Where's the Beef?

[freddy333]

My Canon 400D (same camera body that Pug uses) arrived today. Since I purchased the body by itself, I went to the local camera store & picked up a Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III zoom lens to play with until my macro lens arrives in 1-2 weeks. Unfortunately, while I expected a bit of a learning curve before I was up-to-speed on the new gear, I was not prepared for the number of features on point-&-shoots that are missing on this (far more expensive & theoretically more advanced) SLR. Things like setting white balance, which was a simple, 2-step piece of cake on my p&s's, is now a 4 (or is it 5?????) step procedure on the 400D. And, after all that, I still have not been able to get a proper white balance (I may be new to digital SLRs, but I know how to do a white balance, so I do not think the problem is me).

I spent most of Tuesday experimenting with the 400D/75-300 combination, trying to get at least 1 good, sharp picture that bested my p&s's, but to no avail. The best the 3 of us (camera, lens & myself) could muster, after many hours & hundreds of shots that were not even this good, was this (tripoded in Manual program/focus, f/5.6 & @ ISO100 with the lens at the tele-photo end)

Sadly, shooting outside in natural light was not even this good.

Compare with a hand-held shot (in full Auto) from the SX10IS

I just cannot believe a Canon DSLR cannot at least match (though it should surpass) the output from a $350 p&s. So I have to assume that either I am doing something wrong or there is something wrong with either the lens or camera body (which is a factory refurb).

I also have a question - Is there a way to disable the pop-up flash when the 400D is set to Close-up (Macro)?

Oddly, the Macro on the 400D is treated like 1 of the program functions like Auto, AV, TV, Program, Manual, etc & it is essentially the same as Auto (most of the manual controls are disabled). Worse still, since the Macro is controlled on the program wheel, you cannot enable it in other program modes like Manual.

TIA

[capice]

hi m8, if you need any help just pm me

[RickHiC]

Don't despair. Your new camera is capable of much better pictures than any p&s. There is just a learning curve ahead of you. One great thing to try is putting it in full manual and selecting the aperture and shutter by hand (using the meter in the viewfinder). Experiment. Change them back and forth and examine the results. You'll get a better understanding of how cameras and light in general works.

About that lens: it won't focus as close as many p&s cameras. That is not necessarily a negative. It does other things better. You'll have lots of fun with your macro lens when it arrives.

About white balance: If you want to nail it pre/during shoot, shoot a gray card in your scene and tell the camera to set to that. I think the 400D can do that. Otherwise (and even better), shoot in raw. Then you can tweak white balance after the fact on your computer as much as you like with no degradation to the original image.

[freddy333]

One great thing to try is putting it in full manual and selecting the aperture and shutter by hand (using the meter in the viewfinder). Experiment. Change them back and forth and examine the results. You'll get a better understanding of how cameras and light in general works.

Thanks, but I did try that - full manual, as well as full auto, aperture priority, shutter priority, program, etc, as well as trying ALL of the basic (preset) settings. Believe me, I tried everything & the pic above was, by far, the best I was able to get with this combo.

About that lens: it won't focus as close as many p&s cameras. That is not necessarily a negative. It does other things better.

Whoa, Nellie!!!!!!! What was that about 'won't focus as close as many p&s cameras'???? As long as the object being shot is not closer than the lens's minimum focusing distance (which is 1.5m/4.95' for this lens), why should it not be able to focus & produce clearer pics than my p&s cameras? My watch in the pic was a good 8' away when I shot it.

About white balance: If you want to nail it pre/during shoot, shoot a gray card in your scene and tell the camera to set to that. I think the 400D can do that. Otherwise (and even better), shoot in raw. Then you can tweak white balance after the fact on your computer as much as you like with no degradation to the original image.

I always use a gray card & the shot I posted was done in RAW. Most of the other pics I shot (also in RAW, but I did compare them with their High Quality JPEG companions) had alot of color casting - some too warm, some too blue. Because the procedure for setting manual white balance is twice as complex as setting white balance on any of my previous p&s cameras, it is more than likely that I am doing something wrong. But, so far, I have not been able to figure out what it is I am doing wrong???????

Assuming you (or someone) are familiar with the 400D, this is what I am doing to set white balance -

1. Take a (full screen) picture of my gray card (manual settings)

2. Select Custom White Balance on the Menu

3. Import/set the gray card pic I just took into the custom white balance screen

4. Select the Custom White Balance option on the White Balance screen

5. Take the picture

I have yet to see a color correct (or sharp) picture come out of this camera/lens combo.

In contrast (no pun intended), this was the procedure for my p&s cameras -

1. Select Custom White Balance on the Menu

2. Point camera at gray card & press the Set button

3. Take the picture

Worked like a charm every time.

While it has been about 10 years since I last dabbled in any serious way with photography (& never used anything but the Planar 1.7/50 lens that came with my camera), I am not a complete noob. The 25-year old SLR you occasionally see in my pics used to see fairly regular use & not as a prop

[Pugwash]

For decent colour balance, I shoot in RAW and choose the temperature in Photoshop's RAW importer. If you shoot RAW, it doesn't decide what colour balance to use until you convert it to a regular photo.

Cheap f1.8 lens

Stock 18-55mm

[ubiquitous]

I just treat my Rebel EOS like a P&S. Set the little dial thingy to the action setting, slap the macro lens on, adjust to focus and shoot. I have no idea what settings/fstop/aperture and whatever else I use... But pics turn out okay, I think?

[Ronin]

@Freddy333. You are not alone. I went through a very similar frustration back during the RWG Photo Contest that Lani put together. I attempted to use a borrowed Canon XTI with the exact same feeling/results.

I wound up going back to my ancient SD630 for Macro shots for the contest.

Great thread. Waiting for more experts to chime in.

[Guest ThePhilosopher]

I also have a question - Is there a way to disable the pop-up flash when the 400D is set to Close-up (Macro)?

Oddly, the Macro on the 400D is treated like 1 of the program functions like Auto, AV, TV, Program, Manual, etc & it is essentially the same as Auto (most of the manual controls are disabled). Worse still, since the Macro is controlled on the program wheel, you cannot enable it in other program modes like Manual.

TIA

I wouldn't use Macro mode on any SLR - then again I don't use any programmed modes...Just learn to shoot full manual if you want better results than the P&S, by leaving the camera on programmed modes you essentially have a P&S with interchangeable lenses and a bigger sensor. The 75-300 isn't the sharpest lens and usually (cheaper) zoom lenses start to lose sharpness at the long end of the zoom. Try shooting at a higher ISO (200 or 400 even) so you can get a bit better exposure as your "best" image seems to be underexposed and the focus seems a bit off. There is a learning curve, you're experiencing it now.

If you're looking for this type of image (Tag Pic) it's not just simply a matter of the camera and the lens.

Edited August 12, 2009 by ThePhilosopher

[freddy333]

I wouldn't use Macro mode on any SLR - then again I don't use any programmed modes...Just learn to shoot full manual if you want better results than the P&S, by leaving the camera on programmed modes you essentially have a P&S with interchangeable lenses and a bigger sensor. The 75-300 isn't the sharpest lens and usually (cheaper) zoom lenses start to lose sharpness at the long end of the zoom. Try shooting at a higher ISO (200 or 400 even) so you can get a bit better exposure as your "best" image seems to be underexposed and the focus seems a bit off. There is a learning curve, you're experiencing it now.

Your Tag Pic looks great, but I think you must have missed the beginning of this thread. Nearly all of my pics are, & have always been, shot in full manual (with the pic at the top of the thread shot being converted from RAW). Further, all of my shooting with this camera has been output in both RAW & the highest resolution (L) JPEGs, with the RAWs being processed in either Canon's included software or the latest versions of Adobe RAW or Paint Shop Pro (all producing similar results & the unprocessed JPEGs look about the same).

And, again, seeing more of these stunning pics that Pug, Ubi & others produce with the same camera (some even with assistance of the camera's Auto functions), I have to figure that either my camera is defective (though I kind of doubt that), the CF card is defective or my Canon zoom lens is simply incapable of producing sharp images. The lens seems, to me, to be the most likely source of the problem since it is the only component of its kind (a zoom SLR lens) that I have had little direct experience with before buying 1 yesterday & 2 people have mentioned that it is the problem. Still, I find it really hard to believe that a $200 lens is incapable of producing a sharp image anywhere within its usable range (I get the same unsharp, slightly glowing images whether shooting wide-angle or telephoto or at any point in-between).

[Andei3000]

Hi Freddy,

I definetely would say, the lens is the problem!

As the cheaper lenses tend to soften the picture when they are full open.

I'm not shure if you have tried to shoot a pic with the aperture 3 stops down (F9), maybe this will help.

greetings

Andei

[Pugwash]

or my Canon zoom lens is simply incapable of producing sharp images. The lens seems, to me, to be the most likely source of the problem since it is the only component of its kind (a zoom SLR lens) that I have had little direct experience with before buying 1 yesterday & 2 people have mentioned that it is the problem. Still, I find it really hard to believe that a $200 lens is incapable of producing a sharp image anywhere within its usable range (I get the same unsharp, slightly glowing images whether shooting wide-angle or telephoto or at any point in-between).

I'm almost certain it's the lens. I tried to do the same as you with my 200mm and got similar disappointing results.

[freddy333]

I definetely would say, the lens is the problem!

As the cheaper lenses tend to soften the picture when they are full open.

I'm not shure if you have tried to shoot a pic with the aperture 3 stops down (F9), maybe this will help.

Thanks, Andei & yes, I have tried 3 stops down & virtually everything else.

I'm almost certain it's the lens. I tried to do the same as you with my 200mm and got similar disappointing results.

Ok, then what is the purpose of this EF 75-300 zoom lens, if all the images it produces -- both wide-angle & telephoto -- are soft with a slight halo around them? I mean, the primary purpose in stepping up to an SLR (from a p&s) is to get more precise images, no?

[Andei3000]

Hi freddy, a common saying in the "DSLR scene" says:

good glass stays, bodies change

And I'm sorry to say, but you got one of the worst lenses for the Canon system (according to fredmiranda:).

It's a standard kit lense, which are mostly not good.

As you have the macro lense already on it's way, I would recommend to try it with this lense and I'm quite shure you will change your mind.

sorry for my bad english, but I hope you got it what I meant.

Andei

[smc]

I tried canon and ended up going with nikon. I find the controls are more intuitive, and low light performance (in the consumer DSLRs) is better. I also like the Nikon AF and flash systems better. Even though the big white pro lenses were calling my name, the nikon glass is just as good and there are more options to chose from. I can use pretty much any lens nikon has ever made on my D80.

Also going to agree with the lens being a significant factor.

[freddy333]

And I'm sorry to say, but you got one of the worst lenses for the Canon system (according to fredmiranda:).

Yes, it was an impulse buy. I rarely purchase something like this without doing alot of research 1st. But I was without a functional camera, so I did what I always tell people not to do - rely on a salesman's advice.

I just went through the fredmiranda zoom lens reviews & this 1 was almost universally panned by everyone, so back it goes today. I think I may try to exchange it for the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS, which, in contrast, received almost universally rave reviews. Hopefully, it will provide a similar zoom (which does work well on this lens) but with Image Stabilization (which adds some hand-hold-ability to an otherwise tripod-only lens) & good image quality. And it is only about $50 more than the lens I have.

As you have the macro lense already on it's way, I would recommend to try it with this lense and I'm quite shure you will change your mind.

I sure hope so. At this point, I have been seriously considering buying back the SX10IS & just dealing with its shortcomings. That p&s, with its 20x zoom & IS, allowed me to ignore most of the mechanics of picture-taking so I could concentrate on the creative process instead of struggling to find creative ways to get an acceptably decent image. But I will certainly wait to see what I get with the 400D & a lens that is capable of better-than-Polaroid quality images before I give up & return to the digital p&s world.

[Pugwash]

Ok, then what is the purpose of this EF 75-300 zoom lens, if all the images it produces -- both wide-angle & telephoto -- are soft with a slight halo around them? I mean, the primary purpose in stepping up to an SLR (from a p&s) is to get more precise images, no?

Ok, my results were differently disappointing. I'll post them later.

The point of a DSLR is you can take that lens out and put a better one in. I'm very happy with my 18-55mm stock IS lens. It's not pro-quality or price, but it does watches very well.

[Pugwash]

Yes, it was an impulse buy. I rarely purchase something like this without doing alot of research 1st. But I was without a functional camera, so I did what I always tell people not to do - rely on a salesman's advice.

I just went through the fredmiranda zoom lens reviews & this 1 was almost universally panned by everyone, so back it goes today. I think I may try to exchange it for the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS, which, in contrast, received almost universally rave reviews.

Oh! Yes, the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS? That's the one I have. It's excellent. I'd not use it as a watch lens, but it's amazing for zoomy stuff, especially for the price.

[freddy333]

Oh! Yes, the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS? That's the one I have. It's excellent. I'd not use it as a watch lens, but it's amazing for zoomy stuff, especially for the price.

As usual, beautiful pic. Since I have a macro on the way, I thought a zoom would be useful to fill in the gaps left by the SX10IS, so I can do shallow dof shots that may be difficult to do with the LX3's meager 2.5x zoom.

Thanks Pug. Just what I needed to see.

[ubiquitous]

After seeing Pugs' pic above... I've realized that I need to get a decent zoom lens as well...

[freddy333]

Probably a good idea, Ubi. I just returned the 75-300 & ordered 1. So I will end up with the same (zoom) setup as Pug, which I hope will improve my image.

[Pugwash]

Probably a good idea, Ubi. I just returned the 75-300 & ordered 1. So I will end up with the same (zoom) setup as Pug, which I hope will improve my image.

Mine cost

[freddy333]

Pug, your pics are inspiring. In fact, I was so inspired that I decided there just has to be a way to wrangle something better out of my 400D than what I have gotten so far.

So I pulled the Planar f1.7/50 off this (this pic taken with the setup described below)

& held it in the 400D's lens tunnel while I snapped a few pics around a parking lot.

Between the ill-fitting Zeiss lens flopping around inside the Canon, not to mention the inevitable camera shake due to my having to aim & focus while holding everything together & snapping the shutter (all while remaining consciously aware of the need to keep the lens from banging into any of the 400D's delicate innards), I was hoping that 1 or 2 pics might at least equal the best shot I got from the Canon 75-300 zoom. But, WHOA!!!!!!!!!!!!!........when I downloaded the RAW shots onto my computer, I could not believe my eyes (except for downsizing & jpg-conversion, these uncropped/unprocessed images are exactly as they came from the very hand-held 400D)

So, jeez........ If the kit lens from my 25 year old Contax, held in front of the 400D (in a not very elegant manner) & shooting pics by hand can produce images of this quality, while Canon's $300 zoom lens is unable to produce a single good image (anywhere in its range) out of 200-300 attempts (most shot with tripod & careful lighting/measurements), then there is something seriously wrong with Canon's picture (pun definitely intended).

For the 1st time, finally, I am now starting to sense (1st-hand) some real potential with this camera & I can only imagine what I will be able to do with a proper (sharply focused) macro lens.

[Pugwash]

For the 1st time, finally, I am now starting to sense (1st-hand) some real potential with this camera & I can only imagine what I will be able to do with a proper (sharply focused) macro lens.

Excellent!

This has all cheered me up.

[ubiquitous]

F333-

Give this a try- Put your Canon glass back on, and hold your Zeiss lens to the Canon lens inverted. This should allow you the ability to take some close macros as per Pugs' tutorial. This method produces some crazy shallow DoF and vignetting, but you can get some sharp detail as well.

[Pugwash]

Give this a try- Put your Canon glass back on, and hold your Zeiss lens to the Canon lens inverted. This should allow you the ability to take some close macros as per Pugs' tutorial. This method produces some crazy shallow DoF and vignetting, but you can get some sharp detail as well.

Don't bother even putting the canon lens on. Just hold the decent glass on backwards.