More 400D grief

Bambi Brown said:

"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.

Click to expand...

Nice try except that's not what the OP has said. He has said, in effect, how come my XTi won't give me similar exposures to my P&S when in the Auto mode?

That's a legitimate question. Now, we can try to help or we can slam him. I choose to try to help.

Michael

In your two examples, I think the XTi did a reasonable job of exposure. It is a circumstance of a bright background with your subject shaded. This is know as backlighting and will fool your P&S, as well.

As pointed out by another post, the reason your shot from the P&S doesn't appear as underexposed to you is because your main subject is in direct sunlight, whereas in the other shots, the subjects are in the shade.

In this case, it's not so much the XTi underexposing as much as the lighting conditions being tricky. Again, using +EC will allow you to expose the way you prefer or, as pointed out, these can be easily corrected in your photo editing software.

Michael

Over Christmas I handed my 350D to my 4 year old daughter, rapidly spinning the wheel to the green square as I did so.

She may be intelligent, but I was able to explain about half-pressing and waiting for the focus lock before full pressing (she often doesn't listen to a word I say, but this time I got through!).

Of the five shots she took, one was completely mis-framed, but the other four were quite acceptable - slightly skew but none-the-less in focus, correctly exposed, no shake etc.. This was indoors with the 50/1.8, but auto popped the internal flash, of course.

My point is that the green square should work - it does on my 350D, and can be used by anyone.
It is difficult to defend a camera that does not do likewise IMO.

I would add that this was the very first time my daughter had picked up my camera.

AC1 wrote:
expect

AC1 said:

the Auto option to do what it says i.e. take competent pics with
minimal fuss.

Click to expand...

Can you please remind me where it says this? I was sure that the manual says that the basic modes on the 400D allow the user to let the camera bias the choice of aperture and shutter speed in program mode to those that are likely to work best for particular subject types e.g small apertures for landscapes. This is all they do (apart from maybe changing the picture style to give greener trees or rosier cheeks) and that's why Canon SLRs have had the same set of basic modes since the EOS600.

This is all achieved by biasing the basic programmed exposure one way or another. Nowhere does it say that these modes will completely change the evaluative metering behaviour of the camera. Frankly if it metered differently in the basic modes I think even more people would complain.

Canon must be laughing their socks off. Not only are they selling the 400D by the bucketload to people moving from P&S cameras, but people in this forum are actually suggesting that they immediately trade up to a proper prosumer camera like the 30D.

Someone once refered to this forum being like a knitting circle.

Circle of confusion is more like it.

Steve

Why have anything else.

Auto Mode is the camera's attempt at compromise for a simple exposure.

No too far.
Not too close.
Not moving.
No back light.
Not too dark.
Not too light.

Just plain.

Your say your indoor pictures were fine but the OPs pictures were outdoor pictures with a bright blue sky and people in the shade. In my previous reply (drowned in an argument part of this thread I noted:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=21593403

The tiniest Photoshop adjustments to those pictures made them quite acceptable, however if "auto" simply had increased exposure it would have have started to blow out the sky which gives these pictures a lot of their atmosphere.

If you look at the original pictures by the OP:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=21591823

you'll see that the guy helming in the shade in the last P&S shot is just as dark (on my laptop monitor) as the two people in the shade in the middle 400D picture (maybe the guy to the right is darker). So if you don't complain about the P&S shot (which has some blown highlights) then you shouldn't complain about the 400D picture in the middle. The top one is debatable though (as discussed in my other reply)

Dang, every now and then the software here kills my subject line....

But, you're not getting my point here.

Think in terms especially of the Digital ELPH series. Especially at the lower end, these cameras have a very rudimentary aperture system, with perhaps only a couple of true aperture settings, which you have very little control over. Their metering systems are also very simple, and very much inclined to ignore the "whole" image in favor of just the subject, therefore often leading to blown-out skies in the background.

I'm not talking about "shooting modes" you can choose from, but rather things like the much-more-sophisticated metering system in the 400D, the far more extensive and graduated reality of what you get with different aperture settings in a DSLR compared to a tiny-sensored point-and-shooter, and so on --- many of the things Sandman mentioned above.

Yes, the higher-end point-and-shooters give you more manual control than the cheaper models, but they still (at least those from Canon) "meter for the subject" without much care about highlights, and they still deal with the very compressed focal range that is inherent with tiny sensors. Again, read through Sandman's post above, in regards to things like the focus range and aperture settings -- there is simply a far wider range of variables that a DSLR in automatic mode must weigh in order to compose the shot, compared to a point-and-shooter.

In the end, it is indeed this wider range of variables that a DSLR offers that gives a photographer the choices he or she can make to truly practice "photography" -- instead of letting the camera just "take snapshots," and perhaps not produce the results you might want if you were to choose your parameters yourself.

Again, that's what I'm talking about, and Sandman explained this far better than I can, so please go through his message above to truly put what I'm trying to say in perspective. It's really just a simple matter that the DSLR has a much wider gamut of information to wade through, and the physics involved make changes in settings far more significant than the world a tiny-sensored point-and-shoot camera deals with. Therefore, it's a whole lot easier for a DSLR to make choices you might not have made if you had chosen them yourself, and those choices will make a much bigger impact upon your ultimate image than they would in the compressed focal range of a point-and-shooter camera.
--
Tom Hoots
My PBase galleries:
http://www.pbase.com/thoots

Shot at 17mm with 17-55 w/uv filter, auto: landscape mode, downloaded from camera, resized in PSE, slightly sharpened, saved, uploaded to internet. No brightness/contrast/levels/curves/saturation adjustments of any kind were done. That's the exposure straight from the camera.

Here's some more, all shot at +0.0 exposure compensation:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=21591576

magicmikey said:

That looks great. Is that shot straight out of the camera or post
processed? If it's post processed, all it proves is that the shots
can be adjusted. If not, you're XTi does a lot better in those
circumstances than mine. I can assure you my XTi would not expose
properly in the Auto mode in that situation and would need post
processing. (I, personally, would use manual mode in that situation
anyway but that's not the point of this thread.)

Michael

Click to expand...

AC1 said:

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?

Click to expand...

I think you're really confused. It's amazing that post after post in here the 400D is being blamed by users who don't even know how to operate the camera and don't understand it. The two 400D shots you posted have EXIF info that clearly show they were taken with your 400D in landscape mode. If your 400d had been on the green square, the EXIF exposure program would indicate just: auto.

Those shots are classic outdoor, backlit portrait shots. One of them with the subjects clearly in the shade. If you're going to try and use auto mode, at least use a mode that is optimized for portraits if that's what you're taking. The different auto modes are explained in your camera's manual. You should try reading it.

I couldn't agree with you more. I was trying to make the same point in another post. I used a Canon A-1 for years and most of my pictures were taken in auto and turned out great. Like you, I eventually want to learn more about taking pictures in M mode, but until then, I should be able to use auto and get a decent picture. I'm still trying to decide which camera I want, and like your partner, I have small hands so I'm worried that the D30 will be too heavy for me.

Laurie

magicmikey said:

Bambi Brown said:

"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.

Click to expand...

Nice try except that's not what the OP has said. He has said, in
effect, how come my XTi won't give me similar exposures to my P&S
when in the Auto mode?

That's a legitimate question. Now, we can try to help or we can
slam him. I choose to try to help.

Click to expand...

Shall we be honest here? The OP said/did more than just pose a question and ask for help. The subject was "more 400D grief" and the OP went through a lengthy intro claiming the 400d defective in auto mode and summarizes with the conclusion that the 400D is not performing as it should. All that before we get to a question, and the question really was not "how can you help me" but was really "should Canon fix my camera or should I upgrade to a 30D" I don't see any evidence that the OP was asking for assistance on how to take better photos with his 400D.

It's the typical pattern I identified early on in this thread:

new to DSLR user
new to DPreview
kit lens
auto mode
not getting P&S behavior
friend with some non-400D camera that's fine
blames 400D
wants a fix from Canon

Notice that what's missing is any recognition that the user might need to actually learn something: like how to use the camera or perhaps read the manual.

How can we help someone who posts something like that without posting pictures and then when he finally does post two samples, he's confused about what mode they were shot in. He thinks they were shot in auto, but the EXIF clearly shows landscape mode and that mode was used for classic backlit, shaded subject portrait shots. Those kind of shots are even discussed in the camera manual.

This forum has seen months of this nonsense. It all seems rather suspicious to me.

LaurieZ said:

I should be able to use auto and get a decent picture.

Click to expand...

Then please don't use landscape mode for backlit, shaded subject portrait shots.

must be nikonians
--
TD

Bambi Brown said:

This forum has seen months of this nonsense. It all seems rather
suspicious to me.

Click to expand...

And they seem to flood DPReview.

People often accuse Phil of being bias.

I now accuse those Canon 400D detractors of conspiring to bring about the downfall of the most popular DSLR ever sold. He, he...

Indeed, as I was looking at some photo magazine today (Amateur Photography), the reviewer suggested to a user to purchase the D200 instead of the 30D 'cos the former has more megapixels.

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

In my googling quest for The Ultimate Truth (google "raw tone curve") I came over this one which says "Custom Curves got a lot of attention with the release of the Nikon D100, a camera which many users felt had a tendency to give images which appear to be under-exposed ":

http://www.planetneil.com/nikon/custom-curves.html

It appears that the author has a clue about what he's saying, of course the tone curve solution is not applicable to the 400D, but the part which is relevant is the following:

"exposure compensation

Initially with the D100 I tried +0.7 compensation, but found that highlights burnt out - a bad thing especially in wedding photography. I later felt that +0.3 exposure compensation was closer to what I wanted.

The other downfall to having the exposure compensation permanently dialled in, is that you end up ignoring the warning flag, and may inadvertently forget having set the exposure compensation to something different than the required +0.3 or +0.7 off-set. "

So, it appears that one can choose:

• +EV compensation, risking burnt-out highlights (like the sky in the OPs photos, and the wedding dress for this article's author
• Advanced metring, with the same caveat as before
• Post-processing like I did
• Camera techniques like fill-in flash

The general reply to such an opinion in these forums is "Get a P&S".
This makes no sense to me.
A DSLR on auto ought to be at least as good as a P&S, but quite often isn't.

The Canon and Nikon kit lenses are a joke IMHO, misleading the new purchasers about the cost of a true DSLR one zoom lens quality system.

BTW I shoot on auto for casual shots and adjust from there as desired, so experience makes P mode quite usable. The blurred shot problem on Canon DSLRs is significant, even if you upgrade bodies. I'd prefer dealing with that than the noise issues on Nikon bodies at any ISO.

--len

It's ridiculous that a zoom lens does not give you a warning in the viewfinder if you have IS off.
Maybe Apple should start designing cameras.

--len

When the IS is off, at least on a telephoto zoom, it is pretty obvious that it's off. I can not only see it through the viewfinder, but hear it running as well.

UnderWater said:

It's ridiculous that a zoom lens does not give you a warning in the
viewfinder if you have IS off.
Maybe Apple should start designing cameras.

--len

Click to expand...

--
Steve
Digital Rebel
50 f/1.8 Prime
60 f/2.8 Macro
18-55 Kit Lens
70-300 IS Lens
24-135 Tamron Lens
Sigma EF-500 DG ST Flash

LaurieZ said:

I couldn't agree with you more. I was trying to make the same
point in another post. I used a Canon A-1 for years and most of my
pictures were taken in auto and turned out great. Like you, I
eventually want to learn more about taking pictures in M mode, but
until then, I should be able to use auto and get a decent picture.
I'm still trying to decide which camera I want, and like your
partner, I have small hands so I'm worried that the D30 will be too
heavy for me.

Laurie

Click to expand...

Unless you did your own developing and printing you don't really know whether you got the exposure right or not, film is good for about 11 stops compared to just over 8 for DSLR jpeg so you could underexpose by a stop or even two and if the lab corrects it for you when they make the prints you would never notice, now whatever software you have on your computer is the lab, plus you dont have as much room for error, you do however have instant feedback and the ability to change film speed from picture to picture which helps to make up for it

I think there have been the odd 400 with exposure problems, its hardly suprising given the number sold but a lot of the problems are down to misunderstanding and over high expectations, I would suspect that if you had been using film for years you would never have expected a perfect picture of someone sat in shadows with a bright sky behind them, the first thing hammered into me when i bought my film slr many years ago was keep the sun at your back ;-)

The 400D does take a good picture most of the time, I have even given my 350 to my father to play with as I simply do not use it anymore, have a look round there's plenty of examples of people getting good pics first time out, those threads don't generate as much discussion though!

Anyway, to summarise the situation as I understand it so far:

1. For decent pics in P&S mode I bought the 710IS, notably for use when on my boat. Very happy with results. Primarily used in Auto but yes I have experimented with mauanl modes and successfully snapped a full moon over the ocean with reflections on the aves, using approx 4s shutter time etc. So I do have some appetite for moving outside Auto mode!

2. For exploring world beyond Auto I bought 400D. I fully understand that it wikll take me a long time to fully understand this machine and get the best out of it. But in the meantime I kind of expected that there would be some 'over-lap' in performance between the 710 and the 400 i.e. as the 710 leaves off and the 400D gets going, they would probably perform very similarly around the world of Auto setting.

3. To a beginner like me that seems a reasonable expectation. The cameras look and feel very simliar in operation, the control dial even has largely the same options on the two cameras and whilst I haven't yet read every page of every manaul the expectations around Auto seem similar. Hence my confusion when two cameras produced such different results (I do have better pics that offer a direct comparison but now I'm back at work don't have them to hand).

4. It's not clear whether my particular 400D is slightly different/defective to what a 'normal' 400D should be in respect of exposure. But it is clear that from the outset (including in Auto), for some reason a DSLR requires more care and attention. I should add that advice I recive on this point is divided. Some people have said that yes, Auto on the 400D can never give you the same ease of use as a P&S like the 710. But others have supported my (niaive?) expectation that Auto can be regarded as a 'safe' zone and that yes the 400D should give the same type of performance as the 710.

5. Either way, if the DSLR is going to require that much more care and attention to 'get it right' then it seems logical to have a camera that will give you the best possible results when you do finally 'get it right'. And it seems that the 30D would offer greater potential than the 400D.

Or put another way, to make an omlette you have to break an egg! In which case, I might as well bite the bullet and go the whole hog by swapping for the 30D (without breaking the bank).

And for those of you STILL suspicious, for the final time, this is not some kind of elaborate set-up. I'm a genuine user trying to get help. If you ever find yourself in NZ/Auckland then feel free to drop me a line and I'll happily meet you for a beer and show you the setup.

And to those of you who have been particlualry suspiscious/critical/harsh/abusive, you can rest assured that if you ever joined a sailing forum as a newcomer to the sport, you would be certain to receive a much warmer welcome than I've received here.