Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Canon Eos 400D

Reply
Thread Tools

Canon Eos 400D

 
 
Tim Wilcock
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2007
Have just upgraded to the above from an Ixus 500. I have an issue
which will probably seem stupid to most group members but I would like
some enlightenment!

I was very pleased with the definition of the Ixus pictures (5mp). The
standard auto EOS pictures (10mp), whilst physically larger, seem to
have lower definition (confirmed at lower pixels per cm in Photoshop).


Does this mean that I need to physically reduce the EOS pictures to
smaller but higher definition images or is there a way of setting the
camera to take the same sized images as the Ixus but at twice the
definition?? to avoid playing around in PS with every shot.

Sorry if I am being thick.

Tim

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Brian Lund
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2007
> Have just upgraded to the above from an Ixus 500. I have an issue
> which will probably seem stupid to most group members but I would like
> some enlightenment!
>
> I was very pleased with the definition of the Ixus pictures (5mp). The
> standard auto EOS pictures (10mp), whilst physically larger, seem to
> have lower definition (confirmed at lower pixels per cm in Photoshop).


"Lower definition" is somewhat unclear to me... Are your pictures less sharp
with the EOS 400D?
It is normal that DSLRs use less in-camera sharpening than most P&S do, so
generally you need to do more post-processing on a DSLR! However you can
turn up the in-camera sharpening (saturation and contrast too), read your
manual how to.

I recommend doing the picture processing in photoshop instead of in-camera
though!

About the pixels/cm issue... Does it matter? (The answer is no!)
Even if you have 1 pixel/cm set in photoshop your image will have exactly
the same pixel-count (megapixels). You can change this number in photoshop,
but there will be no visible change to the image, at all!

> Does this mean that I need to physically reduce the EOS pictures to
> smaller but higher definition images or is there a way of setting the
> camera to take the same sized images as the Ixus but at twice the
> definition?? to avoid playing around in PS with every shot.


No, you may need to add sharpening and/or other postprocessing. Definition
is a verry bad word, you've got somepixels*somepixels, don't worry about
anything else.

Also, double the Mpixels doesn't make your image twice as large, it makes it
about 40% larger!

And one last thing, if you have the kit-lens, it's okay but don't expect it
to be 100% sharp on pixel level, you have to offer a lot of money to get
that on a zoom lens.


Brian


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dave Cohen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2007
Brian Lund wrote:
>> Have just upgraded to the above from an Ixus 500. I have an issue
>> which will probably seem stupid to most group members but I would like
>> some enlightenment!
>>
>> I was very pleased with the definition of the Ixus pictures (5mp). The
>> standard auto EOS pictures (10mp), whilst physically larger, seem to
>> have lower definition (confirmed at lower pixels per cm in Photoshop).

>
> "Lower definition" is somewhat unclear to me... Are your pictures less sharp
> with the EOS 400D?
> It is normal that DSLRs use less in-camera sharpening than most P&S do, so
> generally you need to do more post-processing on a DSLR! However you can
> turn up the in-camera sharpening (saturation and contrast too), read your
> manual how to.
>
> I recommend doing the picture processing in photoshop instead of in-camera
> though!
>
> About the pixels/cm issue... Does it matter? (The answer is no!)
> Even if you have 1 pixel/cm set in photoshop your image will have exactly
> the same pixel-count (megapixels). You can change this number in photoshop,
> but there will be no visible change to the image, at all!
>
>> Does this mean that I need to physically reduce the EOS pictures to
>> smaller but higher definition images or is there a way of setting the
>> camera to take the same sized images as the Ixus but at twice the
>> definition?? to avoid playing around in PS with every shot.

>
> No, you may need to add sharpening and/or other postprocessing. Definition
> is a verry bad word, you've got somepixels*somepixels, don't worry about
> anything else.
>
> Also, double the Mpixels doesn't make your image twice as large, it makes it
> about 40% larger!
>
> And one last thing, if you have the kit-lens, it's okay but don't expect it
> to be 100% sharp on pixel level, you have to offer a lot of money to get
> that on a zoom lens.
>
>
> Brian
>
>


Can also be thought of as not confusing pixel count on a display monitor
with pixel count of the image source. I don't use PS, I usually see
actual pixel numbers displayed which in my case is 2592x1944. If I had a
slide rule I could know for sure if this is same as the 5mp my canon
claims it is!!
Dave Cohen
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Ortt
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2007
Hi Tim,

Your post is somewhat confusing.

Under no circumstances should an Ixus take a better picture than a 400D (all
other factors being equal).

If you could clarify it would be useful,

Cheers


"Tim Wilcock" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> Have just upgraded to the above from an Ixus 500. I have an issue
> which will probably seem stupid to most group members but I would like
> some enlightenment!
>
> I was very pleased with the definition of the Ixus pictures (5mp). The
> standard auto EOS pictures (10mp), whilst physically larger, seem to
> have lower definition (confirmed at lower pixels per cm in Photoshop).
>
>
> Does this mean that I need to physically reduce the EOS pictures to
> smaller but higher definition images or is there a way of setting the
> camera to take the same sized images as the Ixus but at twice the
> definition?? to avoid playing around in PS with every shot.
>
> Sorry if I am being thick.
>
> Tim
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Gartshore
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2007
In article <P26th.2515$yj7.2125@trndny08>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
> I usually see
> actual pixel numbers displayed which in my case is 2592x1944. If I had a
> slide rule I could know for sure if this is same as the 5mp my canon
> claims it is!!
>
>

Just over two and a half multiplied by just under two..

It's certainly a good first approximation..

T.
--
Do Binary Tripods have 11 legs ?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Funk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2007
On 22 Jan 2007 06:51:09 -0800, "Tim Wilcock"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Have just upgraded to the above from an Ixus 500. I have an issue
>which will probably seem stupid to most group members but I would like
>some enlightenment!
>
>I was very pleased with the definition of the Ixus pictures (5mp). The
>standard auto EOS pictures (10mp), whilst physically larger, seem to
>have lower definition (confirmed at lower pixels per cm in Photoshop).
>
>
>Does this mean that I need to physically reduce the EOS pictures to
>smaller but higher definition images or is there a way of setting the
>camera to take the same sized images as the Ixus but at twice the
>definition?? to avoid playing around in PS with every shot.
>
>Sorry if I am being thick.
>
>Tim


Forget what PS tells you about PPI (or PPCM). That's a purely nominal
figure, because they had to put *something* there. When you print,
then you'll set your PPI.
When you shot the 400D, I recommend shooting at Large Fine (the best
quality); you should have (or get) enough storage cards to handle the
file size. Shooting at Large Fine gives you the best JPG the camera
has to offer; you can always lose quality, but you can never gain it
if it wasn't there in the first place.
Enjoy!

--
Jesse Jackson said Thursday
it's all but certain he will
endorse Barack Obama for
president. Let the bidding begin.
Barack Obama has already offered
ten million dollars and a cabinet
post if he will endorse Hillary
Clinton instead.
 
Reply With Quote
 
jmc
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-23-2007
Suddenly, without warning, Brian Lund exclaimed (23-Jan-07 12:36 AM):
>> Have just upgraded to the above from an Ixus 500. I have an issue
>> which will probably seem stupid to most group members but I would like
>> some enlightenment!
>>
>> I was very pleased with the definition of the Ixus pictures (5mp). The
>> standard auto EOS pictures (10mp), whilst physically larger, seem to
>> have lower definition (confirmed at lower pixels per cm in Photoshop).

>
> "Lower definition" is somewhat unclear to me... Are your pictures less sharp
> with the EOS 400D?
> It is normal that DSLRs use less in-camera sharpening than most P&S do, so
> generally you need to do more post-processing on a DSLR! However you can
> turn up the in-camera sharpening (saturation and contrast too), read your
> manual how to.


Just learning this myself, I was comparing against my Nikon Coolpix
8700. Folks here taught me this new fact: sharpness <> detail.

I've seen this at work, using Unsharp Mask Gaussian (I use ThumbsPlus,
'cause newer versions of Photoshop or PE won't work on my Win2K 'puter).
Unlike my Nikon pictures, which quickly look "noisy" if sharpness is
applied two or more times, the pics from the Canon actually get sharper,
rather than just noisier.

The best thing to do, I found, is stop comparing the results with your
old camera, and just start using the new one. Once I did that, I started
getting better pictures, and I'm very happy with the results. There's a
bit of a learning curve going from a P&S to a DSLR. Put aside the P&S
and embrace the DSLR!

I've only had my DSLR about two weeks (same as yours, but the US version
- Digital Rebel XTi), but I absolutely adore it. I'm still sometimes
getting screwed up pictures, but now I understand that it's just user
error, and I practice a lot. Gotta love digital for not having to pay
for your mistakes (delete...delete...delete <g>).

Oh, and you might take a look for some of my posts here, and the
responses. Sounds like you're going thru the same learning process,
might save you some typing

jmc
 
Reply With Quote
 
SimonLW
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-23-2007
"Tim Wilcock" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> Have just upgraded to the above from an Ixus 500. I have an issue
> which will probably seem stupid to most group members but I would like
> some enlightenment!
>
> I was very pleased with the definition of the Ixus pictures (5mp). The
> standard auto EOS pictures (10mp), whilst physically larger, seem to
> have lower definition (confirmed at lower pixels per cm in Photoshop).
>
>
> Does this mean that I need to physically reduce the EOS pictures to
> smaller but higher definition images or is there a way of setting the
> camera to take the same sized images as the Ixus but at twice the
> definition?? to avoid playing around in PS with every shot.
>
> Sorry if I am being thick.
>
> Tim
>

Welcome to the world of dSLRs. They may look softer because the images are
not sharpened like they are on the compacts and may not seem as contrasty.
Compacts are tuned to the point and shooter who like that super crisp
contrasty look right out of the camera. In a resolution test, you should
find the 400D to show a good amount of edge to its resolving power.

If you have the 18-55 "kit" lens. It benefits from stopping down at least
one stop from maximum, as many zooms will.
-S


 
Reply With Quote
 
Brian Lund
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-23-2007
> Can also be thought of as not confusing pixel count on a display monitor
> with pixel count of the image source. I don't use PS, I usually see
> actual pixel numbers displayed which in my case is 2592x1944. If I had a
> slide rule I could know for sure if this is same as the 5mp my canon
> claims it is!!


2592*1944 = 5,038,848 pixels (Or 5.04 Mpixels)

Close enough!


Brian


 
Reply With Quote
 
Boris Glawe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-02-2007

>
> No, you may need to add sharpening and/or other postprocessing. Definition
> is a verry bad word, you've got somepixels*somepixels, don't worry about
> anything else.
>
>

You also have to mension, that the depth of focus is much lower with
most DSLR lenses! The photographer has to be much more carefull about
what he/she focuses and what aperture value is selected!

Greets Boris
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New battery for Canon EOS 400D (UK) psaffrey@googlemail.com Digital Photography 7 07-24-2007 02:16 PM
macro lense for the canon eos 400d Squibbly Digital Photography 9 07-14-2007 10:44 AM
Canon EOS 400D & Nikon D40x : EOS EF lenses M Digital Photography 4 06-24-2007 07:08 PM
1) Sony Alpha vs Canon EOS 400D : software running on Mac OS X --- 2) RAW to TIFF conversion Larry Digital Photography 5 04-14-2007 02:10 AM
Canon EOS 400D Full Review deryck lant Digital Photography 2 10-15-2006 06:20 AM



Advertisments