Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 23 Apr 2007 (Monday) 10:38
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

XTI seems to underexpose

 
wilded
Mostly Lurking
Avatar
11 posts
Joined Apr 2007
     
Apr 23, 2007 10:38 |  #1

Is this a problem? Is there a fix? Thanks, ET


http://wildedtx.blogsp​ot.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
mrbigisbudgood
Member
Avatar
101 posts
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Kinston, NC
     
Apr 23, 2007 10:46 |  #2

I've been noticing that my XTi likes a positive (.3 to 1.0 depending on the situation) white balance where my old Kodak liked a negative WB. I'm still learning the XTi, but this was one of the first things I learned.


50D - BG-E2N | XTi |Wigma | 50 f1.4 | 28-135IS | Bugma | 430EXII | Tripods, Bags, Cards, Motivation

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
angryhampster
"Got a thick monopod?"
Avatar
3,860 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2006
Location: Iowa
     
Apr 23, 2007 10:58 |  #3

mrbigisbudgood wrote in post #3089729 (external link)
I've been noticing that my XTi likes a positive (.3 to 1.0 depending on the situation) white balance where my old Kodak liked a negative WB. I'm still learning the XTi, but this was one of the first things I learned.



Do you mean exposure compensation? XTi is made from the factory to underexpose. This creates naturally more constrasty, saturated images.


Steve Lexa
Iowa City Wedding Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mrbigisbudgood
Member
Avatar
101 posts
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Kinston, NC
     
Apr 23, 2007 11:00 |  #4

angryhampster wrote in post #3089791 (external link)
Do you mean exposure compensation? XTi is made from the factory to underexpose. This creates naturally more constrasty, saturated images.

Yes, I meant EC, sorry. I'm eating lunch at home, thinking about work, thinking about go-karting tomorrow night, waiting for my wife to get home.....I'm here 'cause I'm not all there.


50D - BG-E2N | XTi |Wigma | 50 f1.4 | 28-135IS | Bugma | 430EXII | Tripods, Bags, Cards, Motivation

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hellashot
Goldmember
4,617 posts
Joined Sep 2004
Location: USA
     
Apr 23, 2007 11:31 |  #5
bannedPermanent ban

angryhampster wrote in post #3089791 (external link)
Do you mean exposure compensation? XTi is made from the factory to underexpose. This creates naturally more constrasty, saturated images.

Exucse me but why are you posting such fabricated nonsense?


5D, Drebel, EOS-3, K1000
lenses from 12mm-500mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tee ­ Why
"Monkey's uncle"
Avatar
10,596 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Pasadena, CA
     
Apr 23, 2007 12:07 |  #6

Generally, I don't think this is a consistent issue. I have heard that it maybe a problem if you used eval metering though.

A quick fix would be to check the histogram and adjust for exposure compensation.

I too heard that Canon prefers to underexpose with tricky lighting to prevent overexposure and loss of details from UK magazine, I think it was the last issue of Photography Monthly, where they did a comparison of entry level dslrs.


Gallery: http://tomyi.smugmug.c​om/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
angryhampster
"Got a thick monopod?"
Avatar
3,860 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2006
Location: Iowa
     
Apr 23, 2007 12:08 |  #7

Hellashot wrote in post #3089953 (external link)
Exucse me but why are you posting such fabricated nonsense?



Sorry for fabriacting such nonsense.

http://www.google.com …xpose+&btnG=Goo​gle+Search (external link)

For subjects with high contrast containing a white element, the Rebel XTi tends to underexpose to keep the highlight within the histogram.

http://www.dcviews.com …-XTi-Nikon-D80-review.htm (external link)

http://forums.dpreview​.com …rum=1031&messag​e=21603849 (external link)

http://photography-on-the.net …ghlight=rebel+u​nderexpose
http://photography-on-the.net …hlight=rebel+un​derexposed

It's fairly common for the rebel series to underexpose images up to a full stop.


Steve Lexa
Iowa City Wedding Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bill ­ Boehme
Enjoy being spanked
Avatar
7,354 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 85
Joined Jan 2007
Location: DFW Metro-mess, Texas
     
Apr 23, 2007 12:28 as a reply to  @ angryhampster's post |  #8

My XTi is also doing some of that "fabricated nonsense". I should have a talk with it and tell it to stop fabricating all of that nonsense.

I sent it back to Canon a couple months ago when the underexposure was severe (about 1.67 stops). They confirmed the problem and repaired the camera. Now it is at the "normal" (.33 to .67 stop) underexposure.

Contrary to some Internet lore on exposure, it is preferrable to slightly overexpose an image as long as it doesn't result in objectionable blown out highlights. Overexposure will afford you more lattitude in post processing the darker areas of an image. I learned this tidbit from the late Bruce Fraser.


Atmospheric haze in images? Click for Tutorial to Reduce Atmospheric Haze with Photoshop.
Gear List .... Gallery: Woodturner Bill (external link)
Donate to Support POTN Operating Costs

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hellashot
Goldmember
4,617 posts
Joined Sep 2004
Location: USA
     
Apr 23, 2007 21:01 |  #9
bannedPermanent ban

angryhampster wrote in post #3090157 (external link)
Sorry for fabriacting such nonsense.
It's fairly common for the rebel series to underexpose images up to a full stop.

User comments is in no way official word from Canon that they designed the XTi to under expose. All SLRs need exposure compensation with different shooting situations.

Do a few people who hit the accellerator in a car instead of the brake mean that the car maker designed the pedals in opposite positions? :)


5D, Drebel, EOS-3, K1000
lenses from 12mm-500mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
angryhampster
"Got a thick monopod?"
Avatar
3,860 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2006
Location: Iowa
     
Apr 23, 2007 21:14 |  #10

Hellashot wrote in post #3093071 (external link)
User comments is in no way official word from Canon that they designed the XTi to under expose. All SLRs need exposure compensation with different shooting situations.

Do a few people who hit the accellerator in a car instead of the brake mean that the car maker designed the pedals in opposite positions? :)



Is it common for people to hit the brake pedal and the car keep going?


Steve Lexa
Iowa City Wedding Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bill ­ Boehme
Enjoy being spanked
Avatar
7,354 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 85
Joined Jan 2007
Location: DFW Metro-mess, Texas
     
Apr 23, 2007 21:18 as a reply to  @ Hellashot's post |  #11

The sheer volume of postings on various forums about the XTi/400D shooting slightly underexposed is enough to suspect that there is something more than speculation to this conjecture. Offhand, I do not recall any postings about the camera overexposing.


Atmospheric haze in images? Click for Tutorial to Reduce Atmospheric Haze with Photoshop.
Gear List .... Gallery: Woodturner Bill (external link)
Donate to Support POTN Operating Costs

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
liquefied
Goldmember
Avatar
1,160 posts
Joined Oct 2006
     
Apr 23, 2007 22:12 |  #12

I think the nonsense being pointed out was that the XTi is supposed to underexpose. That is a ridiculous claim and if Canon actually designed a camera to underexpose then I'm tempted to switch to Nikon. The camera has a light meter for a reason, that light meter should be accurate. I've only heard that it's a defect with the light meter. My XTi consistently underexposes by 2/3 stops and I've tested this several times with a gray card (a gray card is not 'tricky lighting', it is 18% gray - right in the middle of a correctly exposed histogram). The problem is there and a solution needs to be provided by Canon soon.



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Robert_Lay
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,546 posts
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Spotsylvania Co., VA
     
Apr 23, 2007 22:27 |  #13

liquefied wrote in post #3093476 (external link)
I think the nonsense being pointed out was that the XTi is supposed to underexpose. That is a ridiculous claim and if Canon actually designed a camera to underexpose then I'm tempted to switch to Nikon. The camera has a light meter for a reason, that light meter should be accurate. I've only heard that it's a defect with the light meter. My XTi consistently underexposes by 2/3 stops and I've tested this several times with a gray card (a gray card is not 'tricky lighting', it is 18% gray - right in the middle of a correctly exposed histogram). The problem is there and a solution needs to be provided by Canon soon.

Bravo - well said!

I have posted a graphic of a carefully measured transfer characteristic for my XTi, which clearly shows two things of interest - underexposure of about 2/3 to 1 f-stop, and a decidedly abrupt shoulder.

Now that I am seeing more and more comments that corroborate my own findings, I am becoming more convinced that it is intentional - my explanation being that it keeps you further from that abrupt shoulder.


Bob
Quality of Light (external link), Photo Tool ver 2.0 (external link)
Canon Rebel XTi; EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-f/5.6 USM; EF-S 18-55 mm f/3.5-f/5.6; EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM; EF 50mm f/1.4 USM; Canon Powershot G5; Canon AE1(2); Leica R4s; Battery Grip BG-E3; Pentax Digital Spotmeter with Zone VI Mod & Calibration.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
angryhampster
"Got a thick monopod?"
Avatar
3,860 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2006
Location: Iowa
     
Apr 23, 2007 22:32 |  #14

Yea shoulda worded it differently. I suppose "does underexpose from the factory" would have been more appropriate than "is meant to"


Steve Lexa
Iowa City Wedding Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bill ­ Boehme
Enjoy being spanked
Avatar
7,354 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 85
Joined Jan 2007
Location: DFW Metro-mess, Texas
     
Apr 23, 2007 22:56 |  #15

Robert_Lay wrote in post #3093538 (external link)
Bravo - well said!

I have posted a graphic of a carefully measured transfer characteristic for my XTi, which clearly shows two things of interest - underexposure of about 2/3 to 1 f-stop, and a decidedly abrupt shoulder.

Now that I am seeing more and more comments that corroborate my own findings, I am becoming more convinced that it is intentional - my explanation being that it keeps you further from that abrupt shoulder.

Robert,

Thanks for the information. Could you provide a link to the graphic? I have heard numerous "stories" about reasons for underexposure in the XTi, but as an engineer, none of them really sounded very plausible to me. This explanation, however, sounds very logical. It is easy to envision a scenario in which getting a product to market trumps working out all of the bugs in a sensor design. I presume from what you say here that beyond the "shoulder", all pixel data are saturated.


Atmospheric haze in images? Click for Tutorial to Reduce Atmospheric Haze with Photoshop.
Gear List .... Gallery: Woodturner Bill (external link)
Donate to Support POTN Operating Costs

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

17,898 views & 0 likes for this thread
XTI seems to underexpose
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.0forum software
version 2.0 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is ppahv
749 guests, 389 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.