Well i got my 400D - i'm so upset !!!!

Eseffpe

Eseffpe

Suspended / Banned
Messages
53
Edit My Images
No
***blows some SERIOUS steam!!***

I got the 400d with the 18-55 kit lens...its perfect for portraiture and close up...but will it take a decent in focus landscape shot? no it wont.

Ive tried everything, the focal distance and shutter speed ratio is right, have it low ISO, averaging around f/11, using manual on the main dial with the landscape sub menu...have tried AF and MF..and still...everything is just an unfocused mess. it seems to be back focusing quite a bit aswell. Can anyone give me some advice? I dont understand why its not working for scenery but will work really well for other things. BAHHH!!!! *cries a bit*

[S2][/S2]

redbubble.com/people/eseffpe
 
the kit lens is not the best lens tbh and i sold mine as i wasn't satisfied with the results. if portraits are coming out fine then its not back/front focusing as it will be the case on all photos.

It sounds like the problems i had with my kit lens being soft.
 
33L said:
the kit lens is not the best lens tbh and i sold mine as i wasn't satisfied with the results. if portraits are coming out fine then its not back/front focusing as it will be the case on all photos.

It sounds like the problems i had with my kit lens being soft.
Click to expand...

i have heard that the kit lenses can be really hit and miss? what lens did you buy in place of the kit?
 
any chance of some example shots? might help diagnose it.
 
1472219-1-untitled.jpg

1472225-1-untitled.jpg


First is not so bad...probably the best i can get. Second is awful, although I know foliage isnt the best to focus on, but it should be better than this !!!
 
anything bigger? Both look fine at that size.
 
Remember foliage from a distance can be a problem as there are simply not enough pixels covering the distant image to allow for it to be blown up at full size later.

i.e if a single leaf is covered by 1 pixel in the background you cant make it larger and keep sharp detail.
 
I had the same result with my 400D but not the kit lens. I found I had to critically focus the diopter viewfinder, shut the exposure down 0.3 and do quite a lot of sharpening. If I don't need to shoot RAW I change to large Jpeg and have reset the sharpness in the camera. It would appear that this softness is a trait with the camera and sometimes with the kit lens.

Re Jpegs go Menu > menu 2 > Picture Style (standard) > Set > Jump > Set and move the slider. The closer to 7 the sharper the image I've got mine on 7.
You may wish to see whether a Contrast adjustment will help.

When I discovered the softness I was very disappointed.

Paul
 
Well, if i'm shooting landscape I use manual focus in Av mode. Set aperture to F22, set the focus ring to infinity and shoot away making sure your shutter speed is high enough if you are hand holding. Always works for me.

2422832709_fcb844cef2.jpg
 
Hobbytog said:
I had the same result with my 400D but not the kit lens. I found I had to critically focus the diopter viewfinder, shut the exposure down 0.3 and do quite a lot of sharpening. If I don't need to shoot RAW I change to large Jpeg and have reset the sharpness in the camera. It would appear that this softness is a trait with the camera and sometimes with the kit lens.

Re Jpegs go Menu > menu 2 > Picture Style (standard) > Set > Jump > Set and move the slider. The closer to 7 the sharper the image I've got mine on 7.
You may wish to see whether a Contrast adjustment will help.

When I discovered the softness I was very disappointed.

Paul
Click to expand...

Hi Paul, the sharpness is whacked right up already, thats the first thing I did, i find with mine i am having to over expose quite a bit to get the right exposure!
 
PsiFox said:
Remember foliage from a distance can be a problem as there are simply not enough pixels covering the distant image to allow for it to be blown up at full size later.

i.e if a single leaf is covered by 1 pixel in the background you cant make it larger and keep sharp detail.
Click to expand...

i see what you mean, i kind of thought foliage wasnt the best example!
 
These are annoying fickle little beasts aren't they. When I was trying to sort mine out I was told those adjustments will only work when Jpeg files are used. RAW images are sharpened in Adobe RAW and also in Photoshop or similar.

I wear specs and the main problem was the diopter focus.

Paul
 
dont mean sound dumb but are you using a tripod? if so try using a remote to steady the shot even more, remember dont use steady shot while on a tripod it can confuse the camera.
 
Hmmm.. what shutter speed - it is the tripod question, although I suspect at f11, it should not be a problem given the light. That said the sky is blown in both IMO.. see sky reflection in both it is blue but the sky isn't. What are you taking the exposure on...
I cannot see how softness can be an issue with a camera??? What does the DoF look like on an 18-55 at f11, I am not sure....Isn't backfocusing a lens issue?? Not sure if this helps but I have a 400D and take underwater wide angle shots with a 10-22 and it very sharp.
 
pauld said:
Hmmm.. what shutter speed - it is the tripod question, although I suspect at f11, it should not be a problem given the light. That said the sky is blown in both IMO.. see sky reflection in both it is blue but the sky isn't. What are you taking the exposure on...
I cannot see how softness can be an issue with a camera??? What does the DoF look like on an 18-55 at f11, I am not sure....Isn't backfocusing a lens issue?? Not sure if this helps but I have a 400D and take underwater wide angle shots with a 10-22 and it very sharp.
Click to expand...

I followed the shutter speed rule of thumb for these, just made sure it was atleast matching focal length or higher, was usually always higher because there was a lot of light. To be honest I was just taking exposure from the average point in the picture, which I am now learning does not work with such high contrast features in the image!
 
Ive just got my 400D and it took me a while to get used to it and start getting some half decent shots.

Ive noticed on my kit lens most shots can look a bit blurry and very soft especially at the edges!! I have to apply lots of extra sharpening when post processing.

When I use other lenses the problem goes away, so im planning to replace my kit lens ASAP!!


cheers
watred
 
watred said:
Ive just got my 400D and it took me a while to get used to it and start getting some half decent shots.

Ive noticed on my kit lens most shots can look a bit blurry and very soft especially at the edges!! I have to apply lots of extra sharpening when post processing.

When I use other lenses the problem goes away, so im planning to replace my kit lens ASAP!!


cheers
watred
Click to expand...

thats the reply i was afraid of...damn kit lens!!! which other lenses are you using?
 
I also bought a cheap zoom when I got the camera - Tamron 55-200 F4-5.6 which blows the kit lens away for sharpness! Im glad it did because I was worried I had a faulty camera at first!

I've recently bought the 50mm F1.8 nifty fifty which again was very cheap and it is very sharp!

I'm planning to replace the 18-55 kit lens with a tamron 17-50 F2.8 as I read a lot of good reports about its image sharpness. I also believe the newer 18-55 IS (450D kit lens) is a bit better than the 400D kit lens.

I cant replace it just yet so im having to make do for now. Try shooting at around F8 you might get slightly better results, but even then you might want to do some PP and add extra sharpening.

cheers
watred.
 
I see from your website you are into macro so 100mm USD would be a good starting point for this...what else do you plan to do..The 17-55mm is a greatlens for EFS cameras - with a price to boot but you get what you pay for when it comes to lenses IMO:tumbleweed:
 
Hi iam new to this but seeing as i don't get out much i have a play about on the laptop with software and stuff, anyway i digress i have the kit lens as well it's been fine.

with your 400D you should have some software (zoom browser ex)

this is where i play around with the raw image before changing it to jpeg or what ever,

download your software EOS digital solutions disk v13.1

put your raw files in zoombrowser ex
click on raw file you wish to adjust>
then edit>
process raw image>
this should take you to a quality image adjustment programme.

there are some of the adjustments from the menu on the camera, save the image it makes a copy and you then convert your saved changed raw image to jpeg simple yet effective.
Regards Mark off to take my last tablets ;) where are the happy pills.
 
You'll get soft images at f/22 as well.

You should google and learn about:
Diffraction limit
Hyperfocal distance

As a summary, you lose sharpness about f/11, but you can get more in focus at f/11 by NOT focusing at infinity and utilising the hyperfocal distance. For example, at 18mm, focus at 1.5 metres at f/11 and everything from 0.7 metres to infinity will be in focus.

However, sometimes you don't want infinity to be in focus. Objects at infinity being slightly out of focus mimics how the eye looks at landscapes slightly better and can make the image more immersive.
 
I'm similarly unimpressed with my 400D - or rather the kit lens. I don't think the photos I get from it are any better than with the Powershot A70 it replaced :'(

Hobbytog said:
I had the same result with my 400D but not the kit lens. I found I had to critically focus the diopter viewfinder, shut the exposure down 0.3
Click to expand...

The dioptre setting only affects what you see in the viewfinder so will only affect the picture if you are using manual focus.

As for stopping down 1/3, everywhere I read the lit lens under-exposes by about 1/3 so I have EV set to +1/3 - and the pics still come out dark!!

Eseffpe said:
http://www.redbubble.com/people/eseffpe/art/1472335-1-dont-comment-on-this-work

havent got any where else to host except for here...it looks alright there but if you look at the tree trunks you can see where the problem is...just looks distorted!
Click to expand...


Linky no work

Sorry, the item you’re looking for couldn’t be found.

Eseffpe said:
thats a much better result than im getting...thanks ill try that advice!
Click to expand...

But according to DarknFuzzy's sig he's using a Pentax, not a 400D
 
parish said:
As for stopping down 1/3, everywhere I read the lit lens under-exposes by about 1/3 so I have EV set to +1/3 - and the pics still come out dark!!


But according to DarknFuzzy's sig he's using a Pentax, not a 400D
Click to expand...

Lenses don't affect exposure, unless there's some serious vignetting.

Theory behind photography is the same no matter what camera you're using (except perhaps for different focal ratios giving different sharpness on different sensors, but you don't need to worry about that, really.)
 
Blapto said:
Lenses don't affect exposure, unless there's some serious vignetting.
Click to expand...

Well, i did wonder about that. Many of the articles I read said that the 400D's metering system tends to under-expose - which ties in with what you say - but a few said it's only really a problem with the kit lens which doesn't really make sense unless it's badly designed/made but even then, the metering system should handle that (it would only be the same as using a filter that reduces the light entering the lens).

This is an example of how dark many/most of my pics come out. Taken in full sun. The car was bright red - a lot brighter than it appears in the photo.

1/200, f/4.5, ISO100, Ev+1/3, centre-weighted metering.

img_1378s.jpg
 
You need to understand how a camera meter works.
The idea is that everything in the metering area should average out to a middle luminance (equivalent to 12% grey).

If you take a photo of a white wall, the camera will underexpose to render the wall grey. If you take a photo of a black wall it will overexposre to render the wall grey. In the case of that car, the photo is perfectly exposed. The black tyres are black. The white reflected clouds and white, and the car is at about 50% luminance. As far as the meter is concerned, it did a perfect job.

As the photography, you're meant to use the exposure compensation. You should know that the camera tries to meter to a middle luminance, so tell it to underexpose when you want the images to come out brighter than that and vice-versa.

You're upset with the colour rendition. I think this is because most compacts boost up the colour rendition in all modes other than portrait, so the photos pop more and look more impressive, but not accurate. I'm sure the 400D has some sort of picture control where you can increase the saturation, which you'll want to do if you want pictures like your compact. Either that, or do it in post production.
 
Thanks Blapto, that is a very useful and easy to understand explantion.

So, a correctly exposed photo is not necessarily going to appear exactly as I remember the scene? That kind of makes sense because the human eye (and brain) is more sensitive than film or a digital sensor - I read somewhere that it can resolve to around 10 stops whereas a camera is only going to be 5 at best.

Blapto said:
You need to understand how a camera meter works.
The idea is that everything in the metering area should average out to a middle luminance (equivalent to 12% grey).

If you take a photo of a white wall, the camera will underexpose to render the wall grey. If you take a photo of a black wall it will overexposre to render the wall grey.
Click to expand...

That seems like a good experiment for me to try as an exercise in understanding exposure. :thumbs:

Blapto said:
As the photography, you're meant to use the exposure compensation. You should know that the camera tries to meter to a middle luminance, so tell it to underexpose when you want the images to come out brighter than that and vice-versa.
Click to expand...

Am I misunderstanding that statement? Surely, if you underexpose (faster shutter for the same aperture) then the image will be darker; to make it brighter you would need to overexpose (slower shutter for the same aperture)? :thinking:

Blapto said:
You're upset with the colour rendition. I think this is because most compacts boost up the colour rendition in all modes other than portrait, so the photos pop more and look more impressive, but not accurate. I'm sure the 400D has some sort of picture control where you can increase the saturation, which you'll want to do if you want pictures like your compact. Either that, or do it in post production.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, the 400D does have picture style settings which use different values for saturation etc. - the above pic was taken using the standard setting.

Your comment about compacts brightening the photos makes sense as a lot of my pics are taken at events where my friend also takes pics using a compact (Canon G2 I think) and his always seem brighter than mine - but they also appear more natural, i.e. the colours and brightness better match the scene as I remember it.
 
watred said:
I also bought a cheap zoom when I got the camera - Tamron 55-200 F4-5.6 which blows the kit lens away for sharpness! Im glad it did because I was worried I had a faulty camera at first!

I've recently bought the 50mm F1.8 nifty fifty which again was very cheap and it is very sharp!

I'm planning to replace the 18-55 kit lens with a tamron 17-50 F2.8 as I read a lot of good reports about its image sharpness. I also believe the newer 18-55 IS (450D kit lens) is a bit better than the 400D kit lens.

I cant replace it just yet so im having to make do for now. Try shooting at around F8 you might get slightly better results, but even then you might want to do some PP and add extra sharpening.

cheers
watred.
Click to expand...

some great lens suggestions thanks, ill have a look into them when my budget is not so tight! however I am getting told two completely different things, some people say that shooting at f22 is the best bet as sharpness will get lost at f/8 and others are saying f/8 will produce best results. lol so confused!
 
pauld said:
I see from your website you are into macro so 100mm USD would be a good starting point for this...what else do you plan to do..The 17-55mm is a greatlens for EFS cameras - with a price to boot but you get what you pay for when it comes to lenses IMO:tumbleweed:
Click to expand...

Well I would like to experiment with all kinds, so I was counting on the kit lens being up to scratch so I could get some decent none macro shots...damn it!!
 
Blapto said:
You'll get soft images at f/22 as well.

You should google and learn about:
Diffraction limit
Hyperfocal distance

As a summary, you lose sharpness about f/11, but you can get more in focus at f/11 by NOT focusing at infinity and utilising the hyperfocal distance. For example, at 18mm, focus at 1.5 metres at f/11 and everything from 0.7 metres to infinity will be in focus.

However, sometimes you don't want infinity to be in focus. Objects at infinity being slightly out of focus mimics how the eye looks at landscapes slightly better and can make the image more immersive.
Click to expand...

ok thanks ill have a read about those shortly....so shooting at f/22 is sharper...but at f/8 is more focused?
 
parish said:
I'm similarly unimpressed with my 400D - or rather the kit lens. I don't think the photos I get from it are any better than with the Powershot A70 it replaced :'(



The dioptre setting only affects what you see in the viewfinder so will only affect the picture if you are using manual focus.

As for stopping down 1/3, everywhere I read the lit lens under-exposes by about 1/3 so I have EV set to +1/3 - and the pics still come out dark!!




Linky no work

Sorry, the item you’re looking for couldn’t be found.



But according to DarknFuzzy's sig he's using a Pentax, not a 400D
Click to expand...

"The dioptre setting only affects what you see in the viewfinder so will only affect the picture if you are using manual focus."

...what is this exactly?

Yes the lens under exposes for sure, i find myself having to over expose by as much as 2 sometimes :-| !!
 
parish said:
Well, i did wonder about that. Many of the articles I read said that the 400D's metering system tends to under-expose - which ties in with what you say - but a few said it's only really a problem with the kit lens which doesn't really make sense unless it's badly designed/made but even then, the metering system should handle that (it would only be the same as using a filter that reduces the light entering the lens).

This is an example of how dark many/most of my pics come out. Taken in full sun. The car was bright red - a lot brighter than it appears in the photo.

1/200, f/4.5, ISO100, Ev+1/3, centre-weighted metering.

img_1378s.jpg
Click to expand...

thats a very sharp image...what benefits does centre weighted metering have over eval and partial? (yes i am v new!)
 
Eseffpe said:
"The dioptre setting only affects what you see in the viewfinder so will only affect the picture if you are using manual focus."

...what is this exactly?
Click to expand...

It compensates for your eyes, or glasses. e.g. If you wear glasses, your eye is further back from the viewfinder so not in the right place for the image through the viewfinder to be in focus - i.e. when the camera has the image in focus, it appears out of focus in the viewfinder.

Eseffpe said:
Yes the lens under exposes for sure, i find myself having to over expose by as much as 2 sometimes :-| !!
Click to expand...

Glad it's not just me then - although as pointed out (by others) above, it can't be the lens.
 
okay so I managed to play about with everything a bit more today and have come up with a few things that are now allowing me to take some decent shots :

1 - AF metering i have made sure that it uses one point only to focus, this being the middle point for default.
2 - evaluative metering seems to bring the best results for landscape, partial is not needed when using the one point metering as this brings the selective focus.
3 - keeping shutter speed quite slow (around 60) and between f/8 and f/11 and ISO at 100/200
4 - and most importantly - NEVER use the default picture viewer that comes with the PC - it makes all images look AWFUL !!!! I opened the same images i was having trouble with in the canon digital editor and the pictures were 100% better than I thought they were.

Still have a lot of playing round to do but this is what i have found works best with this camera! Going to try a few shots using Av mode keeping it around f/22 and see how it compares!

Thanks everyone for your advice !!!!
Eseffpe Photography on RedBubble
 
Glad to see you getting sorted!

If it's any consolation I managed to get utter dross out of a 1Ds until I got the hang of it. :)

DSLR's are kind of complex beasts and capable of wondrous things. It takes time to learn them and their own idiosyncrasies though. Part of the fun is in the learning. I still get it wrong quite spectacularly but then when I do get it right, it's a great feeling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top