Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
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 20 Sep 2006 (Wednesday) 05:01
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Problem with 400D?

 
sans2012
Member
30 posts
Joined Sep 2006
Location: S.A. Australia
     
Sep 20, 2006 05:01 |  #1

Hi guys, my first post here and it has to be about a problem

My 400D and possibly the 75-300mm kit lens that came with it are acting up.

Had the kit for just over a week and in the last two days I have found a problem with the images. There are lines/banding in the blurry sections of my images. I did try the 18-55mm kit and the problem doesn’t seem to exist with that lens. Although the lighting for comparison was totally different. I will perform some more comparison shots tomorrow.

For now though, I'm wondering if anyone here has seen or had a problem like or similar to this.

Some example shots:

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i4.photobucket.​com …012/Mag-example-small.jpg (external link)


PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i4.photobucket.​com …/sans2012/Emu-banding.jpg (external link)

Canon 400D bla, bla...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
kfahn
Member
48 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Cambridge, MA
     
Sep 20, 2006 07:53 |  #2

you might want to specify more clearly which 75-300mm lens that you are using, since there is no Canon bundled 75-300mm kit lens. It may have been a "kit" from where you bought it, but without knowing what particular lens it is we can't help




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jfrancho
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,341 posts
Joined Feb 2005
     
Sep 20, 2006 07:57 |  #3

It's called "bad bokeh."



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sandro9mm
Goldmember
Avatar
1,718 posts
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Italy, Milan
     
Sep 20, 2006 08:00 |  #4

cheapo lens and its horrible bokeh :) its not ur camera :P


Photography Tips (external link) - Learn photography now!
Famous photographers (external link) - Video Interviews, photos, biography
My gear (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Keith ­ R
Goldmember
2,856 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Blyth, Northumberland, NE England
     
Sep 20, 2006 08:20 |  #5

Take the UV filter off...

(Trust me!)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 40
Joined Dec 2005
     
Sep 20, 2006 08:21 |  #6

UV filter has nothing to do with it. That's just ugly bokeh as stated. It's a lens thing, not a camera thing. Most (but not all!) lenses do better. :)


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Keith ­ R
Goldmember
2,856 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Blyth, Northumberland, NE England
     
Sep 20, 2006 08:39 |  #7

OK, we'll see.

There are a plethora of identical threads and photos on www.birdforum.net (external link) - including one started by me a year ago - and every single time the explanation was a UV filter.

Other sites carry the same sort of thing on a fairly regular basis, and - again - it's invariably down to inexpensive UV filters.

So that's where my money's staying, unless the OP actually tells us he isn't using a filter.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 40
Joined Dec 2005
     
Sep 20, 2006 08:42 |  #8

Keith R wrote in post #2011898 (external link)
OK, we'll see.

There are a plethora of identical threads and photos on www.birdforum.net (external link) - including one started by me a year ago - and every single time the explanation was a UV filter.

Other sites carry the same sort of thing on a fairly regular basis, and - again - it's invariably down to inexpensive UV filters.

So that's where my money's staying, unless the OP actually tells us he isn't using a filter.

On second look you could actually be right. The "bokeh" changes direction...so it may well be a filter. Puzzling though is that it doesn't seem to affect the subject itself....


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jfrancho
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,341 posts
Joined Feb 2005
     
Sep 20, 2006 08:53 |  #9

I think the operative word is "cheapo." As in take that cheapo UV filter off. I've never had a problem with quality UV filters, though I rarely use them.



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sans2012
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
30 posts
Joined Sep 2006
Location: S.A. Australia
     
Sep 20, 2006 09:00 as a reply to  @ cdifoto's post |  #10

@kfahn, the lens is part of the twin kit lens; standard here in Aus. It’s printed on the side of the box, the original Canon box/packaging.
The lens is an "EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III" Hope this can help:)

@jfrancho, NS!

@sandro9mm, yeah thanks;p

@Keith R, I took sample shots with & without the UV filter revealing the exact same problem. Cheers:)

@cdi-ink.com, a cheap lens maybe, but it performed fine up until two days ago;) And yes it is puzzling how it doesn’t affect the subject. That’s why I think it’s not as simple as a filter.

I'm going to contact Canon tomorrow and see if they can shed any light on the matter. Other than that I will see if the store of purchase will do a replacement. As I mentioned, this lens was working fine up until two days ago. Don’t make me have to prove it to you guys lol.

Before I do go into the shop though, I want to take some comparison shots using both the lenses to see if I can pinpoint the 300mm as being the problem.

Either way I'll let you guys know how I go:)

Cheers!

Michael.


Canon 400D bla, bla...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sans2012
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
30 posts
Joined Sep 2006
Location: S.A. Australia
     
Sep 20, 2006 09:03 as a reply to  @ sans2012's post |  #11

@jfrancho, why the hell would you go assuming that I have a "cheapo" UV filter?

Cheers


Canon 400D bla, bla...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jfrancho
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,341 posts
Joined Feb 2005
     
Sep 20, 2006 09:09 |  #12

I didn't. I was responding to the information that Kieth R posted. The only thing I said about your problem was that it was bad bokeh.



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sans2012
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
30 posts
Joined Sep 2006
Location: S.A. Australia
     
Sep 20, 2006 09:11 as a reply to  @ sans2012's post |  #13

Here is a shot I took the day after purchase, using the same lens at the same focal length as the original samples.

See, it’s not that bad…tho:)

Michael.

http://i4.photobucket.​com …ns2012/Head-Shot-Full.jpg (external link)


Canon 400D bla, bla...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sans2012
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
30 posts
Joined Sep 2006
Location: S.A. Australia
     
Sep 20, 2006 09:15 as a reply to  @ sans2012's post |  #14

@jfrancho, I paid a good $20 au for that top of the line UV filter :p


Canon 400D bla, bla...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jfrancho
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,341 posts
Joined Feb 2005
     
Sep 20, 2006 09:21 |  #15

Yes, that's good bokeh in that older picture. Throw out you're UV. The background is much less detailed and further away in that picture, also it looks like it was shot at a lower ISO setting. Higher ISO, cluttered background, lens not known for it's bokeh, and the unknown UV "quality factor" all contribute to the differences. On top of it, the last picture looks like focus was dead on. The two above look like misses. I'm gonna stick my neck out here and say it boibls down to skill and a limitation of the equipment. Post a new example similar to the picture you just posted. What I mean is, rather than trying to recreate the issue, recreate the non issue. If you still have the banding, then you have an issue, if not, it's a limitation of the equipment. Does that make sense?



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

12,162 views & 0 likes for this thread
Problem with 400D?
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?
Register to forums
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 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is quadrentau
1927 guests, 307 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

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.