400D (XTi) Underexposure - Is the issue over? Serial Numbers?

Hi,

I have been following the endless threads on the -alleged- 400D (XTi) underexposure for a long time and I want to know if there's evidence that the newer batches of 400Ds behave, on average, better. If so, is there a consensus on what serial numbers are "safe"? (and, yeah, I know that there are naysers who deny the existence of this problem altogether - there are better threads for you elsewhere).

Anyway, I ask because a friend of mine asked me for a dSLR recommendation and I gave him a list (both Canon and Nikon). He picked the 400D from that list.

Now, my follow-up advice for him is to watch out for this potential underexposure issue when he heads down to B&H to buy the camera (a gift for his wife).

I saw a good advice from thw to hold a 30D and 400D side-by-side at the store and check their metering is similar. I'll pass this advice on, but I can see potential pitfalls...

As such, I was wondering if there's any good evidence that the newer 400Ds are less likely to underexposure? Is there a thread somewhere with list of serial numbers that seem "good"? I searched with several combinations of relevant keywords here and on google but came up empty.

Thanks for any advice! I want to provide well informed advice to maximize the probability of a happy experience!

-Alex

I think it's unlikely that your mate will get a 400d that UX's but I suppose it's always possible.

Recommend the Nikon D80 just so to keep your friendship alive

I've seen a few people share their serial #'s but have no record of any type of list. My 400 was bought late Dec '06 and had UX. Sent to Canon, came back working great. My s/n is: 062037180X

--
Gary H

Gary Hunt said:

I think it's unlikely that your mate will get a 400d that UX's but I
suppose it's always possible.

Recommend the Nikon D80 just so to keep your friendship alive

Click to expand...

LOL - I did! But he still picked the 400D (probably a price thing).

I myself still going strong on my oldie but goodie (Canon 300D). Even though it just went through its midlife crisis (10,000 clicks-> AF 2o mirror goes "bump"-> Mack Warehouse-> 1.5 months-> Back in action!) and I sometimes envy the xxx/sec burst , speedy review, huge LCDs, etc, I always remind myself the new cameras are not the real bottleneck for my improvement as a photographer (besides wallet issues)... Actually, I take that back -> the one thing that does hold me back sometimes is AF accuracy/speed, but I don't know if the improvements in this area with 400D and 40D are commensurate with the cost of replacing the camera (or camera + lens).

Anyway, thanks for your input.

-Alex

hopkinsg said:

I've seen a few people share their serial #'s but have no record of

Click to expand...

Yeah, I could have sworn I had seen an attempt to compile a list here. But I can't find the thread (if ever there was one).

hopkinsg said:

any type of list. My 400 was bought late Dec '06 and had UX. Sent to
Canon, came back working great. My s/n is: 062037180X

Click to expand...

Thanks for the input. Out of curiosity, can you specify geographic location of your "sent to Canon" (and turnaround time). There are some horror stories ("they don't know how to fix it"; "I've sent it back 10 times and it always came back the same way!").

Thanks!

My 400 has not UXed but now fitted with the 50mm ƒ1.4 I am having to dial in some minus compensation. Then again I have never seriously used the kit lens but bought it with the body.

Yeah, there's a gazillion theories - including the use of Kit lens - but I also saw plenty of reports of UX with other lenses.

For what's worth, the Viewfinder theory (light leak), seems pretty compelling.

Anyway, the real question here is: around what time did you buy yours? Where in the world? Serial number?

That would be really helpful!

Thanks for input.
-Alex

I bought mine from amazon.co.uk last month and while I havent done scientific tests, I dont feel like its under exposing.

In the UK ...... Cardiff.......... 12 months ago to the week. 0430169XXX. Please do not underestimate the value of designed under exposure to preserve blown highlight. That said I normally had to +1/3 to get images the way I want them with the 17-55 IS as I do with the 70-300. From this you will say it WAS UXing, I'll explain. Set at zero they are no problem the +1/3 is a personal thing which saves me time in Lightroom , thats all. Anyone coming to a D-SLR from a compact will say that their 400 is UXing, this is because compacts are designed for eyecandy and direct printing. SLRs should be able to produce the same eyecandy if you set the exposure parameters to create that effect. I usually shoot.jpg and there is less latitude for adjustment when compared to raw files. Anyone who shoots raw will post capture process an image anyway. We can adjust exposure, sharpness, and more besides with software, but if the contrast, sharpness, and highlights are over done in camera it is near impossible to get it back with software, and is why caution is observed with in camera settings.

I purchased my 400D on January 13th, 2007 - serial # 0720324821. And yes, I have had UX problems with it using my 10-22 lens, (which is about the only lens I use).

--
Greg

Sure! I sent my Camera next day air to Canon service in New Jersey, US. They rec'd it Friday, checked the camera in on the following Tuesday, and I had the camera sent back to me overnight and had it on Friday. So I was w/out a camera for a total of 7 days. Came back working great. I've had no further issues since.

delenca said:

hopkinsg said:

I've seen a few people share their serial #'s but have no record of

Click to expand...

Yeah, I could have sworn I had seen an attempt to compile a list
here. But I can't find the thread (if ever there was one).

delenca said:

any type of list. My 400 was bought late Dec '06 and had UX. Sent to
Canon, came back working great. My s/n is: 062037180X

Click to expand...

Thanks for the input. Out of curiosity, can you specify geographic
location of your "sent to Canon" (and turnaround time). There are
some horror stories ("they don't know how to fix it"; "I've sent it
back 10 times and it always came back the same way!").

Thanks!

Click to expand...

--
Gary H
http://www.pbase.com/hopkinsg

PS, Mine was bought at a local Best Buy store in Minnesota, US.

--
Gary H
http://www.pbase.com/hopkinsg

Hi Gary,

Thanks! Wow, that is surprisingly speedy service. Furthermore, my friend lives in New Jersey so that is triply good news. Out of curiousity, did they pay for the shipping charges (next day sounds expensive!)?

Anyway, thanks for all the info.
-Alex

hopkinsg said:

delenca said:

hopkinsg said:

I've seen a few people share their serial #'s but have no record of

Click to expand...

Yeah, I could have sworn I had seen an attempt to compile a list
here. But I can't find the thread (if ever there was one).

hopkinsg said:

any type of list. My 400 was bought late Dec '06 and had UX. Sent to
Canon, came back working great. My s/n is: 062037180X

Click to expand...

Thanks for the input. Out of curiosity, can you specify geographic
location of your "sent to Canon" (and turnaround time). There are
some horror stories ("they don't know how to fix it"; "I've sent it
back 10 times and it always came back the same way!").

Thanks!

Click to expand...

--
Gary H
http://www.pbase.com/hopkinsg

Click to expand...

delenca said:

,,, I want to know if there's evidence
that the newer batches of 400Ds behave, on average, better.

Click to expand...

Like others have said, I've not seen any.

delenca said:

I saw a good advice from thw to hold a 30D and 400D side-by-side at
the store and check their metering is similar. I'll pass this advice
on, but I can see potential pitfalls...

Click to expand...

Looking for only 1/3 EV or so difference, I'd say that's a non-conclusive test to perform with a hand-held camera in a bustling store. Don't bother.

Based on experience with my own Xti, a (non-scientific) scan of the EXIF data for PBase Xti photos, and the consensus of some 84 responders to the photozone survey, http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/dslroutput.jsp , I'd caution your friend that he will likely have to add +1/3 ev compensation as a permanent bias. Having said that, it's no big deal, and the Xti is a very nice "little" --as in that's a virtue -- camera.

--
JerryG

See my galleries at:
http://www.pbase.com/jerryg1

Alex, Canon did cover the cost of shipping the camera back to me, but not the cost of me shipping it to them. I was honestly VERY surprised to see that they sent the camera back next day air. I don't know if this is common protocol, or maybe it had to due with the fact that I sent it to them next day air. I was not expecting that, but was very happy when I found out that they did.

Gary H

frameman said:

In the UK ...... Cardiff.......... 12 months ago to the week.
0430169XXX. Please do not underestimate the value of designed under
exposure to preserve blown highlight. That said I normally had to
+1/3 to get images the way I want them with the 17-55 IS as I do with
the 70-300. From this you will say it WAS UXing, I'll explain. Set at
zero they are no problem the +1/3 is a personal thing which saves me
time in Lightroom , thats all. Anyone coming to a D-SLR from a
compact will say that their 400 is UXing, this is because compacts
are designed for eyecandy and direct printing.

Click to expand...

Ok. Sure, I agree to a certain extent - but a lot of reports have come from people who have owned dSLRs. On that, neysayers will argue that the 350D had a tendency to blow highlights, but a lot of the examples I have seen in these threads simply show the 400D with a significant UX, which...

frameman said:

create that effect. I usually shoot.jpg and there is less latitude
for adjustment when compared to raw files. Anyone who shoots raw will

Click to expand...

..., as you say, is indeed a pain if you shoot jpgs, as I expect my friend's wife to do (initially at least).

Anyway, thanks for the info. From the answers in this thread it seems that most UX 400D cameras are from ones purchased a while ago. None of the recent purchases have shown underexposure (so far), although I don't have a good handle on serial numbers yet (for the "good" ones).

Thanks!
-Alex

I just got my XTI yesterday and I couldn't be happier with it. I see no exposure issues at all.

Great, thanks! Do you happen to have the first few digits of the serial number? Thansk!
Alex

162111

sdk8505 said:

162111

Click to expand...

??? do you mean that is your camera serial number ?? if so, that is just impossible or you must have one just from after the release date :-D

Mine is 0830xxxxxx bought in March .. and one I handled and compared my 400D to and which was bougt last August had a nmbr 0120xxxxxxx (and it was apparently exposing correctly or as expected ..
so ????
--
if needed, email me at : [email protected]
Horum Omnium Fortissimi Sunt Belgae !
(CanFT-QL)Can400DSonH5CanA520-M3358-DH1758