400D/XTi underexposure?

[anesh]

I've read many posts (in various forums) about underexposure with this body.

The reviewer at DP Review also mentioned this here (under Occasional under-

exposure) http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/page20.asp.

 

I'm sure this can be corrected with a tad exposure compensation - however have

others here experienced the same anomaly?

[mars c]

My friend's 400d under exposes,

 

I think all 400d\xti were set by Canon that way, specially when using flash , the images are very underexposed , you have to do +1 to +1 2/3 EC to make them look right.

 

My 2 p&s exposes much better than the 400d at default settings, I dont know what Canon was thinking.

[giovannis]

I've also purchased recently a 400D, and I still have to test it. I also think it underexpose somewhat, but I don't think it's a bug. In my opinion, it's the way the exposure behaves, being prone to preserve the highlight, which is much better than burn them.

 

So, to cut a story short, this is my experience:

1) sun behind, average lighting: exposure correct.

2) sun behind, scene with snow: little underexposure (correct, IMHO)

3) sun in front: overexposure, you have to set -1

4) flash: not underexposure. simply, the flash is too weak (!). If the subject is close enough, the exposure is correct.

 

Overall, not bad. I still need to test it further, though

[beauh44]

A photo guru high atop a mountain once gave me sage advice. He said "Master your histogram my son and ye shall not falter!" ;-)

[anesh]

Ahhh yes, I remember you.

[garry_anderson3]

Mine doesn't

[jeremy_kenyon]

I have just returned a 400D. I got one 29th Dec 07. Went out taking photos during the day, with my sister who has a 300D. Cam back and found they were almost all a stop or more under exposed.

 

That evening took lots of flash photos at a family do. Found they were all 1-2 stops under exposed.

 

Tried to use exposure compensation to help, but even on max of +2, it was still dark, and of course it should not need it anyway, as that feature is for when you need it, not just to get to the starting point.

 

So I took it back to Jessops (who were most helpful - definitely consider using them, rather than on-line, unless you know exactly what you are buying and what it will do). I tried their shop demo model which seemed a bit better, so they changed mine for a new from box one. It was just as bad!

 

I have never had a camera so incapable of taking a basic photograph - other people are being really nice when they say it occasionally under exposes - the reality is there are a lot of rubbish 400Ds out there and people need to kick up a fuss about it. I guess lots of the reviewers had ones that were carefully set up before being sent out for review, but the quality of production models is clearly not there.

 

Canon support - first person I spoke to told me most 400Ds under exposed and they were fed up of hearing about the problem and want someone to kick up a fuss about it.

 

Canon repair - said it was not a known problem (I do not believe this).

 

Anyway, I exchanged it for a Nikon D80 with the Nikon 18-200 VR lens which can actually take a picture and get the exposure right. It's still not brilliant with flash - compared to any compact camera I have had, but it almost never goes more than half a stop low.

 

I don't know what the Canons of the world think the cheaper DSLR cameras like the 400D are for, but they should realise it is for people wanting something a bit better and a lot faster than a typical compact. They are NOT for professional photographers who will spend every waking moment messing with settings, messing with Photoshop and so on.

 

Sure, if you want to really get the best, you need to understand a lot about it (which I do, but don't want to have to bother with these days as its not my job any more). The fact that the major DSLR cameras can not do as good a job as a cheapy compact is ridculous and the likes of Canon and Nikon need to take note.

 

FYI, the D80 is tons better, but it too had problems. It still under exposes a bit with flasth - even in pics with no highlights - but maybe half a stop at most, which I can live with. Also the D80 has a specific Flash exposure compensation that you can set without affecting the general exposure.

 

What is more inexcusable in the D80 is the awful white balance when using with flash - you HAVE to adjust it to get the right colours - the default settings leave everything washed out - why on earth their auto mode does not switch to the built in flash WB you can manually select is beyond me.

 

Oh - about under exposing being the safer option - nonsense. The reality is that if you under expose too much, you can NOT fix it properly. What happens is that you lose tone in things like the faces, if you need to boost by more than say a stop (depends on how picky you are). If a photo is 2 stops under exposed then bascially you will not get a decent picture no matter what you do.

 

Final comment - if you want to move up to a DSLR, my recommendation is to get an old 350D which is reputed to be good, or if you can afford it, get a D80 or 40D.

 

But unless you need quick photos or really super quality, then stick with a compact such as the Canon 720IS or the Panasonic Lumix that has 10x zoom and stabilised lens - they are superb cameras and a whole lot easier to use.