Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Canon 400D - Scared

As a Canon 20D owner, let me comment...
Though my comments are going to Parallel a few other people here.

For starters, it would appear that the pictures were recorded "accurately". However this does not mean you got the effect that you wanted. The human eye has a very large dynamic range, meaning it can see detail in both very bright and very dim lighting at the same time. Cameras can't do this. Some are better than others, but the reality is that you have to choose what you want. Now this comes out to create some very neat effects if you want!!

But let me offer some suggestions that may help. Auto metering sucks generally, but there are different types of metering. There is center point metering, which will only look at the center point and meter on that. There is also multi point metering, which will "try" and take values from several points, average them, and use that average to record the picture.
Or there is manual mode, where YOU choose what gets recorded by adjusting aperture/shutter speed/ISO.

Personally I only use center point metering and center point focusing because of what I generally shoot. But wow is me if I hand the camera off to someone without changing both of them back to multi!!!
Until you get the camera figured out, I'd choose a multi point metering.

P&S cameras to a ton of "auto" stuff to your pictures. It makes a trade off in aperture and shutter speed. If finds a middle value if it can. Often times P&S cameras will apply sharpening and even increase contrast just a tad. Thus if you were to do NO post processing, and use auto on both a P&S and a DSLR, the P&S would probably produce a better picture most of the times. However because a DSLR gives you exactly what it saw, you have far more power to adjust the picture the way YOU see fit, which is what professionals want. They don't want the camera to auto adjust their picture.

Here is an example of exposure. My eye could tell every expression on his face, and pick up more detail in the mountain. And in the water direcctly in front of him. However when shooting you have to choose which area gets the light.



Ian_ShadowedWithHood_Sepia_Framed_sm.jpg


I don't think I did a bad job ;-)


~Tyler
 
FWIW, the camera did a great job on that second image. The histogram is perfect--nothing blown out, detail remaining in the shadows.

In a scene like this, you need to make a choice what you want to expose for--the sky or the shadows. The camera looked at the whole scene and tried to expose for all of it.... it did a good job, but its not what you wanted.

Good news is, the image has all the data there (as specified by the histogram), so you can fix it in post. You could bump up the exposure to pull more detail out of the shadows, but you would lighten the sky up in the process. You could layer the image so you could retain detail in both. And if you shot this in RAW, you could do it with minimal degradation to the image.

Lesson learned here is... decide what you want to expose for, and learn how to read your meter. Because a DSLR doesn't have a live preview, you need to take a picture before you can see that you screwed it up (if you don't know what your meter is telling you), but when you were out with your P&S, you could see that something was too bright or too dark before you clicked the shutter.

Once you're more familiar with the camera, you'll look through the viewfinder at that scene, and you'll think "hmmm, my camera is trying to set my shutter speed at 1/2000 of a second... so its reading the sky and not the shadow" or "my camera is trying to set the shutter speed at 1/40 of a second... so its reading the shadows and not the sky." Your job is to figure out where the happy medium is. :)
 
The meter is working fine judging by the histogram.

Just accept it. You probably liked your PowerShot's photos more because it kept overexposing all the cloud, and you just didn't mind or notice that the cloud detail was gone. You thought you were getting a better photo, but I guess it depends on what you want to be clear in your photo.

I guess if you want photos that looked like the ones from your old camera, overexpose on purpose. Try Exposure Compensation on your camera or something.


harveypooka said:
Yes, the MP count did appeal to me as it is...well, more detail I guess. I did look at the Nikon D80 (or is the D70 - whichever is newer and can do 23 fps vs the 400D's 3fps!) but I couldn't justify £200 for more it I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

WOW, I WANT THIS MAGIC NIKON CAMERA.. LOLZERKAKES!!
 
harveypooka said:
Yes, the MP count did appeal to me as it is...well, more detail I guess. I did look at the Nikon D80 (or is the D70 - whichever is newer and can do 23 fps vs the 400D's 3fps!) but I couldn't justify £200 for more it I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

FYI, for others reading, the FPS for both cameras is the same at 3fps. I think the number you (or the c/p) got confused on there is that the Nikon can do 3fps for a maximum of 23 frames. For reference the Canon will shoot 3fps for 27 frames.

Cheers,
Tyler
 
Phil A. said:
That is one awesome photograph!
Click to expand...

Hehe... Thanks guys. I wasn't trying to jack the thread with my picture ;)
It just happens to be my most recent shot with a heavy sky/background to foreground contrast.

Very little post processing too. Obviously I stripped the color and added the brown (which looks yellow on this monitor, ugg...)

I also applied a little sharpening to the entire image, as well as bumped the levels a tiny bit.

Cheers,
Tyler
 
Ib Corell said:
Hello
I also have the same problem with my new 400D and my PowerPoint Pro 1 was also stolen, and I miss it. I can NOT get pictures as good as with my old Pro 1. I am using a Canon Zoom Lens EF-S 17 - 85 mm 1:4-5.6 IS USM lens.
My new 400D do not take as good picture as my old Pro 1, which I was very glad for. The pictures come out as VERY dark and often unclear. I am using the setting: "Full Autom." I regret buying the 400D, but I could not find a PowerPoint Pro1.
Regards
Ib
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you both fell for the current hype. A DSLR is not going to give better pictures just because it is a DSLR most people will get better pictures from a single lens camera then a SLR because the cameras are designed for simple easy use and produce good, or great, pictures in a wide verity of conditions.
With a DSLR you are expected to know about Expouse, Aperture, Speed and ISO settings and how to use them to get the wanted results, just like the 35mm film cameras.
We have a Nikon D70s and D200 we love them both, when going out to shoot nature, flowers, insects and large landscapes but for walking around and family shots our Canon G5 gives as good with a lot less hasel.
If you want to stay in Auto or sceen modes stay with a good P&S that has good manual controls that you can play with till you determine if it is worth the effort .
The flipside is if you want to spend the time to learn about all of the above and are willing to lug arout lenses and a tripod you will get shots that no single lens camera can get.
Your Choise. Good luck
Rich
 
The mistake a lot of people make is buying a semi expensive SLR and *expecting* better pictures.

Why?

Buying a sports car does not make you a better driver. Why should a better camera make you a better photographer?

An SLR used in full auto is a huge waste of a great piece of equipment. The great thing about digital SLRs is costs nothing to experiment. You can take 10 shots at different exposures and see instantly the effect it's having on your image.

Having said that, shooting into the light is one of the toughest challenges for any photographer - the first shot is about as good as you can expect without taking 2 exposures or a lot of PS work. I doubt very much that a compact would have done a much better job.

Basic rules to help you....

shoot RAW and learn how to process it properly. RAW gives you higher dynamic range than JPEG, and most camera automatically alter JPEGs for you, thus taking away artistic input.
Take the camera off of auto and play with it. No point having an SLR if you're not going to use it the way it was designed.
Practice! Take notes, and learn from your mistakes.
Above all, do not be scared of your camera. It's only a tool. A good photographer can take good pictures on *any* camera. It's not the tools...it's the artist that counts.
 
harveypooka said:
I did look at the Nikon D80 (or is the D70 - whichever is newer and can do 23 fps vs the 400D's 3fps!) but I couldn't justify £200 for more it I'm afraid.

Scared of a camera, eeee......
Click to expand...
No digital SLR-or even any film SLR-can do 23fps. only video/movie cameras can do that. You must have misread.
 
sohosid said:
shoot RAW and learn how to process it properly.
Click to expand...

Is RAW really worth it?

In other words, have you ever looked at a picture and said "good thing I shoot RAW cause if I had JPEG I wouldn't be able to have this image" ??

I thought about RAW many times but the ease of use JPEG's give: don't have to spend time in PP for EVERY image and the convenience of smaller files always seem to be worth it for me.
I guess I could shoot JPGEG + RAW, use the JPEG's and backup the RAW files, but even that seems like a waste of time to me.

So, while I would absolutely never recommend RAW to a beginner, what are the reasons you find RAW so convenient??
 
maxi said:
Is RAW really worth it?
Click to expand...


Yes.

An an average shot, with most photographers, in reality the images will be the same. In fact, JPEGs out of the camera often do look great. This is because the camera is ADDING sharpening, saturation and contrast to the image automatically.

Where RAW comes into it's own is with difficult lighting / exposures. Because JPEG records 8bit infomation, and RAW 12 bit, in effect you gain roughly 4 stops of dynamic range MORE with RAW. As I said, for the average shot, who cares....but those 4 stops make the difference between an ordinary and a stunning shot sometimes.

For me, it's not about convenience, although my RAW workflow using Adobe Lightroom is about as quick as shooting JPEG anyway. It's about quality.

You can do experiments all day to prove that JPEG is the same as RAW. You'll only really know when you've taken a shot that is blown out and you can't save it...then wish you had it as a RAW file.
 
sohosid said:
An SLR used in full auto is a huge waste of a great piece of equipment. The great thing about digital SLRs is costs nothing to experiment. You can take 10 shots at different exposures and see instantly the effect it's having on your image.
Click to expand...

Sorry, this really annoyed me. I do not expect a DSLR to suddenly jump me into the world of fantastic photography. I have taken some pictures that I love with my PowerShot A80 and the move to the DSLR was the obvious choice for me. I wanted a more versatile camera that I could experiment with. I do however also want to camera to be able to shoot in Full Auto - I will use it. I have a friend who has an entire range of lens and I'm hoping to borrow them from time to time.

I started this thread because I wasn't getting results that I expected. It turns out it could be a combination of the camera slightly underexposing and my lack of knowledge. It's things like this that help you understand how to use a camera and I'm grateful that people are out there to help.
 
harveypooka said:
Sorry, this really annoyed me.
Click to expand...

Which part? Suggesting that a DSLR is wasted in full auto?? Well, it is! Just like a sports car is wasted at 30mph iddling in top gear. Is it still a car? Yes. Does it still get you from A to B? Yes. Is it being used as it was designed? Nope. Is it wasted? You betcha.....

My post was intended to fire you up to experiment with your new toy. A DSLR used on full auto IS a waste. Whilst you're learning of course there are times when you just want to take a quick picture, so then you will use auto. By the time I'd made my contribution to this thread it seemed that most people had helped you realise that the camera may have been underexposing, so why not add some new flavor to the mix?

Mike
 
sohosid said:
Which part? Suggesting that a DSLR is wasted in full auto?? Well, it is! Just like a sports car is wasted at 30mph iddling in top gear. Is it still a car? Yes. Does it still get you from A to B? Yes. Is it being used as it was designed? Nope. Is it wasted? You betcha.....

My post was intended to fire you up to experiment with your new toy. A DSLR used on full auto IS a waste. Whilst you're learning of course there are times when you just want to take a quick picture, so then you will use auto. By the time I'd made my contribution to this thread it seemed that most people had helped you realise that the camera may have been underexposing, so why not add some new flavor to the mix?

Mike
Click to expand...

No, I understand your point. I just thought you were commenting that people buy these things expecting it to do the work with no real care or desire of how it works and what it could do. And I hadn't eaten then - so I probably responded a little harshly, apologies. :eek:

I'm going to head out on my bike tonight and take some slow shutter speed shots, the standard ones but I hope to get a feeling for the camera a bit better. I've been reading all day about shutter speeds, ISO's, f-stops, aperture size, area, types of lens and I know a bit more - more of a general idea vs "what the f*ck am I doing wrong".
 
harveypooka said:
No, I understand your point. I just thought you were commenting that people buy these things expecting it to do the work with no real care or desire of how it works and what it could do. And I hadn't eaten then - so I probably responded a little harshly, apologies. :eek:
Click to expand...



No apology needed. Tis the internet, and such misunderstandings are commonplace!

I was making that comment in general, not aimed at you. There are **some** people who do buy the expensive kit and expect results. The fact that you have taken care to try to find answers on a forum suggested that you are not one of those, and that you are interested in learning how to improve your skills. This is good! With digital you really can experiment to your hearts content and it only costs you time.

When I started learning I went through most of my wages in film and development costs trying to nail the basics!

Have fun with it, and if you need any help just ask!

Mike.
 
400d

Hello
Yes, I did read all the inputs and I can understand that I have purchased the wrong camera for my use.
I first had a Canon G5. Then I got a Canon PowerPoint Pro1 (I was very happy with that camera (always good picture)). Then my Pro1 was stolen and I got the 400D. With the 400D I can not get a good picture (maybe if I read lots of manuals and books and join a photo club). BUT with my previous cameras (incl. my new purchased IXUS 800) I always got good pictures when I set the dial to "AUTO" with or without flash. So my conclusion is: The 400D is not a camera for my use, I will be using the IXUS 800 in the future.
Thank you for all the advice (looking on the Internet, I see many others also has the same problem like me.
Ib
 
Ib Corell said:
Hello
Yes, I did read all the inputs and I can understand that I have purchased the wrong camera for my use.
I first had a Canon G5. Then I got a Canon PowerPoint Pro1 (I was very happy with that camera (always good picture)). Then my Pro1 was stolen and I got the 400D. With the 400D I can not get a good picture (maybe if I read lots of manuals and books and join a photo club). BUT with my previous cameras (incl. my new purchased IXUS 800) I always got good pictures when I set the dial to "AUTO" with or without flash. So my conclusion is: The 400D is not a camera for my use, I will be using the IXUS 800 in the future.
Thank you for all the advice (looking on the Internet, I see many others also has the same problem like me.
Ib
Click to expand...

Fair play mate, but why not have a play about? I'm sure in time and with a bit of experience we can both start making and creating some fantastic shots that'll be far better than our old P&S ones?
Having a P&S would be handy for nights out, I don't fancy lugging a 400D to the pub!
 
Instead of trying it in Fully Auto mode, why don't you use it in Aperture Preferred (AV) where you can still -point-n-shoot- but shift the aperture/shutter speed on the fly. It's still "auto" in a sense, because the camera's doing the work of figuring out the correct exposure based on whatever aperture you have set. It's easy to control the shutter speed and f stop, and really doesn't make you have to think much. It's kind of like driving an auto transmission car where you can limit some characteristic of it's behavior - it's still auto. In fact, it's all auto in some form unless you use Manual. When I shot Canon 35mm EOS, 90% of my time was in AV, which allowed me to operate the camera really quick.

As several other users have mentioned, get familiar with how your camera meters a scene, and try to see what differences it makes for center-weighted vs. matrix/evaluative metering. Also, observe the camera's shutter speed readout as in the old days you might have observed a metering needle - in this case at a given aperature. It will tell you plenty about the various ways you can meter a given scene, and you can start to know after a while how to lock exposure in difficult lighting (high contrast or backlighting) to get the "look" you prefer. It really is about having variables which begin to be part of your own built-in automation in your brain as you flex that part of your creativity. You'll soon be a pro at exposing for the part of a scene that you want. Or bracketing, if you're not sure and want to build in some margin. Whatever. Your new DSLR will be able to accomodate that. So many more tools, and the really cool thing is, you don't have to waste a lot of film trying them all out. Digital's great in that sense. It's like free film. ;)

I use a Canon a95 P/S, and it does a credible job on static scenes, has great color and sharpness, nice little macro setting, and allows me to shoot AV, and it's small. But, it doesn't respond quickly at all, compared to my D50. So, they both have their purposes. The D50 makes me work harder to get pictures that would seem to justify its purpose when compared with the a95. But once in that zone, there ain't no comparison. Not to mention the many lenses, etc.

So, in conclusion (whew!!) keep shooting. Your 400D can take some fantastic pictures if you spend some time unlocking its secrets and pushing into new ways of shooting (info at your eyepoint, go with the info-in-viewfinder concept, instant response, parameter shifting on the fly, no holding the camera out at arms length to take snapshots, etc...) With a DSLR, it's closer to the way it was shooting with film SLRs (other than the limits on dynamic range.) No short videos, no live-preview, no overprocessed oversaturated overcompressed jpegs designed for compatibe inkjets. If you jump in, stir the gears a bit, and hit the throttle... it'll reward you.
 
pdxflint has some excellent points. I will sound like an old guy when I say this but in the old days you had to shoot a lot of film and wait for the results if you were shooting slide film. That is what digital is most similar to in the film world as far as range goes. So shoot away and shoot a lot. It is free and quick to see and learn from the results. I would recommend shooting the same scene with different metering techniques and compare the meta data to see what does what compared to what. Manual is always the best way to go but you can learn from other ways and they have their place. At my first news job I shot with a meter-less Nikon F2 (old) with nothing but 400 speed bw film so I would have to learn light and how it worked without relying on the camera. So shoot compare shoot some more and when you think you have something figured out then try something new and different. Above all don't repeat don't get discouraged. All good photographers were just learning at some point. :D
 
I can't speak to the 400D specifically or even Canon cameras in general. I have, however, been involved in photography for some 30 yrs as an amateur.

I think you've received some excellent advice from folks. For what it's worth, I think you're going down a path which will be both fun and educational:

1. You'll find that P&S cameras (at default settings) tend to amp-up certain characteristics to make their pictures punchy - they tend to be oversaturated, oversharpened, etc. I know it's a generalization and doesn't apply to every P&S, but there's a tendancy towards this direction. To a certain degree, you may need to either A) "adapt" to what may be a more natural look or B) change the 400D's settings to retain this look if that's what you prefer (or to another preference you may have).

2. I'm sure you can set-up the 400D with certain curves, tone, sharpness, etc. adjustments such that it will output P&S-like jpgs. It'll probably take some trial & error, but you can mimic these settings (and that's the beauty of digital - easy/cheap experiementation). It's no different than film - you can pick different types of film to achieve certain characteristics (albeit you can also do some of this in post, as well). I'm pretty sure you can achieve the same "look" if you so desire. I think the folks on this board are indicating that - the more you use the 400D - you'll find the ability to have the camera accomodate your preferences to be more powerful than having to accomodate the camera's settings.

3. I can't comment about prevalent underexposure issues with the 400D; however, you can adjust it (albeit crudely) via a fixed EV adjustment, curves (somewhat), etc. There are different schools of thought re: exposure - don't blow highlights as you can't recover them (so underexpose a little bit) or just clip the highlights (to avoid noise in the underexposed areas). Of course, the ideal is to nail the exposure spot-on; however (esp in the case of your two pictures), you're probably going to have to make compromises simply because the dynamic range of the scene exceeds the dynamic range of current sensors (isn't the eye amazing - perfect/auto WB, unbelievable dynamic range...). Different situations will call for different approaches - as noted by others, you'll have to expose for what's important to you/the scene.

4. Part of the fun is having this control - over time you may come to override the camera's suggestions. Or, you may find a set of "fixed settings" that are perfect for your preferences.

In the end, though, your 400D gives you the capability to continually experiement, make shot-by-shot decisions, or find some type of profile that fits your desires. You'll probably need to do some experimentation, but - in the end - I think you have the potential of either: A) having more control or B) developing some type of in-camera profile that will meet your desires.

Edited to add: Please understand that I'm not denigrating P&S cameras in any fashion - I use one regularly in certain situations and DSLRs in others. And I've seen some absolutely amazing photos from truly accomplished photographers with simple P&S cameras.

Good luck,
Frank
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back