Are all Canon's created equal

[mcf0807]

While shooting ourdoors my Canon 5D seams to be about 1/3 or 2/3 under exposed. Even though my exposure indicator while looking in the viewfinder shows correct exposure. Here is my question. Is the exposure display always correct? Or should I just accept this difference and over expose by 1/3 or 2/3 on this camera?

[silvrr]

The meter is easily tricked. You can compensate if you think it is needed or you can shoot raw and adjust the exposure that way.

[HappySnapper90]

JPG or RAW?

If you're trying to compare results from your 5D with a point and shoot image, you're asking too much of your 5D. P&S cameras automatically adjust the photo after it was taken to maximize contrast, brightness, etc. that your 5D isn't doing.

A dSLR such as the 5D is meant to not give snappy, high contrast photos right out of the camera. Otherwise stick to a P&S camera. Higher end dSLRs were designed for the photographer to fine tune the image afterwards instead of adding high default contrast that can be difficult to correct afterwards.

And on the contrary, I use my 5D at EC -1/3 as a default setting unless I'm outdoors under overcast skies. Then I'll use EC 0. And if you have a scene without a lot of contrast, the recorded light may be in the middle of the recordable light spectrum which will look very dull and flat because it lack natural contrast.

[Igrado]

The meter is easily tricked. You can compensate if you think it is needed or you can shoot raw and adjust the exposure that way.

And on the contrary, I use my 5D at EC -1/3 as a default setting unless I'm outdoors under overcast skies. Then I'll use EC 0. And if you have a scene without a lot of contrast, the recorded light may be in the middle of the recordable light spectrum which will look very dull and flat because it lack natural contrast.

Using a Rebel XT (350D) ought I to generally follow a similar principle? I am still shooting in JPG as the discussions/guides on the topic I have read left me with the impression that RAW was more of a professional level tool, and I have enough newbie issues to focus on :D.

[silvrr]

Using a Rebel XT (350D) ought I to generally follow a similar principle? I am still shooting in JPG as the discussions/guides on the topic I have read left me with the impression that RAW was more of a professional level tool, and I have enough newbie issues to focus on :D.

RAW is as complicated as you want it to be. Using the Canon Supplied Digital Photo Professional (DPP) software you just have to move sliders around and you can vastly improve your image. Then convert it to JPEG and there you go.

No more complicated then opening an image in photoshop and making a few tweaks.

[HappySnapper90]

Using a Rebel XT (350D) ought I to generally follow a similar principle? I am still shooting in JPG as the discussions/guides on the topic I have read left me with the impression that RAW was more of a professional level tool, and I have enough newbie issues to focus on :D.

You can also increase in-camera contrast, saturation, and sharpness settings which adds more contrast to every photo you take so you can keep shooting JPG.

RAW is not a professional tool. Most people on this forum are not pros but most people probably shoot RAW on here. RAW leads to bigger files and more time spent on your computer to develop your RAW files.

[Veemac]

Using a Rebel XT (350D) ought I to generally follow a similar principle? I am still shooting in JPG as the discussions/guides on the topic I have read left me with the impression that RAW was more of a professional level tool, and I have enough newbie issues to focus on :D.
While RAW is used by a lot of professionals, it benefits the amateur/beginner (who is willing to post-process their images) even more. Any other advantages aside, it offers a much greater "margin of error" than JPG for recovering blown shots (exposure wise....but remember that nothing can fix bad focus!). I don't find post-processing RAW any more difficult or time-consuming than JPG - in fact, I find basic PP tasks easier and faster than doing the equivalent in Photoshop.

As silvrr said, basic PP tasks are just a matter of moving a few sliders around and looking at the results. Most RAW conversion programs will allow you to print directly from within, so you don't even really need to convert/export your files to JPG unless you plan to e-mail them, post them on the web, etc. - in which case you're looking at one more step in your workflow.

[Igrado]

Thank you all for your advice. I will start shooting in RAW+JPG tonight! I'll download DPP (free?) and go from there. While I am trying to reduce my post-processing time, I think that's more an issue of getting better shots while on location. From the responses here, RAW will allow significantly better exposure correction, which is something I have been having trouble with getting right and with fixing in PS, particularly in the dark bars I have done most of my work in.

[silvrr]

Thank you all for your advice. I will start shooting in RAW+JPG tonight! I'll download DPP (free?) and go from there. While I am trying to reduce my post-processing time, I think that's more an issue of getting better shots while on location. From the responses here, RAW will allow significantly better exposure correction, which is something I have been having trouble with getting right and with fixing in PS, particularly in the dark bars I have done most of my work in.

DPP should have come with your XT but Im sure that that version is 1 or 2 old by now. Check Canons website and download it from there. The new one has some nice sliders for shadow and highlight recovery.

[PhotosGuy]

about 1/3 or 2/3 under exposed. Even though my exposure indicator while looking in the viewfinder shows correct exposure. Thousands of words have been written on that. My simple solution that works well as a starting point is this:
Need an exposure crutch? (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=89123)

Why do I use that?
Post #47 (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=5191658&postcount=47)

[Wilt]

Are you certain the shots are underexposed, or might it simply be that your computer monitor is too dark?!