lostinspace Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 I have been going back over thousands of photos in my library recently and Irealized that taking a shot with a 400d was a LOT simpler than a 5d. I don'tknow why, maybe I got a duff 5d, or maybe it was an exceptional 400d but itseems to me that a 400d takes simply great shots straight out of the bag,whereas a 5d you need to work them. I got the 5d because I wanted to invest in alenses system that could carry me through the next few tumultuous years indigital photography, and at a pinch could be used on old film bodies if theworld goes tits up, i.e. for full frame stuff. I am saying this in hindsightbecause I have stupidly sold the 400 to pay for the 5d, and some. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love my 5d, but, and it's a BIG but, can I takebetter pictures with it. I'll endeavor to show you shots from both, as candid asI can, if so required. But I'm hoping someone will just say "You idiot,it doesn't matter....just work it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shambrick007 Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 were you shooting in the same modes with both and the same file types? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostinspace Posted January 19, 2008 Author Share Posted January 19, 2008 Yes, as always Aperture Priority, full RAW setting. Weird thing is I see sharper images, with better hue and saturation from the 400d and the KIT lens than with 5d and L lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeret_slack Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 get you 5d calibrated.. my xti was like that then I got it calibrated.. perfect.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_j2 Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 I know it's not the same setup as yours but I shoot in RAW format with a 350D and a 5D with an EF 70-200/4L IS USM and an EF 17-40/4L USM. The colours are slightly different with both cameras but it's the opposite with me. The 5D images are sharper with better hue and saturation than the 350D. And I believe that is how it is supposed to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burger Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 How does one get your camera calibrated -do you have to take it in or can you do it yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuppyDigs Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 "Weird thing is I see sharper images, with better hue and saturation from the 400d and the KIT lens than with 5d and L lenses." I use a 5D and a bag of L optics and can say the images are normally sharp with well rendered color. I barely need to tweak the RAW files in DPP. The AA filter is weaker than my other cameras and files are pretty dad burn sharp. I don't have a XTi/400D, but I recall both my 10D and 20D needed a lot more post-processing than my 5D. The sharpness, saturation and contrast defaults are cranked on the Rebel series. You might consider matching the 400D look by increasing sharpness, saturation and contrast parameters on your 5D. When you view the RAW files in DPP these settings will be preserved as the opening default. Of course these are merely software tags or recipes, so you can change them anytime as the RAW data is intact. Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see. - Robert Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 Although I generally shoot RAW/JPG, I rarely use the RAW as my JPGS are sensational. In fact, unless my exposure is off dramatically, I find it difficult to get my processed RAW images to look as good as the out-of-the-camera JPGs. I have 4 RAW converters and have tried others. They all render different results. I use the RAW as backup in case the exposure is way off (thankfully does not happen too often). A lot has to do with in-camera settings and a good quality lens that is functioning properly. You have to learn to tweak your camera's settings and verify that your lenses are in fact functioning they way they are supposed to. In the past, I have had several lenses that needed calibration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zml Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 Hugh: define "great shots straight out of the bag" - no idea what you mean. Sharpness? Color rendition? Color saturation? Resolution? ..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostinspace Posted January 20, 2008 Author Share Posted January 20, 2008 I have to say that I'm not one for the technicalities of photography, when I take a shot I take it because that moment in time coupled with what I see grabs me by the b***s and makes me point my camera and shoot. Having said that I have a decent working knowledge of how the camera works, right from the basic in camera settings, out to the shit I need to know to take the shot at that particular instant in time, light etc,etc. Having said that what I'm about to show you are two shots taken with the two cameras and their suited lenses on an evening just after I bought the 5d, but not long after I sold the 400d. They are both attrocious images, but at the time all I wanted was a comparison,.....here and now..months later, I realise it was actually a good exercise. Let me know what you think.....not about the image, but about the comparisons between two very differently priced cameras, and their respectively priced lenses. Just to say that these happen to be the MOST comparative shots in my library for this discussion. If I could open out the boundaries I could show you a load of stuff that would show the crux of what I'm trying to understand, better saturation, contrast, sharpness,etc,etc. As a final note, both cameras were set to neutral in the settings. The 400d had the bog standard 18-55 f5.6 kit lens ( after a while I upgraded the lens to a 17- 55, the 5d had the 24-105 L kit lens. Since then I have added a 50 -f1.4 prime and a 70- 200 f2.8 L IS USM, with these lenses I have had a whole load of more interesting stuff. But the main point of this argument is....should we really expect so much more for our money. Maybe in the hands of a top pro the 5d would really sing, but in those same hands the 400d may be a songbird too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostinspace Posted January 20, 2008 Author Share Posted January 20, 2008 And Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now