Worthwhile trade-up?

E

EOS_Kam

Messages
63
Edit My Images
Yes
I currently have a Canon EOS 400D and I am disappointed with the images it captures. More often than not, they are very soft to the point now that it is becoming annoying. I have bought a new Sigma lens thinking that it may improve things a little but not really. I thought it was me for a while being a complete numpty with it but I have let someone else use it without mentioning the soft focus issue. After a few snaps, and reviewing the photos, they were also disappointed with the performance of the camera.

As the 400D stil has some value on the 2nd hand market, I am thinking of trading it in and buying a EOS 40D. Can I gather that the AF is more capable on he 40D? I would consider another make but as I have bought a Canon flash and also he Sigma lens, I ant to limit my losses.

Thanks.
 
I doubt it is the camera, and if it is then there is a fault with it.

Which two lenses do you have and can you provide sample images showing the softness?
 
The lens I have is a Sigma DC 17-70mm: Click please

I can certainly upload a few examples, can you recommend which image site I can use for this? Another issue I have with the camera serious underexposure with the flash in low light situations. This is with both the built in flash and the external flash. I have to increase the flash compensation by 1 stop to get the correct exposure.

Thanks.
 
A correctly working 400D should produce pretty much the same results as a 40D. The 40D is a better build quality and has a few extra features but, imagewise, it's not hugely different.

It sounds like you've got a gremlin somewhere...body, lens, technique (sorry) and it'd be more worthwhile getting together with someone to see if the problem can be narrowed down.
Once that's sorted then the 40D would be a good move but I think you'd be much better off using the money to improve the quality of lens infront of the body.

Bob
 
You can use something like Photobucket for uploading, its hassle free. I also have a 400D, and have had no probs with the flash. In fact I was surprised how good the built in flash was, giving quite an even spread of light. Are you doing any editing after? are you taking the shots in RAW? I will be honest you will not get the perfect shot straight out the camera so to speak, but I cant say I have not had any soft looking issues.
 
68lbs said:
I'm no expert, but why could it not be the camera. I noticed an increase in sharpness moving from 400D to 5D with my Sigma 24-70.
Click to expand...

Evidence. If the 400D was not capable of producing sharp images then there would be a significant number of complaints. And we would not see so many good, sharp images from 400D owners here. Hence why I suggested that if it were soft it is probably faulty.

EOS_Kam - have you tried a firmware update? Often the fix issues with flash. The Sigma 17-70 is a sharp lens so it will definitly help to see some examples. I don't use photo sites but a lot of people sweat by photobucker or flickr
 
I have a 400d and even with the kit lens (stopped down) I can get sharp images. It will be interesting to see your photos.
 
Thanks for the imput, I wil load some exampes later on today. It certainly can be my technique and I have often thought it may be the camera itself having an issue. It have never been dropped or banged though. I have not experimented with shooting in RAW, simply let the camera process the JPEG.

The firmware is the orignal that came with the camera. Is it wirth sending it to Canon for them to test? I doubt it is the lens as the results are as hit and miss as the original kit lens.

Thanks.
 
OK - please see below for the examples. Unfortunately as the images are smaller, they do look a little sharper than viewing them on the computer screen at the proper size.

Photobucket: Please Click

Picasa: Please Click

Both albums contain the same photos. Used Picasa as well as that has info about the camera settings which Photobucket does not seem to show.

Thank you.
 
I moved from a 400D to a 40D and can't tell any difference in image quality, it's a much better camera in terms of features and handling but IQ to me is pretty much the same.
 
Well I use a 450D and haven't had any problems with the IQ. The entry level stuff now has similar image quality to the pro spec stuff of a few years ago. The differences really show up in the build quality, shooting rates and features.

Your photos looks fine to my admittedly untrained eyes.
 
Okay, maybe I'm telling grannie how to suck eggs but I wonder if you could gain something by going back to basics? I wonder what settings your camera has? Maybe there's something going on there?

Looking at the images you've posted I can see that some such as the climbing frame thing could have autofocus hunting all over the place or simply locking on the solid background thus throwing dof issues.

It's most unlikely to be the camera.
 
Looking at those shots, I'm not seeing too much contrast...that would make me suspect the lens or a dodgy filter.

Bob
 
To be honest I cannot see too much wrong with the pics, other than the playground one, where the focus seems a bit odd. Other than that there is nothing that cannot be edited to suite your own taste. Just make sure you have not played about with the setting in camera too much like we all do when we get a new toy, and if need be reset all back to default and start again. And do try and shoot RAW if possible. ;)
 
They look alright from my end. As previously said, most photos don't jump off the page until they've been manipulated in some way or form.. IMHO
 
Not sure there's an awful lot wrong with most of those - the playground one doen't look focused on the boy, so perhaps the lens was hunting around a little. Mickey fountain not that sharp either, but again perhaps the water refelction was causing some issues.

Of the others some are taken at 17mm and soem at 70mm , ie the extremes of your Sigma lens - not necessarily the sharpest points for IQ.

As already suggested try a shot with and without the filter.

I'd also be tempted to do a reset to factory default afterwards and repeat the above, and then perhaps do the same again after a firmware update (assuming there is one).

Failing that drop into a camera shop and ask to take a pic with their example of the 17-70mm lens against yours.
 
Thanks for all the feedback, really appreciate it.

I have done a firmware update and that seems to have made a noticeable difference already. The AF seems more precise and the exposure is better but will need to test more to see. Note taken about the filter, already taken that off and replaced with a UV.

I will experiment shooting in RAW. That is something @I have not experimented with.

Thanks again.
 
EOS_Kam said:
Note taken about the filter, already taken that off and replaced with a UV.
Click to expand...

Kam,

I wasn't suggesting that a Skylight filter would be a problem any more than a UV filter is a problem. The issue is with the quality of the filter.
Personally, I don't use them except effects filters like CPL's, but that's down to individual choice. If you want to have something up front then you need to be looking at a Hoya Pro1D or better....anything less is going to flatten your images at best and give spurious issues at worst.
Unless you've gone up market, I'd leave it off other than when your feel that your lens is threatened by the environment at the time.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
Kam,

I wasn't suggesting that a Skylight filter would be a problem any more than a UV filter is a problem. The issue is with the quality of the filter.
Personally, I don't use them except effects filters like CPL's, but that's down to individual choice. If you want to have something up front then you need to be looking at a Hoya Pro1D or better....anything less is going to flatten your images at best and give spurious issues at worst.
Unless you've gone up market, I'd leave it off other than when your feel that your lens is threatened by the environment at the time.

Bob
Click to expand...

Hi Bob, I have a Marumi UV Haze which I bought with my lens. Is that a little more upmarket? I have heard some great things about the Hoya Pro1D - will reach for one of those if results are not better. Thanks.
 
I don't use a filter with my 17-70 and 450D and it's sharp as tack! I've tried my lens, and it produces virtually identical results with my mates 400D.

I think you've got a dodgy copy of the 17-70 (which definitely exist) or a dodgy camera, but I'd definitely try taking a few shots without filter to see if it makes any difference. :D
 
Also, are you shooting RAW?? If so, these will need a sharpen compared to the jpegs that are sharpened in-camera and will look a lot more processed! :D
 
OK, I think the filter change and/or firmware update has had an effect.

Before

After

I know the subject matters are different but the shaprpness is much improved. I took a few photos of that bunch of grapes and the above was the best.
 
EOS_Kam said:
OK, I think the filter change and/or firmware update has had an effect.

Before

After

I know the subject matters are different but the shaprpness is much improved. I took a few photos of that bunch of grapes and the above was the best.
Click to expand...

Glad to see you've got it sorted (y)
 
I have used 400d for a long time and also have had 40d for summer. I notice a difference with 85L, as it is easier to focus wide open with 40D. otherwise if you use central focus it should not be much different
 
I always get confused why people use UV filters etc. Why spend hundreds of pounds on a perfectly manufactured lens to high precision and then shove a £15 piece of glass in front of it?

I've had a number of IQ issues with my lenses due to dodgy filters. I now dont use them for protection at all, and keep lens hoods on them and take more care.

Good to hear you seem to have sorted the problem though! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top