400d v 5d

[lostinspace]

I have been going back over thousands of photos in my library recently and I

realized that taking a shot with a 400d was a LOT simpler than a 5d. I don't

know why, maybe I got a duff 5d, or maybe it was an exceptional 400d but it

seems 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 a

lenses system that could carry me through the next few tumultuous years in

digital photography, and at a pinch could be used on old film bodies if the

world goes tits up, i.e. for full frame stuff. I am saying this in hindsight

because 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 take

better pictures with it. I'll endeavor to show you shots from both, as candid as

I can, if so required. But I'm hoping someone will just say "You idiot,

it doesn't matter....just work it!

[shambrick007]

were you shooting in the same modes with both and the same file types?

[lostinspace]

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.

[jeret_slack]

get you 5d calibrated.. my xti was like that then I got it calibrated.. perfect..

[peter_j2]

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.

[burger]

How does one get your camera calibrated -do you have to take it in or can you do it yourself?

[PuppyDigs]

"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.

[elliot1]

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.

[zml]

Hugh: define "great shots straight out of the bag" - no idea what you mean. Sharpness? Color rendition? Color saturation? Resolution? ..?

[lostinspace]

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!

[lostinspace]

And