser or DPP but you can never recover blown highlights.

The 350D was my first DSLR after 30+ years of shooting with film SLRs (mainly B&W, developing and printing them myself) at a decent standard. Like you, I found the transition to a DSLR quite difficult, mainly because of the much more limited dynamic range of digital cameras and also because of camera shake caused by the 1.6x 'magnification' factor of the 350D and its very light weight. I never had a problem with camera shake before.

P&S cameras have a smaller sensor and greater depth of field, as explained earler, so focus tends not to be so critical. They also select the ISO according to the light level so you get more consistent 'auto' exposures.

The 400D doesn't do this for you so you have to help the camera, even on auto, by noticing what shutter speed and aperture the camera has selected for you. If the shutter speed is low, you may well get blurred pictures; if the aperture is too large and the subject too close, you make well get out of focus pictures. You also need to select the appropriate ISO to get the combination of shutter speed and aperture you need. Also, play around with the different metering modes so that you get the one that works for your shots. Keep at it - it'll come around. The 30D won't make it any easier. The good thing is that once you get it cracked (soon!) it will become more satisfying than a P&S.

Michael

A friend of mine who is new to photography owns a 350D and found it quite difficult to master at first. A point and shoot is not an SLR.

In your high contrast images, the 710 has blown the highlights in order to capture normal levels of midrange grey. You cannot recover highlights from a digital image. Most consumer cams like the 710 try to optimise the shots straight out of the camera because they assume the picture taker is an amateur and does not want to work with them on a computer.

However, your 400D has not blown any highlights, but as a result the shadows are a bit dark. Shadows are recoverable from digital files, so with a little work you will get a far better picture with a much greater dynamic range than the 710 could possibly produce.

If you want to set up your 400D like a digicam, up the exposure by a 1/3 or 2/3 (whatever seems to work best for you) and crank up the sharpening and contrast to your taste. The pictures will look better straight out of the camera, but their full potential will be lost.

Well, let's look at this one. So you bought your car and have to stop before driving up to hill to make adjustments-compensations, so you have to stop again at the top to make another adjustments-compensations in your car's enginge to drive down, etc. Howvere, one should expect that modern cars (other devices) should perform well in ordinary conditions on their own!?

ngc104 said:

Bambi Brown said:

I see a trend:

new to DSLR user
new to DPreview
kit lens
auto mode
not getting P&S behavior
blames camera
wants a fix from Canon

Click to expand...

Oh so right.
and why do they all have a 'friend with a 350D'?!

This bloke bought the wrong camera - obviously.
It's like buying a sports car and then complainig about the boot
space. Who the freck buys a sports car for the boot space.

Who the freck buys a 400D for the green square?! Is it just turning
up at the shop and buying the most features? There is great charm
and integrity in the fact that canon doesn't do neon picture
mode... having said that maybe they should (and if canon have to an
extent marketed the 400D at p&s'ers?...) - maybe if green square
was made into neon mode would it make then happy and not bother the
rest one iota since who else uses it apart from the people that
shouldn't have bought a dslr (and this forum would ease up a a
consequence too). Do I see a win win - although it does still grate.

Click to expand...

AC1 said:

Not quite sure what you mean by using landscape instead of potrait?

Click to expand...

The exif info states the camera was not in full Auto mode (green), but rather in Landscape (another of the basic zone modes).

If you are absolutely positive it was on the green square, something odd is going on. Cause the camera doesn't seem to believe it was.

As for the image itself, with a darker subject close to you and a bright sky behind, you'll most likely want to use some fill flash to brighten up the nearby subject. The only alternative is to force the camera to expose for the dark front subject, which would in turn blow the highlights of the sky.

You can pick which of the two you wish, but either way you have to move out of Auto to do it I'm afraid.

Tom Hoots said:

First of all, Sandman's message, a bit above this one, is an
excellent description of what's going on here. Yes, dagnabit,
there IS a difference between a DSLR and the tiny-sensored
point-and-shooters.

Click to expand...

Evidently, I cannot fit dSLR into my pocket.

Tom Hoots said:

I'm new to the 400D, and it is my first DSLR, but I've been around
DPreview for years, most recently with a couple of years or so with
the Canon Pro1. You betcha, I'm learning new things in this forum
every day.

As Sandman alludes to, a point-and-shooter is a much simpler
mechanism. There are far fewer variables,

Click to expand...

fewer? Not agreed, there are the same modes P, Tv, Av and even M! BTW they (p&s) work well, note! also green box works in ordinary conditions rather well.

or the variables are

Tom Hoots said:

much smaller ones

Click to expand...

no, the size in this point is not relevant

than you have to deal with in a DSLR. I also

Tom Hoots said:

expect that a point-and-shooter meters pretty much right in the
center

Click to expand...

??? The real difference is that with dSLR you can select the AF point and NOT TO RECOMPOSE. However, as you probably know, most report that only center AF is used and then recomposed. You may draw conclusions...

-- get the subject exposed brightly, and go ahead and blow

Tom Hoots said:

out all the highlights in the sky behind it.

It sure seems (as in the examples posted above) that an awful lot
of these "underexposures" have perfectly well-exposed skies behind
subjects that aren't as bright as people are expecting.

Click to expand...

Unfounded allegation, most of the cats without any sky in background are underexposed as well (on those who complain about underexposure).

The 400D

Tom Hoots said:

has a far more sophisticated metering system,

Click to expand...

sophisticated should be read as 'poor', so incapable to meeter as well as p&s?

and you're going to

Tom Hoots said:

have to learn how to use it. Yes, it's a wholesale change from the
metering in point-and-shooter-land, but that's something I'm trying
to learn as much as anyone else in here.

Click to expand...

Not a big change coming from G6, just a tiny step (after i realised that permanent +1/3 EV is needed). New bag is needed.

Tom Hoots said:

Mainly, though, it has become abundantly clear to me that this
forum has become very much a "newbie to DSLR" forum -- especially
with the 400D, and the demise of the "prosumer" point-and-shooters
like my old Pro1, we have whole bunches of people here who are
starting out with their first DSLR.

Click to expand...

Particulary for this kind of people just coming to dSLR market that camera should work perfectly at Auto mode. (To be honest I have never used Auto myself, in most cases Av and Tv, and rarely full M).

Tom Hoots said:

I just hope we can all get along a little better than we have been
lately -- the newbies need to relax a bit and learn what's going
on. The experienced folks have a wonderful opportunity to relay
their knowledge and experience to these new folks, rather than
mocking them

Click to expand...

good point!

-- though that will naturally come in response to

Tom Hoots said:

newbie "willing to learn" questions rather than newbie "this camera
sucks" messages.

So, I recommend that the newbies (such as myself) ask questions
with an open mind and a willingless to learn, and I think the
experienced folks will calm down and offer up some truly helpful
advice in response. The bottom line is that everyone WILL have to
learn a whole lot more "photography" than they've ever had to when
they pick up their first DSLR -- you're just not in "automatic
point-and-shooter-land" anymore!

Click to expand...

cheers

Tom Hoots said:

--
Tom Hoots
My PBase galleries:
http://www.pbase.com/thoots

Click to expand...

When one has bright sky and full shade like this then just putting it in auto is not enough.

If you look at the second and third pictures I think you'll find that the guy at the helm in the third is just as dark as the two people in the second. There isn't much any camera could do exposurewise in the second without washing out that lovely sky: what you could have done was use a slight fill-in flash. Without the fill-in I think the Canon did a good job. Here's a 1-minute photoshop result which I think looks better: adjustment layer/levels/drag midtone left to brighten the picture without ruining the sky, and brightness/contrast a tad brighter and a bit higher contrast:



I suspect the darkness in the first picture you posted is because of the 400D's noted paranoia about blowing out the highlights. This is probably an in-camera JPEG processing issue and not an exposure issue, if you had used RAW it probably would have been different. If this is the issue here I admit it's annoying as the small bright armband is the only area I can find where this would be the case, but again either levels or brightness/contrast helps:



The last picture of yours (not included here) one could possibly argue is a tad overexposed as details in the lady's clothes have been burned out and lost forever, but again coping with the lady in the sun, the sky and the guy helming in the shade is well done of the P&S.