Reading mode: Light Dark

To Canon; Exposure fix upgrade for the XTi, WHEN??

Go to last post
The camera exposes as it was designed to. If you find it too dark and aren't using the manufacturer-provided options to increase exposure, then it is user error, plain and simple.

--
Conglomoreum is dead! Long live Conglomoreum!
http://www.artistlies.com
 
valis said:
The camera exposes as it was designed to.
Click to expand...
Probably not. But If so, the design is flawed.
valis said:
If you find it too dark
and aren't using the manufacturer-provided options to increase
exposure, then it is user error, plain and simple.
Click to expand...
Hello? There are no manufacturer-provided options to increase
exposure in 7 out of the 12 positions of the mode dial.

JerryG
 
The setting is in my mind, and thats where I beleive they should be. It has 4 options:

1. Click. Shoot. Review. See a bad exposure. Quit. Come back and complain

2. Click. Shoot. Review. See a bad exposure. Adjust. Shoot again. Get a good picture

3. Click. Shoot. Review. See a bad exposure. Adjust. Shoot again. Get a good picture. Come back and complain

4. Look at the scene. Make use prior experience. Think. Adjust if needed. Click. Shoot. Review. Done. Come back and post such responses

There are always exceptions to these workflows, but treating them just as exceptions... irrespective of camera being used, I prefer to be with option 4 most of the time. IMO, it helps me better my skills each day. When needed, I dont mind being in the shoes of option 2 and 3. I have no excuse for option 1. If that was a usable option, I would rather not exercise it and move with either a different camera and experiment, or move away from photography altogether

These are just my views... nothing to do with OP or even being a direct response to anyone

--
PicPocket
 
PicPocket said:
If that was a usable
option, I would rather not exercise it and move with either a
different camera and experiment, or move away from photography
altogether

These are just my views... nothing to do with OP or even being a
direct response to anyone
Click to expand...
(excuse me for my bad english...)

You purchase a car, the first time you try to drive you realize that the gears do not work as you expected, and not in the usual (standard, traditional, classic....) way a car work. If you are in first the car go back, the second seems the fourth... and so on.
Maybe your reaction will be: OK, I will learn how this particular car works.

My reaction will be to take it immmediately to the seller, asking for a working car.
 
SkyTamer said:
I can't still believe such a "beta" type of issue in your hardware
has gone unresolved.
Shame on you.
Click to expand...
There's been more than enough threads here detailing how the 400D exposes and the pitfalls one can fall into that leads to what appears as faulty metering.

That doesn't mean no units are faulty. There will always be some, that's the reality of mass production. But a firmware update won't fix those. Nor will trolling.
 
Diego Cuoghi said:
PicPocket said:
If that was a usable
option, I would rather not exercise it and move with either a
different camera and experiment, or move away from photography
altogether

These are just my views... nothing to do with OP or even being a
direct response to anyone
Click to expand...
(excuse me for my bad english...)

You purchase a car, the first time you try to drive you realize
that the gears do not work as you expected, and not in the usual
(standard, traditional, classic....) way a car work. If you are in
first the car go back, the second seems the fourth... and so on.
Maybe your reaction will be: OK, I will learn how this particular
car works.
My reaction will be to take it immmediately to the seller, asking
for a working car.
Click to expand...
My only response to that is that a car isnt equitable with a camera. I didnt even read your whole argument, but I've seen it quite often in these forums. When I buy a brush for painting on a canvas, I dont apply the same rules as buying my toothbrush.

--
PicPocket
 
So Diego,

If you've never drove a 5 speed manual transmission, go buy a car with the 5 speed manual, the car must be broken, because you cant work it correctly... hummm, good thinking..

A DSLR is so much more that a point and shoot camera... You need to learn how to use the controls.

--
Canon Kiss X (400D / XTi)
Canon 50mm 1.8
Sigma 18-50
Sigma 55-200
BG-E3 Batery Grip
Fuji S9000
http://www.flickr.com/people/3md-studio-jp/
 
As someone with no axe to grind (I don't own a 400D), I do find these endless arguments on 400D exposure issues concerning.
Primarily, being selfish, because they fill the forum with boring repetition.

However having said that I can understand the position of OPs who think they should get high quality "correctly exposed"
photos using the kit lens without having to resort to exposure compensation etc.

There does seem to be a problem either with the 400D exposure programming or with the interaction of it with the kit lens that tends to result more often than not in underexposed photos. I do wonder if Canon took the comments on the 350D tending to clip slightly and decided to make sure the 400D did not suffer from this problem.

Whatever the truth is, there does seem to be a perceived problem which should be easily solved with a firmware upgrade. People might then have to set their exposure compensation down a bit to stop highlight clipping but I think more people would be happy with their initial experiences with the camera.
--
Brian .V
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lordv/
http://www.lordv.smugmug.com/
 
ddave328i said:
A DSLR is so much more that a point and shoot camera... You need to
learn how to use the controls.
Click to expand...
I use reflex cameras from 1978, only Canon: AE1, AE1P, EOS500, EOS300x, and now 400D. I have also a Canonet QL17 (old analog compact camera) and a Powershot G2.

I develop and print by myself black&white films (for a while also Cibachrome) and I know very well the meaning of "exposure" and the way the light metering and lenses have to work, also because I worked in a photographic studio for years.
ddave328i said:
--
Canon Kiss X (400D / XTi)
Canon 50mm 1.8
Sigma 18-50
Sigma 55-200
Click to expand...
I see that you have both EF 50mm and Sigma 18-50. Can you make a test?
Shoot the same scene in TV or AV, with 50 and Sigma 18-55 at 50 focal lenghth.

Following the rules of photography tou must obtain similar pictures because the two lenses will work at the same shutter/aperture. My 400D do not work this way, If I use 50mm the picture will be well exposed (not "beautiful", only exposed following the rules of light metering), if I use 18-55 kit lens the picture will be darker. Not because the kit lens is "less luminous" but because it gives a different shutter/aperture. This is against all the rules of photography.
 
I agree with you, my 400d exposes correctly, if it is a dull day and I wan't my picture to come out a little brighter I will increase the exposer to compensate, if it is a sunny day and I am worried about blown high light I will decrease it.......The 400a if a fantastic camera....bryon
 
PicPocket said:
The setting is in my mind, and thats where I beleive they should
be. It has 4 options:
Click to expand...
[cut]

I totally agree with you. However as it's been proved with tests under controlled conditions that some 400Ds/XTi (how many I cannot tell), including mine, behave differently in terms of exposure using different lenses, there clearly is a problem with a number of 400Ds/XTi sold.
For further reading about this, you may want to take a lok at this thread:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=21921546

There a post from Diego Cuoghi, pg0xd and myself with self explicative shots: histograms don't lie.

To sum up: at the end of the day, in this specific case, complaining is absolutely justified IMO.

Massimo

PS Some of us experiencing this problem wrote to Canon and, after talking to a one of their tech support guys, sent them their camera with a CD full of images and examples of this behaviour in order to have it checked and repaired. Personally, before taking any actions, I'm waiting for the results of these repairs.
 
You must not work in a technical environment.

I can guarantee that Canon tested the 400D more than you or anyone here ever has come close to. It does what it was designed to do. Sorry, I know you want to feel ripped off, but that's just the truth -- it does what it was designed, and tested, to do.

--
Conglomoreum is dead! Long live Conglomoreum!
http://www.artistlies.com
 
lord vetinari said:
I do
wonder if Canon took the comments on the 350D tending to clip
slightly and decided to make sure the 400D did not suffer from this
problem.
Click to expand...
This seems to be the general consensus. The 400D will sacrifice a bit more shadow detail to preserve highlights.

Having said that, getting it to clip isn't exactly a chore. It's not as if you shoot indoors you get a pitch black exposure cause the camera decided to preserve highlights in a partially visible window or a tiny ceiling light.
lord vetinari said:
Whatever the truth is, there does seem to be a perceived problem
which should be easily solved with a firmware upgrade. People might
then have to set their exposure compensation down a bit to stop
highlight clipping but I think more people would be happy with
their initial experiences with the camera.
Click to expand...
Possibly. But after overcoming the initial worry about the camera underexposing (caused, I might add, by threads such as this one), I don't think I'd much like it if mine exposed generally higher. Yes, for when I want as much of a right shifted histogram as possible it would help a bit for when I forget to set compensation accordingly. But for the directly-out-of-camera product, a generally higher exposure than what it produces now at 0EC would be overexposed compared to how the scene actually was as perceived by me.
 
valis said:
The camera exposes as it was designed to. If you find it too dark
and aren't using the manufacturer-provided options to increase
exposure, then it is user error, plain and simple.
Click to expand...
Ok. Try to explain this:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=21926369 (see entire pictures and particularly histograms to the right)
and this:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=21930132
(see entire pictures and particularly histograms to the right)
and this:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=21922369
and this:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=21936935
and this:

Was the camera designed to expose differently (up to 1 stop) using different lenses? I doubt it

Massimo
 
valis said:
You must not work in a technical environment.
Click to expand...
I do. I have a master's degree in electronics engineering and I worked for 10 years for major multinational IT companies.
valis said:
I can guarantee that Canon tested the 400D more than you or anyone
here ever has come close to.
Click to expand...
Do you work for Canon ;-) ? Anyway, they clearly tested it, but as I have quite an experience with companies producing sophisticated electronics, I do know, that sometimes (not always fortunately) Time To Market reasons may lead to sacrifice optimal quality assurance. And, by the way, no product is perfect and each and everyone has small or big flaws.

It may be design flaws (very serious problem), firmware flaws (usually can be easily corrected), component/quality assurance problems related to mass production (I've seen many cases where a particular product mounted slightly different inner components (boards, etc.) depending on when and whre it was produced - and in few cases a number of those components didn't comply perfectly with specifications, producing mulfunction)
valis said:
It does what it was designed to do.
Sorry, I know you want to feel ripped off, but that's just the
truth -- it does what it was designed, and tested, to do.
Click to expand...
I repeat once again. I really doubt this camera was designed to expose differently (up to 1 stop) using different lenses. And I'm not just talking about metering, I mean exposure in resulting images as seen by histograms.

I already gave you the link of another thread here where to find plenty of meaningful examples.

Massimo
 
valis said:
I bought an SLR to control my pictures, so I don't use the
automatic modes.
Click to expand...
Neither do I. Still I expect metering to be at least decently reliable and my wife to be able to take a decent picture using automatic modes.
valis said:
Plus, I have a 300D. So you may not find my input relevant.
Click to expand...
So, you say the 400d behaves as it was designed to and you don't even own or use one?

Ok, then....

Massimo
 
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