Canon Eos 400D

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Tim Wilcock, Jan 22, 2007.

  1. Tim Wilcock

    Tim Wilcock Guest

    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
    Tim Wilcock, Jan 22, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Tim Wilcock

    Brian Lund Guest

    > 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
    Brian Lund, Jan 22, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Tim Wilcock

    Dave Cohen Guest

    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
    Dave Cohen, Jan 22, 2007
    #3
  4. Tim Wilcock

    John Ortt Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
    >
    John Ortt, Jan 22, 2007
    #4
  5. In article <P26th.2515$yj7.2125@trndny08>, 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 ?
    Tony Gartshore, Jan 22, 2007
    #5
  6. Tim Wilcock

    Bill Funk Guest

    On 22 Jan 2007 06:51:09 -0800, "Tim Wilcock"
    <> 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.
    Bill Funk, Jan 22, 2007
    #6
  7. Tim Wilcock

    jmc Guest

    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
    jmc, Jan 23, 2007
    #7
  8. Tim Wilcock

    SimonLW Guest

    "Tim Wilcock" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
    SimonLW, Jan 23, 2007
    #8
  9. Tim Wilcock

    Brian Lund Guest

    > 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
    Brian Lund, Jan 23, 2007
    #9
  10. Tim Wilcock

    Boris Glawe Guest


    >
    > 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
    Boris Glawe, Feb 2, 2007
    #10
  11. Tim Wilcock

    King Sardon Guest

    On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 02:36:55 +0100, Boris Glawe
    <> wrote:

    >
    >>
    >> 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!


    For the same image on the sensor (the same field of view), the smaller
    sensor (with so-called crop factors of 1.5 or 1.6) will get about the
    same depth of field with the aperture open one stop more than for a
    full frame camera.

    In short, you get more depth of field with smaller sensor cameras.

    Depth of field has nothing to do with the kind of lens. It is
    determined only by the image size (magnification), aperture and format
    size (or if you prefer, the degree of enlargement when viewing the
    result).

    KS
    King Sardon, Feb 2, 2007
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. deryck  lant

    Canon EOS 400D Full Review

    deryck lant, Oct 14, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    307
    MarkĀ²
    Oct 15, 2006
  2. Larry
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    513
    Q.T. Bouy
    Apr 14, 2007
  3. M

    Canon EOS 400D & Nikon D40x : EOS EF lenses

    M, Jun 24, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    448
    Neil Harrington
    Jun 24, 2007
  4. Squibbly

    macro lense for the canon eos 400d

    Squibbly, Jul 9, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    399
    Robert Coe
    Jul 14, 2007
  5. New battery for Canon EOS 400D (UK)

    , Jul 23, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    347
    Roy G
    Jul 24, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page