Canon Eos 450D Question.

[Blackpool Rocker]

Hi, Just wondering if you guys can help...Or this this 'Must be me,user error'

I have a Canon 450D which when taking pictures I think they turn out dark and dont look sharp. I have thought this since I purchased the camera from Jessops two years ago. I took the camera back and they said all was well?
I have tried adjusting the megapixel settings, but its no better.

However, I purchased a Sony pocket digital camera a few weeks ago and its like chalk and cheese. The Sony takes bright sharp pictures that look fab. The Canon pictures always look like they were taken on a cloudy day even if it was bright sunny hot day.

Any ideas please greatfully recieved, I have to say, keep it simple as I am no photograpy god!!
Thanks.

[dibbly dobbler]

What setting have you been shooting on ?

Got any examples to show us ?

[RobDickinson]

An SLR is a complexe tool to use, you cant just point it somewhere and press the shutter without a bit of thought.

If you DO want to do that stick it into green square mode and set the appripriate picture style (landscape, potrait) and shoot away.

As soon as you step away from the green square mode you are taking more control and its very easy to muck things up if you dont understand whats going on.

[Gizmo!]

This is assuming that the controls are similar-ish to my 40D...

Sounds like you've got it set to a low EV compensation accidentally. Turn it on, put it in P mode, point it at something, focus, prod the button to the top right of the screen with +/- in a box, and watch the markings in the middle of the screen that look like [-2..-1..0..1..2]. Make sure it's set to 0.



Might work.

[oobster]

Isn't it fairly common for the 400D/450D to under expose (if you are using the on-board exposure meter?) I am sure I have seem similar threads on here before.

[Colin RedGriff]

Best thing is to post some examples I'm sure the combined expertise on here will be able to help

[covboy]

oobster said:

Isn't it fairly common for the 400D/450D to under expose (if you are using the on-board exposure meter?) I am sure I have seem similar threads on here before.

Doesn't explain the not being sharp question though.

ETA
I suppose the lack of sharpness could be camera shake through slow shutter speed, but coupled with the dark pictures this would point gross underexposure.

Edited by covboy on Monday 29th November 21:31

[oobster]

covboy said:

oobster said:

Isn't it fairly common for the 400D/450D to under expose (if you are using the on-board exposure meter?) I am sure I have seem similar threads on here before.

Doesn't explain the not being sharp question though.

Indeed. Must learn to read thread thoroughly before replying. Apologies.

[RobDickinson]

Lots of reasons an image could be soft, and dark, hard to say from what we know.


What we do know though is its either user error or a very bust 450D.

[Killwilly]

I have a 450D and believe me it is a great camera. It sounds to me that your problem is user error, which has already been suggested. Do you have the same results if you set the camera on auto "green box"?
You can find a dedicated thread for XSI/450D at the link below. Have a read and you will see some mind blowing photographs taken with that camera.


http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php...

[Busa_Rush]

I used to have one and only sold it because I had difficulty using the little viewfinder and with a big lens on it's not as easy to handle as a bigger body.

I'm sure I remember in the menu system there's a reset option - this resets the camera to factory defaults. Try doing that and also making sure it's on a later version of the firmware.

Maybe also do some basic cleaning - the contacts between camera and lens and the battery contacts. Is there any corrosion anywhere ?

[Blackpool Rocker]

...Thanks for all your help and information guys. I am using the Canon and the Sony camera both on their full automatic settings (Green square)

I will try what is sujested over the weekend, if i still think there is a major
difference between the two cameras and pictures, I will post them up for your
thoughts.

Any other new ideas, please keep them comming.

[LongQ]

Do you view on screen AND print and do they look pretty much the same either way? DO you have a PC or a Mac? (Or something else?)

The standard file names will either be IMG_<number>.jpg or _MG_<number>.jpg. Which naming convention is your camera using?

ETA: And when you say 'dark' does that mean tending to have a lof of black and very dark shades of everything or are they more sort of dull colours and look unsaturated - faded reds and greens and stuff?

Edited by LongQ on Tuesday 30th November 13:25

[Blackpool Rocker]

LongQ....

I am viewing the pictures taken on the screen on the camera. I have printed the
pitcures out at various places, Jessops & Boots to name but two.

To view on the computer I use a normal PC, so nothing fancy there.

The best thing I can say about the pictures is that they dont look sharp, so reds
and greens seam dull for example.
If you took a picture on a sunny day, it doesnt stand out as being a sunny day when
you saw the picture on the camera screen or had the picture developed into a actual photograph......would you photography experts call that under exposed?

This is all taking place when I used the camera on the full auto green box setting.

[Simpo Two]

I don't think we can give any meaningful analysis without seeing some examples. Your results seem so way off we're all just floundering in the dark.

[Anthony Micallef]

Also why would you spend money on a DSLR like a 450D and only use it on the fully auto setting? Thats assuming that you are of course.

[LongQ]

Blackpool Rocker said:

LongQ....

I am viewing the pictures taken on the screen on the camera. I have printed the
pitcures out at various places, Jessops & Boots to name but two.

To view on the computer I use a normal PC, so nothing fancy there.

The best thing I can say about the pictures is that they dont look sharp, so reds
and greens seam dull for example.
If you took a picture on a sunny day, it doesnt stand out as being a sunny day when
you saw the picture on the camera screen or had the picture developed into a actual photograph......would you photography experts call that under exposed?

This is all taking place when I used the camera on the full auto green box setting.

There are many factors that affect the appearance of the pictures although we should differentiate between 'dark', 'dull colours' and 'sharpness'.

Screens can be a problem to compare to because they have different brightness settings available to them and without knowing how they are set it's probably not good to make a specific comment. The camera screen is generally not a great representation of how the picture will look unless you are 'tuned into' make allowances for what you see. The amount of light around you (ambient light) as you look at the screen can make a huge difference as can the type and source of the light.

The reason I asked about the names of the files is that cameras make use of things called 'colour spaces' and most offer 2 options - sRGB and Adobe RGB.(RGB = Red/Green/Blue). sRGB is the more commonly used 'standard' definition of colour (I use that term loosely here) and it is the native colour space for most PC monitors by default. Adobe RGB is used more by Pros who have to prep things for magazine printing where the processes used are better attuned to Adobe RGB that sRGB.

Canon cameras can be set to either sRGB or Adobe RGB as their working colour space. sRGB files are, by default, named IMG_<fourdigitnumber>.jpg and Adobe RGB files are _MG_<fourdigitnumber>.jpg .

.jpg unless you are using RAW in which case they will be .CR2 - but the green square, afaik, only provides jpg output.

If the camera is using Abobe RGB files viwewed on a normal PC monitor will tend to look dull - greens and red especially, and prints are likely to be the same. It's not usually a dramatic dull but it is dull.

Now, there are, as you can tell, a number of variables here so offering advice becomes somewhat tricky since it would be easy to head off in the wrong direction.

As it happens I had a similar comment from someone I met earlier in the year about their 400D. He thought it might be the Sigma lens he had bought. Photos were not right - dull and not sharp.

He suggested I borrow the camera and see what I thought of it.

My initial impressions were that there was no obvious problem. However it was set to Adobe RGB so things were a little duller than they might be viewed on a normal monitor - not much buit slightly off. Sharpness was not a problem except that his Sigma lens had a maximum aperture that meant the lens was operating, at best, right on the limitis of the camera's ability to get a fast focus reading. So it would work fine but under the worst conditions it could be less than consistent. No great surprise.

I ran about 800 shots at a race meeting (quadrupling the shutter count!) and had no more problem shots than I got with my own 400D. In fact, at the price, I was quite impressed with the lens when it hit the spot. Which was most of the time.

Anyway, the point of that story is that impressions are very hard to convey and as has been commented already, without some examples or files to work with it's very difficult to offer any useful advice - too many variables for a start.

Point and shoot cameras are usually set to give highly vibrant and bright colours by default, They can have great impact, though they may not be very accurately representing the scene shot. It occurs to me that your comparison may well appear to be like chalk and cheese but what the photo should look like, in reality, is neither chalk nor cheese - my apologies for mangling the metaphor.

If you don't want to post any of your current pics just pop out and take one (preferably not including snow - it has it's own effects on images) and post it here so people can offer opinions about the picture irrespective of the content - other then whether or not the content is adequate for providing useful feedback of course! Please avoid the black cat in the coal cellar subject matter!