PDA

View Full Version : My 400D came today...


Nill Toulme
November 3rd, 2006, 04:21 PM
My 400D came from Dell today, and so far I'm absolutely tickled with it. I like the way it feels, I like the way it sounds, I like everything about it. I really think it's going to work well for me.

This is my goofaround/travel/personal cam, and it's replacing the 20D which, as wonderful as it is and as much as I loved it, was a little bigger and heavier and a lot louder than I thought it needed to be. (I shoot most of the time with two 1D Mark II's.)

I have big hands, and I don't get the "too small" complaints. It's a small camera that's one of its major charms but it feels fine and like it was made for the 17-85 IS and 70-300 IS I'm pairing it with. And I think the interface is great. Everything is right in front of you and works exactly like you'd expect it to.

So far so good.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Nikolai Sklobovsky
November 3rd, 2006, 04:25 PM
Nil,
big congrats!!!

I would be very interested to hear how the dust removal/protection works IRL once you get to know it better:-).

Asher Kelman
November 3rd, 2006, 04:43 PM
Congrats Nil!

10 years ago you wqould have to mortgage your home to get a camera half as capable as this!

I'd like to see how it is for action with the 70-300 IS. Did you BTW, get the double discount back Canon mail in coupons with this. or does it only apply to the 5D and the 1D series?

Asher

Diane Fields
November 3rd, 2006, 05:25 PM
My 400D came from Dell today, and so far I'm absolutely tickled with it. I like the way it feels, I like the way it sounds, I like everything about it. I really think it's going to work well for me.

This is my goofaround/travel/personal cam, and it's replacing the 20D which, as wonderful as it is and as much as I loved it, was a little bigger and heavier and a lot louder than I thought it needed to be. (I shoot most of the time with two 1D Mark II's.)

I have big hands, and I don't get the "too small" complaints. It's a small camera that's one of its major charms but it feels fine and like it was made for the 17-85 IS and 70-300 IS I'm pairing it with. And I think the interface is great. Everything is right in front of you and works exactly like you'd expect it to.

So far so good.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Its on my 'to buy' list after my new Epson 3800 and another TSe lens. I'm using the 10D (sold the 20D for more money to help fund the 5D LOL) for this purpose now and have foregone buying a pocket cam since I think this and one or 2 small primes would serve me well for the same purpose. Looking forward to hearing more about it.

Diane

Alan T. Price
November 4th, 2006, 02:42 AM
Hi Nill. How do you find the viewfinder compares with the 1D2's ? I'm thinking more of the size and brightness rather than the info layout.

Nill Toulme
November 4th, 2006, 03:50 AM
Heh, smaller and dimmer of course. But at least without having had the opportunity to compare them side by side I don't notice any significant difference from 20D in that respect. Less than ideal, but perfectly useable.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

John Sheehy
November 4th, 2006, 05:10 AM
How do you find the viewfinder compares with the 1D2's ? I'm thinking more of the size and brightness rather than the info layout.

The XTi viewfinder is reported by some to be a little on the dark side, but it does seem to be finer than either my 10D or 20D, and therefore it is a lot easier to see when things are in focus. There is more "snap" when manually focusing.

John Sheehy
November 4th, 2006, 05:18 AM
I'm using the 10D (sold the 20D for more money to help fund the 5D LOL) for this purpose now and have foregone buying a pocket cam since I think this and one or 2 small primes would serve me well for the same purpose. Looking forward to hearing more about it.


As far as image quality is concerned, going from a 10D to an XTi is all gain, at all ISOs. There is less noise at ISOs 100 and 200 than the 10D (or any other 1.6x-crop Canon), even less than the 5D at the pixel level. At 800 and 1600, it has more noise than the 20D/30D/5D, but still a bit better than the 10D. The only steps down (or to the side) from the 10D are ergonomics and usability; smaller body grip, one less wheel, no ability to change settings when the camera isn't in shooting mode. No permanent LCD display with the Av and Tv parameters displayed, etc.

WillGood
November 4th, 2006, 06:32 AM
My 400D came from Dell today, and so far I'm absolutely tickled with it. I like the way it feels, I like the way it sounds, I like everything about it. I really think it's going to work well for me.

This is my goofaround/travel/personal cam, and it's replacing the 20D which, as wonderful as it is and as much as I loved it, was a little bigger and heavier and a lot louder than I thought it needed to be. (I shoot most of the time with two 1D Mark II's.)

I have big hands, and I don't get the "too small" complaints. It's a small camera that's one of its major charms ...................................So far so good.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Hi Nill
Picked up a 400d for travel........Really pleasantly surprised at the AF(v. good), usable high iso & image quality is quite good.. I use FF cam for work, but I find the 400d size/weight liberating.
You just find youself grabbing this cam as you go out the door!

This 'rebel' is not entry level junk, but a real tool. Love having B&W" filters" in camas well.

50 f1.4 and 100f2 make awesome portrait lens. I "surrendered" to EF-S and picked up a tamron 17-50 2.8 that Im quite pleased with - great all purpose for me. Yea, this is not the camera for super-wide ; )

My only caveat so far: you cannot push histogram to the right, highlights are *not recoverable *in RAW.
The shadow noise is relatively good, so this may not be a problem in many instances. (No way to turn noise reduction off?) We'll see!

Ray West
November 4th, 2006, 07:06 AM
Hi Will,

how does the B&W compare with converting in pp. I guess the B&W raw file is smaller than an equivalent coloured, or maybe not? Have you any comparitive shots to share - cat or dog or spice jars even ;-)

Best wishes,

Ray

Diane Fields
November 4th, 2006, 07:25 AM
Hi Will,

how does the B&W compare with converting in pp. I guess the B&W raw file is smaller than an equivalent coloured, or maybe not? Have you any comparitive shots to share - cat or dog or spice jars even ;-)

Best wishes,

Ray

Ray, I would think this is like the other B & Ws for Canon. The RAW is still 'color' (data) until converted and the b/w is a jpeg. I only use the b/w to see if my 'vision' of mono will work. I then can view it on my LCD (this is on the 5D, but I feel sure its similar on all the other Canons) but I don't save RAW + jpeg. If you want the mono, you must do this--or just set it to jpeg. I still prefer to do my own conversions, but this is helpful in evaluating a subject for mono (I usually use the red filter on mine to view).

Diane

Diane Fields
November 4th, 2006, 07:30 AM
As far as image quality is concerned, going from a 10D to an XTi is all gain, at all ISOs. There is less noise at ISOs 100 and 200 than the 10D (or any other 1.6x-crop Canon), even less than the 5D at the pixel level. At 800 and 1600, it has more noise than the 20D/30D/5D, but still a bit better than the 10D. The only steps down (or to the side) from the 10D are ergonomics and usability; smaller body grip, one less wheel, no ability to change settings when the camera isn't in shooting mode. No permanent LCD display with the Av and Tv parameters displayed, etc.

I lied. Not sure why I said I'm using the 10D for this purpose---I'm not. I think what I meant (it was late LOL) was that I've kept the 10D over the 20D. The 10D is not much smaller than the 5D actually. I really have only used it once since I bought the 5D---and have it only for backup purposes for my commercial shooting--in case (it would cover my needs there easily, though I would hate shooting with it)--not additional body. The xT would work as an additional one I think---or as my small easily carried cam. I don't get along well with the pocket cams LOL. I"m going to have to hold it again to see if it will serve the 'small' cam purpose before buying one just for that.

Diane

WillGood
November 4th, 2006, 08:04 AM
Hi Will,

how does the B&W compare with converting in pp. I guess the B&W raw file is smaller than an equivalent coloured, or maybe not? Have you any comparitive shots to share - cat or dog or spice jars even ;-)

Best wishes,

Ray

Hi Ray
Not sure about your first question? - I use the "filters" to get a B&W starting point, then more pp if needed. They are uncomplicated but effective.

The RAWs are the same filesize of course, a greyscale tiff will be smaller.

If you goto www.williamwgood.com Goto "portfolios" Goto last gallery"mix"
2nd & 3rd are 400d images.
Sorry my website does not let me link directly ; )

William

Nill Toulme
November 4th, 2006, 08:14 AM
Assuming this body is like other recent Canons, the RAW file contains a very nice embedded 1024x1536 jpg even when you're shooting RAW-only. This is what the camera uses to zoom in on for the LCD. The Canon software won't extract this embedded jpg, but BreezeBrowser Pro will. So, if you like, you can shoot in B&W mode and have that 1024x1536 B&W jpg available to you even if you choose to shoot RAW only.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

StuartRae
November 4th, 2006, 08:18 AM
how does the B&W compare with converting in pp. I guess the B&W raw file is smaller than an equivalent coloured, or maybe not?

Diane and Will are quite correct. Setting the camera to B&W has no affect on the RAW data. The conversion to B&W is performed by the in-camera firmware or by an external Raw Converter.

Shooting in B&W adds a tag to the file's metadata which is only honoured by the manufacturer's software - as far as I know third party converters ignore it.

As for comparisons between B&W jpegs from the camera and those produced by PP, I would imagine (only an educated guess) that the camera does a normal conversion and then merely de-saturates. If this is the case then the more sophisticated software available for PP is likely to give better, and more controllable, results.

Regards,

Stuart

Nill Toulme
November 4th, 2006, 05:28 PM
Dang, you guys hijacked the heck out of my thread... Is there a moderator in the house? ;-)

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Asher Kelman
November 4th, 2006, 06:24 PM
Good point Nill!

Nikolai was on assignment as a war photographer in Thousand Oaks; CA. He's documenting the re-enactors of the battles of Gettysburg today.

Sometimes, I let something go to see if the new subject gets traction. So blame me twice! I have now moved it to an appropriate secure site, located by the U.S. Marshal Service!

http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1382

Now back to your new 400D camera!

I'm interested how you find the focus speed/accuracy since the center point only is activated with lenses with apertures equal or wider than 2.8.

Asher

Nill Toulme
November 4th, 2006, 08:10 PM
Funny you should mention that. I shot today's soccer match with it in some moderately tricky light, and I thought it did just fine.

http://www.toulme.net/sports/aysa/acad_06-07/061104_tysa/061104-aysa12bbl-008_std.jpg


http://www.toulme.net/sports/aysa/acad_06-07/061104_tysa/061104-aysa12bbl-026_std.jpg


http://www.toulme.net/sports/aysa/acad_06-07/061104_tysa/061104-aysa12bbl-080_std.jpg

A few more shots in this thread (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13101#post13101).

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Asher Kelman
November 4th, 2006, 08:31 PM
These are perfect, but what about with a f4 lens?

Asher

Nill Toulme
November 4th, 2006, 08:34 PM
I don't have any f/4 lenses. ;-)

Oh wait, yes I do! I traded my 24-70L for a 24-105L which came yesterday too, and was the very first lens (of course) that I put on the new camera. Subjectively it seemed to do just fine, even driving around the dark streets with it running errands.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

TeamBrooks
November 4th, 2006, 08:50 PM
What settings do you use on the XTi for soccer? thanks

Nill Toulme
November 4th, 2006, 08:57 PM
Same settings I recommend in the Sports Basics sticky thread (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5602), i.e., AI servo, center AF point selected, CF4-3, Av evaluative wide open (which in this case was f/2.8), at lowest ISO sufficient to get plenty of shutter speed (in this light, ISO 200).

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Asher Kelman
November 4th, 2006, 11:08 PM
I don't have any f/4 lenses. ;-)

Oh wait, yes I do! I traded my 24-70L for a 24-105L which came yesterday too, and was the very first lens (of course) that I put on the new camera. Subjectively it seemed to do just fine, even driving around the dark streets with it running errands.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Funny Nill, I was thinking of making a swop! I'd love your opinion of the two lenses! Is the 24-70 range up to the quality you have experienced with the lens you traded? This could be a separate thread!

Asher

Nill Toulme
November 5th, 2006, 06:34 AM
I didn't do a side-by-side comparison as the lenses crossed each other in the post, and I'm not much of a techie pixel-peeper anyway. Very subjectively, I do think the 24-105 both vignettes and barrel-distorts more at the wide end than the 24-70, but I can live with that. Otherwise, it certainly seems to be more than good enough for my purposes.

I use this lens for events and group shots more than anything else, and more often than not in that sort of situation I'm shooting with flash and so don't need the f/2.8 anyway. If I need a bigger aperture or narrow DOF I'll strap on something like the 35 f/2, the 50 f/1.4 (or f/1.2L? We'll see...), the 85 f/1.8 or the 135 f/2L. In the event context, I expect the IS and extra reach of the 24-105L to prove invaluable.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

John Sheehy
November 5th, 2006, 07:57 AM
My only caveat so far: you cannot push histogram to the right, highlights are *not recoverable *in RAW.

I don't think so; that is a feature of the converter you're using; not the camera. The camera has the lowest RAW sensitivity of any existing Canon DSLR. It meters for about 120% of the stated ISO and the sensitivity of the RAW data is about 85% of the stated ISO. Many converters are already compensating for this at "0" exposure, and many don't handle RAW highlights linearly to begin with. The "Exposure" control in ACR, for example, is a bias control and a curve tool, and has no capability of rendering the highest RAW values normally when you pull the image in conversion. This is a serious defect in ACR.

The shadow noise is relatively good, so this may not be a problem in many instances. (No way to turn noise reduction off?) We'll see!

There is no noise reduction on the XTi, other than what the JPEG engine loses. The RAW data has no NR. The camera has "dark frame subtraction" as a custom function, which you can turn "On", "Off", or to "Auto". "On" is dangerous, as dark frame subtraction kicks in at one second, and one second exposures don't benefit from dark frame subtraction unless the camera is hot, even at ISO 1600. Unnecessary dark frame subtraction causes a 41% increase in noise at all exposure levels.

John Sheehy
November 5th, 2006, 08:02 AM
Assuming this body is like other recent Canons, the RAW file contains a very nice embedded 1024x1536 jpg even when you're shooting RAW-only.

It's 1936x1288 for the XTi.

This is what the camera uses to zoom in on for the LCD. The Canon software won't extract this embedded jpg, but BreezeBrowser Pro will.

FastStone Image Viewer, too. Irfanview will, too, if it is updated for the XTi.

Nill Toulme
November 5th, 2006, 08:27 AM
Thanks John for the info on the embedded jpg.

I should add that I was especially pleased with the exposures, particularly after all I've read of complaints about the 400D underexposing. This light wasn't the easiest in the world, and the Av/evaluative exposures were almost without exception bang on. I can't remember the last time I had to do so little to a shoot in post.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Asher Kelman
November 5th, 2006, 10:10 AM
I don't think so; that is a feature of the converter you're using; not the camera. The camera has the lowest RAW sensitivity of any existing Canon DSLR. It meters for about 120% of the stated ISO and the sensitivity of the RAW data is about 85% of the stated ISO. Many converters are already compensating for this at "0" exposure, and many don't handle RAW highlights linearly to begin with. The "Exposure" control in ACR, for example, is a bias control and a curve tool, and has no capability of rendering the highest RAW values normally when you pull the image in conversion. (my bolding of text A.K.)............


I heard in a talk by Thomas Knoll that one could recover the highlights to the right of what is visible in the camera histogram.

Asher

John Sheehy
November 5th, 2006, 03:24 PM
I heard in a talk by Thomas Knoll that one could recover the highlights to the right of what is visible in the camera histogram.


To a degree, but ACR does not recover them all linearly. It treats the most extreme RAW highlights as some kind of special case, even though they are not. They're just more photons counted. Since ACR compensates for the XTi's weak RAW data, is probably considers more of the XTi's highlights as "special".

John Sheehy
November 5th, 2006, 03:30 PM
Thanks John for the info on the embedded jpg.

I should add that I was especially pleased with the exposures, particularly after all I've read of complaints about the 400D underexposing. This light wasn't the easiest in the world, and the Av/evaluative exposures were almost without exception bang on. I can't remember the last time I had to do so little to a shoot in post.

The XTi does under-expose the RAW data. You may already like to do that yourself, or converters (including the JPEG engine in the camera) may hide it, but you will not be taking advantage of the Camera's full DR at any given ISO if you don't use significant positive EC on medium and low-contrast (or high-key) shots. I literally use +2 EC in low-contrast environments, without blowing the RAW data.

The XTi, pointed at a white wall with 0 EC in evaluative mode will yield an average RAW value of about 250 out of 3800 RAW levels. Most Canons meter for about 350.

Nill Toulme
November 5th, 2006, 04:44 PM
Well this first outing was very high contrast, and according to Capture One at least, I had a very few slightly blown highlights, but the exposures were dead on. I hear what you're saying regarding a low contrast situation where you have some wasted space on the right side of the histogram, but this was not that, and it looks to me like the little box nailed the exposures. But I'm admittedly not very sophisticated about this sort of thing.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

WillGood
November 5th, 2006, 06:45 PM
I don't think so; that is a feature of the converter you're using; not the camera. The camera has the lowest RAW sensitivity of any existing Canon DSLR. It meters for about 120% of the stated ISO and the sensitivity of the RAW data is about 85% of the stated ISO. Many converters are already compensating for this at "0" exposure, and many don't handle RAW highlights linearly to begin with. The "Exposure" control in ACR, for example, is a bias control and a curve tool, and has no capability of rendering the highest RAW values normally when you pull the image in conversion. This is a serious defect in ACR.
Hi John
This is my first canon, I normally shoot work with kodak SLRc s - they have very wide DR. When you blow a highlight , it shows on the histogram in camera and in PhotoDesk, ACR & silkypix , as is logical. My Olympus cameras have simular histogram properties.
With the kodak image, and to some degree the E1, you can still recover highlights .

Every camera has anomalies, and the canon blows highlights in DPP when the histogram is not even close to the right. Furthermore, none of the data has been recoverable in DPP. Ive yet to run it thru Silkypix or ACR. Im just telling my own anecdotal experience here - I swear I represent no one but myself! ; )

Saying that , It seems workable by using appropriate settings, and I find myself using 400d a lot, and enjoying the handling, AF,
hi iso, and lack of artifacts produced by Kodak!

There is no noise reduction on the XTi, other than what the JPEG engine loses. The RAW data has no NR. The camera has "dark frame subtraction" as a custom function, which you can turn "On", "Off", or to "Auto". "On" is dangerous, as dark frame subtraction kicks in at one second, and one second exposures don't benefit from dark frame subtraction unless the camera is hot, even at ISO 1600. Unnecessary dark frame subtraction causes a 41% increase in noise at all exposure levels.
My kodaks have no AA filter, like MF backs and the new Leica. I only add noise reduction if needed.
So,When I first looked at the canon 400d files, it certainly looks like there is proprietary noise reduction - especially at higher iso levels. Perhaps this is just the look their AA filter produces on files, I dont know. Theres something going on....
BTW, dark subtraction is only processed at very slow shutter speeds.
Overall, I think the 400d is an incredible bang for the buck, and a real tool for a photographer....and I don't hate DPP ; )
William

Sean DeMerchant
November 5th, 2006, 07:31 PM
My kodaks have no AA filter, like MF backs and the new Leica. I only add noise reduction if needed.
So,When I first looked at the canon 400d files, it certainly looks like there is proprietary noise reduction - especially at higher iso levels. Perhaps this is just the look their AA filter produces on files, I dont know. Theres something going on....


Would you be willing to share some example files shot of the same scene?


BTW, dark subtraction is only processed at very slow shutter speeds.

The XT only kicks it in at 30 seconds for ISO 100-800 and 1 second or longer at ISO 1600. Is the XTi similar?

Overall, I think the 400d is an incredible bang for the buck, and a real tool for a photographer....and I don't hate DPP ; )


DPP has nice output on occassion. I just find its thumbnails too small for first pass review.

enjoy,

Sean

John Sheehy
November 6th, 2006, 12:04 AM
My kodaks have no AA filter, like MF backs and the new Leica. I only add noise reduction if needed.
So,When I first looked at the canon 400d files, it certainly looks like there is proprietary noise reduction - especially at higher iso levels. Perhaps this is just the look their AA filter produces on files, I dont know.

That's the difference. Cameras without AA filters have a sharp look, but unfortunately they capture all kinds of artifacts along with the image which can't be properly separated in PP. AA filters separate them before capture, but reduce maximum pixel-to-pixel contrast.

John Sheehy
November 6th, 2006, 12:16 AM
This is my first canon, I normally shoot work with kodak SLRc s - they have very wide DR.

Do you really mean DR, or do you mean highlight headroom relative to metered values? DR can exist mostly in the shadows, or mostly in the highlights.

When you blow a highlight , it shows on the histogram in camera and in PhotoDesk, ACR & silkypix , as is logical. My Olympus cameras have simular histogram properties.
With the kodak image, and to some degree the E1, you can still recover highlights .

Every camera has anomalies, and the canon blows highlights in DPP when the histogram is not even close to the right. Furthermore, none of the data has been recoverable in DPP. Ive yet to run it thru Silkypix or ACR. Im just telling my own anecdotal experience here - I swear I represent no one but myself! ; )

The RAW data will only blow when it doesn't show on the Xti's luminance histogram when there are bright blue or to a lesser degree bright red highlights. The RGB histogram should be a bit closer, but it will show red flowers clipped (and they will be in the JPEG) when the RAW data is still far from clipping. For some reason, many converters like to blow out the red in the output to give a super-saturated look.