Reading mode: Light Dark

DCresource 400D Samples

Go to last post
Are those XTi example photos on pbase post processed? If so, then the DCR photos are a more accurate sample to judge the camera by.
 
Steven Alan106714 said:
The shots with the premium lenses are OK.. they look different to
the 350D though, softer with less textural detail, espcially
foliage. Some of the pics from the kit lens are shocking.
Click to expand...
Do note that the dcresouce page indicates the 18-55 lens used is NOT the XTi's kit lens. My guess is it's Jeff's EOS 20D kit lens (rev. 1).

Also, I don't see any 350D vs 400D images that are directly comparable (same shot with same lens) in the galleries, but it seems to me that the 400D has a slight edge overall with regard to resolution, which shouldn't be surprising.
 
What do we think?

Well, I think the shots taken with the 50mm F1.4 lens are excellent and reveal the resolution difference you'd expect over the 350D/XT (theoretically 12.5%). For example:

Download the full-size image of the 5th photo from the top (theater marquee). Either view it at 100% or print it large (or a cropped section-- say an 8.5 x11 inch section of a 13x19 image).

The Sigma lens shots are pretty good also. Only the 18-55 F3.5-5.6 shots are only fair, but not bad. I checked the EXIF data. While Jeff says it's not the kit lens that ships with the 400D/XTi, I believe it is merely an earlier version of that lens.

BTW, you say the 400D/XTi looks "softer with less textural detail, especially foliage."

But I think that to judge fairly you should make same size prints of each and then compare. You could also resize the 350D XT image to the 400D XTi’s size and compare, although this may involve some slight degradation due to the resizing process. Any remaining unexpected differences are probably related to different default sharpening and/or picture style issues.

LR
 
I start looking at the soft ISO 1600 church picture. I noticed it was shot at 1/8 secs at f/3.5 with the kit lens. And the bottom text reports that it was shot handheld.

The photographer has an outstanding stability, though, and seems not very addict to coffee :-)
 
The atmosphere does seem to make the picture feel very "churchly". I don't know if you can find this word in the dictionary. But I really do like the atmosphere captured by the camera. Is hard to duplicate such atmosphere from other camera.

Picture does look a bit soft on focus, but you were right, not many people could hold their hand so steady at 1/8 sec.
Ciriaco Garcia said:
I start looking at the soft ISO 1600 church picture. I noticed it
was shot at 1/8 secs at f/3.5 with the kit lens. And the bottom
text reports that it was shot handheld.

The photographer has an outstanding stability, though, and seems
not very addict to coffee :-)
Click to expand...
 
You must be leading a tepid life to find these images shocking. I find your post to be earth moving.

Jeff
 
Looking throught the samples there are some not very sharp ones from the kit lens. But some of them really showed the potential of this camera.

Look at the last sample of the buildings. Fine lines and details are there in abundance and sharpening is free from haloes and artifacts. Overall looks very good for an entry level eos DSLR.

--

 
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