[RexFBrown]

Hello. I am looking to purchase a Canon Rebel 350 or 400 and am wondering which would be better. It seems there are some questions about whether the 400 exposes correctly or not.

Thanks.

[Soupdragon]

To be honest I think you would be hard pushed to tell the difference.
There is a shed load of second hand 350D's about for a very reasonable price, it's worth thinking about.

[shaman]

HI only just joined but have a 400 and sometimes does come out with pix a lil on the dark side with standard lens, never used the 350 but the 400 is 10mp so slightly more resolution for playing with and has only 1 lcd on the back none on top but as it is my first canon just normal to me ps lcd goes out when you get eye nr to viewfinder still playing with it but getting some v nice results ta well i think so lol

[Flipster]

i have just bought a 400d for my 1st dslr and ive been having fun with it since i got it., i can honestly say im not suffering from dark pics since i stopped using the inbuilt flash,(plus the settings in the camera probably sort that out but i aint got that far yet )

the inbuilt flash doesnt cover a fat lot and seems to leave the corners a bit dim!!....so now i dont use it (im just using a cheap flash gun..£100 from jessops and the pics are better and brighter) .

from what i was reading about the choice between the 350d and the 400d before i purchased mine was if you own the 350d then there is no rush to upgrade but if you are starting from scratch then its worth taking the 400d with better resolution, quicker nine point autofocus, sensor cleaning, bigger lcd..ive also read it takes a lot of this technology from the more expensive 30d and the 400d scores high on every review site ive been to.

there are people on here in a better position to advise you than i am, but i would say go for the 400d it wont dissapoint you

[Flipster]

Originally Posted by Soupdragon

There is a shed load of second hand 350D's about for a very reasonable price.

ye thats cus everyones trading them in for the 400d. lol..im just jesting m8...hope u dont take offence

[Steve]

I think Flipster hit the nail on the head, if you already have a 350D then upgrading is not worth it, however if its your first buy camera then the 400D is a better choice

[Rob Barron]

Of course there are loads of 350Ds about, just like there are loads of 10D's and 20D's. All superceded cameras become cheaper, that's par for the course. But the defining decision for purchase should not be made on price alone unless of course you are on a tight budget and need to get it as cheaply as possible.

As I have said many a time, the 350D and the 20D are both fantastic cameras. They didn't stop being fantastic just because the 400D and the 30D came out which are even better. The difference is between very good and very very good, not between good and bad.

So whichever camera is bought you are going to take great pictures. With the 350D you'll have a few quid extra for a lens or whatever. With the 400D you'll have a few more pixels available to crop off when needed (with two uncropped photos, you won't see ANY difference whatsoever between the resolution of prints at A4 size from either camera!) but you'll also have the auto-sensor clean system and a larger screen on the back.

New camera from nothing (or no DSLR) then definitely go for the 400D (budget aside). Got a 350D? No point really in upgrading unless you're a 'I must have the latest gadget' person!

Two wonderful cameras, a lot of very happy people on Christmas day when they open either one.

Cheers,
Rob

[Soupdragon]

Originally Posted by Flipster

ye thats cus everyones trading them in for the 400d. lol..im just jesting m8...hope u dont take offence

None taken, and I think what you are saying is true.
The 400D is attractively priced and has a number of things which are better than the 350, noteably the larger clearer LCD.
I have owned two 350's and can say they produce truly remarkable results for such a low priced camera.
I will not be buying another 350 or a 400 for the simple reason it does not feel very comfortable without the grip and that costs another £90-£120 depending on the time of year.
If you follow my logic I would be better off getting a D80, which interestingly enough Dixons sell with the Nikon 18-55 for about £600. That makes it about the same price as the 400 with a grip, and I know from experience the nikon 18-55 is a better optic than the canon version.
I think I've lost track here, sorry.

[RexFBrown]

Thanks for all the info. Unfortunately, I bought the Canon 400. I would not recommend this camera to anyone. I can not believe that Canon is able to sell so many and that more of the so called professionals have not done AB comparisons with other cameras. Being an engineer, I guess that's my downfall. My Canon Power shot A95 will consistently blow the Rebel out of the water when shooting the same picture side by side. The camera just doesn't take good inside pictures with flash. The backgrounds are always dark unless there is sufficient lighting in the first place. The 9 zone focusing is lousy as well, using it, I almost never get the center subject crisply focused. I can somewhat solve both of these problems by going to center focus mode and hope there is an edge to focus on, and shooting in manual mode pushing the flash about one stop. Sometimes using a speedlite and pushing 2 and bouncing will get me a real nice shot. For $800, I was expecting a little better point and shoot results. I have not taken many outdoor shots yet and expect to have better results there, but as a friend said, "If a camera can't take good outdoor shots, it's got problems".

[Dabhand16]

Rex, I'm puzzled by your comments regarding the 400D.

I presume you are referring to the built-in flash when you speak of the backgrounds being dark. They are only good for around 10-12 feet. Your manual will give the usable range.

The difficulties in focussing might be due to a variety of reasons. I'm not familier with the facilities of the Canon, but I'll bet there are several focussing modes, and it might be there is a better one to use in the situations you were in at the time. All AF systems require a degree of contrast in the subject to work. Maybe using manual focus will be the answer in some situations.

As far as the compact 'blowing away' the 400D in side by side tests, although you do not specify in what area this is achieved, don't forget that the smaller sensors in the compacts also mean different (shorter) focal length lenses which then usually produce a huge depth of field.

Persevere with the 400D. It is a very different beast to the compact and will need more input from you to get the best from it. You will grow to love it, i'm sure.

The Canon owners in our membership will be chipping in here soon too, and they will be able to give far better advice.

[silver]

I think you are seeing the problem with dSLRs,. they hand a lot more control to the user and you have to understand how to get the most from it,.

it's hard to give concreate advice w/o seeing what is going wrong,. I could post general ideas but it's far more simple if you post a dark picture / picture you aren't happy with that you took indoors

Sil

[RexFBrown]

Thanks for the advice. I am looking forward to dialog with other Canon users. I have done a lot of testing and the built in flash versus my speedlight makes very little difference. The photos I complain about are usually within 10 feet or so. The speedlight does give better results when angled up and bounced as I said in the post. I usually push the flash by up to +2. That is one good thing about the 400, you can configure the buttons to what features you want. I have configured the center button for flash control which allows me to evaluate the scene and add extra flash or not. I just came from a low light gaming room where my son had his birthday party today and found the best results were with no flash and going to ISO1600. I have just never liked the grain.
I believe you are correct about the depth of field - close picture comparisons with the A95 show it to have good focus front to back when compared to the Rebel. The nine zone auto focus does not seem to give priority to the center, though. I never had this issue with my 35mm Rebel, always sharp and crisp with the 7 zone auto focus. Is there a guide line to size of pictures to post?

[Dabhand16]

Rex - yes there is. 200kb max file size and longest side 1000 pixels. Most people tend to use around 800 pixels as the longest side to allow those with smaller screens to get the whole shot without scrolling.

I am still confident that the best is yet to come for you. Come on all you Canon users out there - advice needed here!

[Rob Barron]

The 400D is an extremely powerful tool but you do need to spend time getting to know it. It can and will give you improved photos over the compact photo once you are more used to it but that doesn't happen overnight.

I would definitely go down from the 1600ISO. Even on the Canon which has good anti-noise circuitry, I would only use 1600 ISO when noise won't be a problem, atmospheric shots, etc.

The flash on the camera is nowhere near as good as your flashgun but I am not sure which flashgun you are using. You said Speedlight so you presumably have a Canon but is ot one of the EX or one of the older EZ range? The EZ range is TTL but not E-TTL compliant and your camera is E-TTL II so whilst the EZ speedlight would fire, it won't be talking to the camera and adjusting its light according so it will dump its entire power on the subject each time it fires. Because you are bouncing the light you might not be noticing but if you used it direct on a subject a few feet away you would wash out the subject.

However, the flash unit built in to your 400D has a guide number of 13. That is only really suitable for main flash with a subject up to about 10 feet or fill-in flash when the subject has strong back lighting and you need to put light into the front. The different EX units that Canon make have guide numbers relating to their model number. The EX220 has a GN of 22, the EX420 a GN of 42 and on up to the EX580 having a GN 58. You can see from that the bigger models have a lot more power and you'll notice this if you try shooting subjects a bit further away in low light. If you are bouncing, you have got at least a 420/430 as the 220 doesn't have a bounce head. Therefore I can say for fair certainty you have a gun with a power of at least GN42. You can set the flash Exposure Value (FEV) to plus or minus direct on the flashgun so no real need for another button to do the same thing but whatever feels most comfortable for you is fine.

I would strongly recommend you get a Stofen Diffuser for your gun as this makes a big difference. It helps to reduce the hotspots that flashes often cause, especially on faces and things.

In terms of comparing the 400D with a compact, once you get used to using this to its fullest potential, you will see that the compact falls short, despite being a good camera. The lens on the A95 is nowhere near the resolving power of a full size lens on a DSLR and the the power in the camera to process the photos is excellent.

Have you tried different quality levels? It might be worth checking all your settings to see what levels you are going for. Are you using Auto-exposure (P or green square mode) or are you using Av (aperture priority) mode? It might be that you are using P which tends to go for the widest aperture possible in lower light conditions and that will in turn reduce the depth of field so parts of the shot might be soft or blurred. I weould put it in Av mode and select the aperture yourself. In general use, try for f8 or f11 when out and about but go to f4 or f5.6 for portraits. I am not sure what lens you have so not sure whether you can go to a wider aperture than that.

Keep ISO to 400 or lower to avoid any noise problems, only going to higher ISOs when you REALLY need to.

Remember that with AF you might need to focus on your main subject by semi-pressing the shutter release button but then, keeping the pressure on the button, recompose the shot so that you have the right part of the camera in focus.

Finally, keep reading and posting here on Pixalo as there are lots of great photographers here who will always be glad to help you if they can. Post pictures on the sharing thread, not just the good ones but even the problem shots if you want to know why a picture has not come out the way you expected. Show the picture with the details of aperture, shutter speed, ISO, lens etc and people will see if they can help.

I hope some of the above has helped but feel free to get back to us if you want to ask anything specifically.

Cheers,
Rob

[RexFBrown]

Thanks Rob, for the excellent reply. I usually do shoot ISO400 in the P mode. In my series of tests taking pictures of my dining room table in low light, I got the best picture using AV mode at F11 - the only problem was, shutter speed was set to 4 seconds, and that was with the flash, which I didn't understand. The Speedlite I am using is a Canon 380EX, and I must be using the wrong terminology when I say "bounce", because it can not be set +/- on the head. When I say bounce, I am talking about angling the head to 60 or 75 and firing it at plus 1 or 2 which bounces the light off the ceiling and illuminates the whole area better. It is better for distant shooting but I have issues even at close range. I particulary noticed this when looking at photos of the kids opening presents on Christmas from last year with the A95 to this year with the 400. I was shooting in the exact same spot, same lighting, and using the Automatic mode with the built in flash. No subject farther than 10 feet. When looking at the groups of pictures, I was struck at how much lighter and generally clearer the A95 photos were. This is when I realized that the nine zone auto focus does not work well. I think the focus algorithm is off, it does not seem to give priority to the center - thus I have switched to using center focus in the P mode (yes I use the off center focusing trick when necessary). Pushing the flash to about +2/3 generally gives me brighter photos, but depending on available lighting, can tend to wash the foreground out a bit.

I don't know what a Stofen Diffuser is but it sounds good. The face hotspots is why I can't aim the speedlite directly and increase its power.

As for lenses, I have the kit lens and a variety of lens that I had for the old Rebel 2000. None are L series and I will probably never have that kind of money. It took me 3 years to buy the camera only to be disappointed for now.

Quality levels? I only use max resolution and save in JPG and RAW formats.

I will post photo examples as soon as I figure out how.

Rex

[RexFBrown]

OK, I don't know if this is how to do it, but I put 3 pictures in my gallery to show what I am talking about.

Rex

[Dabhand16]

Hey, Rex - were're getting there!

I've picked up on something in your last post regarding bounce flash. I don't know how high your ceilings are, but I suggest you work out the exposure as if you were going to set it manually, and then see if +1 or +2 stops is the right compensation.

I'm going back to something i've not had to do for more years than I can remember, so forgive me if this is not quite right. These formula used to be used with focal plane shutters that could only synchronise at about 1/30th of a second, although the flash itself might be far faster. However, it will give you a starting point.

f stop = guide number/distance. The GN would be given for a specific ASA or ISO number, and could be changed to suit what film speed you were using. So to calculate the f stop when a GN of 56 (at 100 ISO) and a distance of 10 feet = f5.6. However, when using bounce flash, distance is the total distance the light from the flash has to travel. So, if the ceiling is quite high, say 15 feet, the flash light will have to travel at least 30 feet to reach the subject. Even if your subject is 10-12 feet away, you ought to be using 30 - 35 feet in the calculation. This would result in f1.8! If this turns out to be +1 or 2, from the 'norm', you are in the right area, but you might find that you ought to be opening up more, or increasing the ISO to get into a zone where you will be able to capture the whols scene/subject.

If you start using a diffuser, the values will have to be increased due to the weakened Iower of the flash. Give it a go and come back to us with the results.

[silver]

cool

it looks to me like none of them are in focus or at least the table isn't (the lighting is a different issue)

the reason the f11 one looks best is due to the depth of field

if you set the camera to use the center point then whatever is at that point will be in focus,. which is what's going on,. see the curtain / wall at the back - it's in the middle of the image and in focus?


try pointing the camera down a bit - so the tums thing is dead center and try that

Sil

[Dabhand16]

I've just had a look at your images, Rex. To my eye, the focus point is the book which is to the back of the table. The OOf stuff on the table is much closer to the camera, and to get them all in focus you will need to bring the focus point forward by about 50% and stop down a bit.

The EXIF info is interesting as it shows the flash setiing as manual, so it just might be that the settings here can be improved. Does the flash have 'smart' circuitry? that is is there a thyrosistor (sure I've mis-spelt that) that controls the flash output? If so, disable it and use the flash totally in manual mode. Also see my last post on this subject. I think I'm right in saying thet there is a greater DoF behind the point of focus than there is in front, so if you have a DoF preview faciltiy, set the camera up on a tripod and play around with the focus in manual mode if you have to. Then you will to see where you need to focus to get what you want.

If you see that the apature will be too large to get the Dof you want, provided you are getting the right settings to give the correct exposure, , you can then increase the ISO to get a smaller f stop if needed.

I'll have to leave it there. Too late and too much wine to check if I'm being sensible or not!

[RexFBrown]

OK. Sorry I did not explain the photos properly. I was using center focus and focusing on the back corner of the cabinet next to the dictionary, so the focus is correct. The AV photo is more in focus in the foreground because it was at F11 instead of F5.6. I took one at F36 that was sharp as a tack. The purpose of this set of pictures was to show that in the automatic mode, the picture is dark! In order to get a proper picture here I either had to do the bounce trick or go with AV priority which required a long exposure time even using flash making it unusuable for normal snapshots. Again, this same picture taken with the A95 was bright and lovely in the automatic mode.

[RexFBrown]

I have added two more photos which are not exactly the same pose or person but pretty close. This shows the A95 clarity and brightness improvement over the 400, I believe. Glad to listen to other views.

[silver]

there's not too much wrong with the 400d image,. it's looks at least a stop under exposed and the white balance is out,.

as for why,. the 400d image looks like it has hardly any flash contribution,. can you remember what the camera settings were (some of the exif information is missing I think)

Sil

[silver]

actually - looking again perhaps all the exif is there,.

what mode is the flash set to - I'm not familar with the 380 but I think it should say ETTL on the back screen if it's setup right?

Sil

[RichW]

I had a 400d for Christmas myself, my first slr camera so its a bit of a learning curve for me too. If the camera is set to Av then it will use a slow-sync flash exposure; indoors, especially with an ISO of 100, the resulting exposure could well be half a second or more. If you want to change this behaviour then you need to go into the custom function menu and change the Av flash exposure mode from AUTO to 1/200s (FIXED). This will fix the shutter speed at 1/200s no matter which aperture is chosen.

I have to say, amongst many other things, using the flash is something I have had to relearn coming from a P&S camera. Enjoying the journey though .

[silver]

the way I would normally suggest trying for people stuff in dimish rooms

camera on fully manual

flash to use ETTL

aperture close to wide open (depends on lens / subject / required depth of field etc)

shutter somewhere between 1/30-1/60 (depends on amount of subject movement especially in the areas not well lit by the flash)

then play with the ISO, you use this to determine the balance of flash against ambient lighting

if the subject lit by the flash is over exposing - or under exposing adjust the flash exp comp,. use the rgb histogram to determine exposure is usually the easiest way

that should give some ideas to start,. if you setup a scene to experiment and try different ISOs you will see the amount of ambient light Vs flashed subject change

a stofen might help indoors if you have low white-ish ceilings or are in a space with other things to reflect against,. it won't help outside

Sil

[RexFBrown]

On that particular picture, I was using the built in flash, well within range as you can see. However, I have done a lot of comparisons between the 380 and built in and find the built in to give a little more light output at close range if you can believe that.

I am still dissappointed that the 400 does not take better pictures in automatic modes - my 35mm rebel took great pictures, no problems with focus or lighting with built in flash or the speedlite 380. I am trying to learn how to make it work better and I appreciate all the input. I just don't think Canon got it right on this one. I am willing to bet the Nikon model does not have these issues.

Rex

[Dabhand16]

Right. My kidneys have kindly reduced the amount of alcohol in my bloodstream, and I can now see that not all of the photos posted on the site are out of focus!!

I've had another look at the last two images you posted, Rex, and the EXIF is showing some differences. The A95 is not revealling the ISO setting it was using, but the 400D was at 400. The focal length of the lenses were within a spit of each other, and the shutter speed for both is 1/60. However, the apature for the A95 is f2.8, whereas the 400D is using f4.0. also the a95, a 5 megapixel camera produced a file size of 175kb, but the 10 megapixel 400D has produced a 139kb file!

In one of your earlier posts, you mentioned doing 'side by side' comparison shots, but it seems you are not comparing like with like. OK, I'm not saying at this point that this is going to be the sole reason for the differences, but I do think we need to try to get them closer together if we are still going to make any comparisons between the two cameras.

I've also had another thought. Are you using the 400D flash at full power? My D70s has the facility to alter the flash power. Might be worth checking the settings. The reason I ask is that there is what seems to be a shadow going across the power cable above the light switch on the wall, and it is more defined in the 400D shot than in the A95. Also check the guide number for the flash on both cameras. It just might be that the compact has a more powerful flash! I know you have also been using an external flash, but in these pics i assume you were not.

If you know anyone else with a 400D, it would be worth doing some more side by side comparisons, but this time with the same camera. This will at least rule out a fault in your camera or built-in flash. If you don't know anyone else, could you get back to the place where you bought it to do a comparison with a demo model?

Don't give up - we can crack this!

[RexFBrown]

Ah, an interesting point. The kit lens at 18mm has a lower limit of F3.5. The flash power can not be adjusted in auto mode, but can in program mode. As I said in earlier posts, I have gone to pushing the flash about + 2/3 to +1 as a general rule and get better results. The posted photos were using auto mode. I also took this same picture with a friend of mines 400 and got the exact same picture so I have ruled out it being a specific camera issue. I also took the same shot with a Canon 350 and the shot was noticiably brighter but a bit washed out in the face. I can accomplish the same by pushing the flash so I'm not sure what that says about the 400 compared to the 350.

I took some outdoor shots today over a frozen pond in cloudy conditions and was suprised to see that most of the photos suffered from darkness as well. The frozen areas were well lit, but no detail in the surrounding landscape (maybe a tough shot for any camera). I am starting to wonder if the problem is really with the CCD chip Canon is using. It doesn't seem to have much range for light and dark, but I don't know much about that sort of thing. I could pull the detail out of the photos by manually tweaking gamma and contrast, etc. but again, what did I pay all that money for? To have to adjust every picture I take manually? I think I should have bought a Nikon! I have been so impressed with the Canon A95 and the Canon Rebel 2000 35mm.

[Geir Andersen]

I have also just bought my first DSLR, and chose the 400D. Allthough I'm very new to DSLR, I have to say I'm very pleased with the results. I'm still learning to use it, but what I've seen so far sets my mind at ease. I made the correct choice.
Not very helpful to you though, but I do believe it's a cracking good camera.

Originally Posted by RexFBrown

I could pull the detail out of the photos by manually tweaking gamma and contrast, etc. but again, what did I pay all that money for? To have to adjust every picture I take manually?

This is the exact reason I decied to invest in a DSLR. I want to be able to adjust every single aspect of the colour etc. (Once I get comfortable with post processing that is.)

-Geir

[Steve]

Originally Posted by RexFBrown

I took some outdoor shots today over a frozen pond in cloudy conditions and was suprised to see that most of the photos suffered from darkness as well. The frozen areas were well lit, but no detail in the surrounding landscape (maybe a tough shot for any camera). I am starting to wonder if the problem is really with the CCD chip Canon is using. It doesn't seem to have much range for light and dark, but I don't know much about that sort of thing. I could pull the detail out of the photos by manually tweaking gamma and contrast, etc. but again, what did I pay all that money for? To have to adjust every picture I take manually? I think I should have bought a Nikon! I have been so impressed with the Canon A95 and the Canon Rebel 2000 35mm.

I'd just like to pick up on this point if I may.

It is likely that as the majority of the picture was grey/white then the camera will take the reading and alter the setting to reduce the exposure. The same problem (of underexposed results) is often seen when someone tries to photograph snow for the first time, they expect the shots to be bright (as they see the scene themselves) but (all) cameras meter for averages and as a result tend to underexpose in these circumstances. Its a trade off by the manufacturers, under normal everyday situations the camera will correctly select the right settings to give you a good photograph but when you encounter unusual or difficult lighting conditions the 'normal' settings will not work. This is where the DSLR comes into its own though as you have total control over things such as exposure compensation.

The solution to this little gem is to learn how to read and use your histogram, from there you’ll be able to adjust the exposure settings to get great results every time.

Hope that helps a little?