I believe the Rebel XTi does the same thing. I've heard people explain that the XTi tends to underexpose a bit because you can brighten the picture through post-processing and bring out the details. On the other hand, if a picture is over-exposed you will permanently lose the details.
I don't know the truth to the under-exposure theory but am curious to find out.
It's actually quite the opposite, thus the "expose to the right" theory. Unless this is particular to these cameras for some reason.
So far, I am very happy with the upgrade. It its much better then my 20D. It shoots faster and the buffer works much better. If I counted right, I can get 18 shots in RAW before the buffer stalls. My 20D was only about 8 or 9. The shutter is also WAY quiter then the 20D. The color seams alot more accurate then the 20D as well ( I have only used standard picture style so far ).
I believe the Rebel XTi does the same thing. I've heard people explain that the XTi tends to underexpose a bit because you can brighten the picture through post-processing and bring out the details. On the other hand, if a picture is over-exposed you will permanently lose the details.
I don't know the truth to the under-exposure theory but am curious to find out.
The XTi sensor actually collects a bit less light than that of the 20D / 30D. It's somewhere between 1/3 and 2/3 stop. This means that for the same exposure, one needs to use slower settings on the XTi; this is independent of metering differences. I am hoping that the 40D's improved microlenses and other changes have overcome this difference. Otherwise, the 20D/30D are actually better cameras for me, and I can't afford to spend big money on bodies.
Amazon delayed my order until mid October. So I got a 40d locally.
My first 40D was DOA, most disappointing. (Battery sqap didn't work, body wouldn't power on)
Love the camera. A huge improvement from the Rebel XT.
TMR2 wrote:
These look very nice. What all did you do in post?
Thanks,
Travis
Thank you
I used the canon software that came with the 40D and fined tuned a few tempatures. They were very accurate out of the camera, I just thought they looked better then life, tweaked a little. I also used the software default of 3 sharpness.
Most of them I cropped slightly since I like the 16x10 ratio (to use as 1920 x 1200 desktops)
Some of them I also added a bit of dynamic range to bring out a few details.
The water fog shots I also added some contrast to bring out more detail.
Taking pictures in the garden this morning, I "think" it looks about 1/3 stop under exposed from my 20D. Not a big deal if it is. I will do some side by side stuff and try to post later.
Dan
Could this be Canon's answer to those who say that Canon overexposes with there cameras, could this be correctly metered camera? I don't know one way or the other so this is just a thought.
Caleb Williams wrote:
Could this be Canon's answer to those who say that Canon overexposes with there cameras, could this be correctly metered camera? I don't know one way or the other so this is just a thought.
Another possibility is that HIghlight Tone Adjustment is on which will mimic the same appearance of underexposing if bright highlights are also present in the shot.
"In the beginning" of digital Canon underexposed to be careful of highlights. People complained about dark images. So they cranked it up a little. Just set the exposure compensation for the way you like it. When it comes to exposing a scene (as opposed to something like a gray card), there is no one correct exposure.
This is the exact same misunderstanding newbies had with the XTi last year.
The XTi does not underexpose. The 40D does not underexpose. Their sensors are actually calibrated to be more accurate at each ISO setting than any other EOS dSLR.
Previous EOS dSLRs had been innaccurate. They were rated 1/3 stop below the actual sensitivity levels. If you dialed in the same settings on film SLRs, on a 40D, and on a 30D... you would see the 40D would expose the same way as a film SLR. But the 30D would be overexposed.
It is completely wrong to say that the 40D and XTi are underexposing. It would be more accurate to say that the 350D, 20D, 30D, and 5D are all overexposing by 1/3 stop.
I picked one up from the local shop today luckily, and cancelled the amazon order. I had to buy the kit with the 28-135. I'm not sure if I want to keep the lens or not.
I don't have anything new to add yet that others haven't already said. It sure feels nice in the hand though, and the AF hasn't missed focus yet. I am not sure how *accurate* it is, yet, but you get focus lock on every point, every time. Sure is a nice change. I'll post a bunch of pics tomorrow.
Subjectively, I'll say this. With the 20D, too often, even when I did everything right by the book, I'd look at the pics and just be underwhelmed, thinking they should look better than they did. Soft, lacking contrast, whatever. It was capable of doing really nice pictures of course, but there just seemed to be a lot of clunkers. With my first gig of pictures from the 40D, I haven't had that yet. There were pics out of focus from using AI servo, and stuff like that, but that ones that were on, were ON. The AF seems much much improved. My 50mm 1.4 and I have started talking to each other again, and stopped fighting.
Edited by joekraft on Sep 01, 2007 at 08:57 PM GMT
I don't know if this has been covered and I'm not going to pore over 17 pages of posts, but the VF and rear display of the 40D are big improvements over previous xxD Canons.
Kenmore Camera north of Seattle had quite a few in stock when I was in there yesterday. They are a solid professionally run store and do some internet sales, for those who are interested.
It really is a shame though, I have been thinking alot about it over the last 4 days, but is it really worth spending $1000 for
-bigger viewfinder (very big improvement on the 400D)
-more frames per seconds (which I dont need at all for what I shoot),
-Spot metering (i have gotten very good at using evaluative metering and knowing what it will do and when i need to push the exposure compensation up or down),
-Digic III processor (from my tests, the DigicIII is no better at controlling the noise than the DigiII)
- Live view (nice gimic, but in practice who is really going to use this much when you cant autofocus in this mode, by the time you have manual focussed or flipped the live view on and off to get focus then you may aswell have take the shot through the view finder)
......so it has come down to whether it is worth spending over $1000 to basically get a larger viewfinder as far as I can see.
Maybe if Canon had at least given us more pixels or something. I really have the funds now to spend on something but am holding off on the 5D which i am sure produces amazing results because I know as soon as I buy it they will come out for a replacement for that seeing as it is getting a bit old now!
The 400D is as far as I am concered quite under rated and looked down on by "proffesionals" but I have produced some fantastic work for both exhibitions and magazine print and will continue to do so.
