More on Canon Rebel XT noise at high ISO - 2 main new data points

Today Chrlz commented courteously on the subject at hand

Jeremy..just blindly relying on
Jeremy auto-exposure.
Jeremy
Jeremy I think we know by now how seriously to take
magazine Jeremy "reviews"...

MoparHe wants it, he's gonna get it...

Nah, mopar, you don't have an attitude problem. No way.

MoparOK, numb nuts, why the hell do you think there is
full auto Mopareverything on a Rebel XT?

What a nice man...!

Call me numb nuts too - HERE'S WHY 'there is full auto
everything':

- AUTO mode is for when you hand the camera to grandma or
grandpa (forgive the stereotype putdown, I'm a grandpa
(just) myself!), or to someone who just wants a fair chance
of getting a decent picture from an 'easy' scene.

- AUTO is also for more professional people, who will use
it ONLY in situations where they *know* that the conditions
are not going to exceed that particular camera's auto
program 'vagaries' or limitations.
Every camera is a little different, and it takes your
average
good-learner, I reckon, anywhere between a week and a few
months to get the hang of it. Once that time is up, they
will know if it has problems with
highlights/backlighting/spotlighting, with its meter's
averaging methods, with its flash metering (which is often
quite different), and so on. At that time, the *good*
camera driver knows when to slip it into manual. Just like
a good driver will get the hang of his/her car, and know
when to back off, when to turn off the cruise control, when
to override the Automatic gear selection ....

And every other DSLR... not for me,either.

No, nothing ever will be, by the sounds of it. But most of
us somehow manage to live reasonably happily within our
equipment's somewhat flawed, but (and here's where I
*really* differ from you) *highly predictable* behaviour.
We still have never seen an example *of the
unpredictability* you claim, and if it's predictable and
therefore explainable, it's almost certainly solvable. I
will continue to maintain that a simple solution is to use
manual flash using the old-fashioned guide number method,
and it truly isn't difficult. (It sounds as though you
simply gave up on that after you did it wrong..) Given a
bit of practice, you would almost learn the numbers off by
heart after a few shots.

And I will continue to maintain that NO automatic exposure
system, TTL or otherwise, will reliably handle shiny cars
in dark environments, with flash as the main source of
light.

amateurs who belive (sic) the bull**** that 8+ mega pixels
is what they need for 4 x 6 prints

Can you post a reference to who says that? I say 5 is
*just* enough. Maybe 8 with a bit of cropping.. (O;

I /can/ look at the histogram, but why?

There's your problem illustrated again right there. It's
to tell you when you have under- (or over-) exposed. It
also helps identify clipping, but it seems that is not a
big problem.. yet. There are myriads of references on the
web on how to read/use histograms, eg:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...derstanding-se
ries/understanding-histograms.shtml

That's the first one I found and it's not that bad, even if
it doesn't cover cars in museums...

I don't display "correct" histograms as wallpaper.

And it seems to be clear that you won't ever get
properly-exposed images to use as wallpaper either, except
perhaps by dumb luck.

That 'dumb luck' comment was the only insult contained in
this post. Go on, check. Yes, I've been mildly sarcastic
and holier-than-thou (as usual), but try arguing the
*points* instead of attacking the person. If you can't
dispute what I say in a logical fashion, then you lose. And
as for this lame 'I won't post examples except on groups'
rubbish.. give me a break. I'll happily click on a link,
but I'm not wandering off to other binary groups to wade
through images there.

That's it from me, unless we get some meaningful examples
posted somewhere reasonable.


Horses, water, etc....

You haven't said a blinking thing I wasn't already aware of
and didn't practice to one degree or another. As to posting
more examples, I will do that, but not today. And, I will post
to what I think are more common binary NGs, but not to ones
where people expect finished photos and not test images.

But, Chrlz, if you or anyone has one or more fav Usenet binary
groups that you know work for you, please post their names.
I'm not wed to the PSP site I posted to, that'd David Taylor's
favorite and is seldom seen by most news servers.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the
pseudonym Stephen G. Tallentyre

Today icudoc commented courteously on the subject at hand

You guys should take all the abuse you are heaping on each
other and direct it where is belongs - squarely at Canon.
If you complain to them, they deny there is a problem with
the Digital Rebel line. Yet, if I take my Digital Rebel,
my digital Rebel XT,and my old Powershot G1, and put them
all in program mode, and use the same Speedlite 430 flash
on the same subject, expecially from a distance, the G1
picture will come out consistently brighter, and the flash
more bright, than with the Digital Rebel or Digital Rebel
XT. That is the whole reason that I bought an XT - because
I wanted the FEC and did not want to download a software
hack into the Digital Rebel to get it - and when you
question Canon on it they deny there is a problem, but
there is - the Digital Rebel line consistently underexposes
flash pictures, and powers down the flash far too much, and
you need to use FEC to compensate for this.

So stop acting like children, and maybe if we all direct
this venom at Canon, where it belongs, they will fix this
problem for us with a legal software upgrade, rather than
making us hack into the camera with illegal upgrades.

Lou, I don't see anything yet that is remotely broken on my
camera and not even anything yet that I want to call Canon
tech support about. /My/ part of these threads has been based
on my expectations that weren't initially fulfilled and my
naivete on how to use a complicate piece of gear. I don't
think now, and didn't think before, that a Canon Rebel XT, or
a Nikon D70s, or Minolta 7D or other competitor are POS.

And, I fully understand and fully accept the consequences that
are obvious when trying to shoot shiny objects with a single
flash mounted on top the camera, or to shoot available light
where the car, the foreground, sides, and background are all
lit unevenly, overall ambient light is very dim, and overhead
spot lights are common. I /never/ said I expected perfection.
I said I was surprised and disappointed at the difficulty in
getting minimally acceptable results and acceptable noise.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the
pseudonym Stephen G. Tallentyre

Funny, Lou, but I don't see all that many folk here complaining
bitterly and specifically about the XT having a serious design flaw.
Even mopar is trying the Canon out *because* he had *similar* problems
with other cameras and flashguns, eg Nikon..

Yet, if I take my Digital Rebel, my digital Rebel XT,and my old
Powershot G1, and put them all in program mode

Which as some here (like me) maintain, is never the same between camera
models..

and use the same Speedlite 430 flash on the same subject
expecially from a distance, the G1 picture will come out consistently brighter
and the flash more bright, than with the Digital Rebel or Digital Rebel XT.

Yes, I would expect a prosumer to overexpose in dumb-mode, compared to
a DSLR.
Would you care to post the proof of this, by the way, so we can verify
the fairness of the test, and view the exif data to make a more
reasoned judgement? Or link to any page which shows similar? Because
this would be pretty easy to prove.

But it's a moot point anyway. Different cameras use different
auto-algorithms. Some are better than others, some are intended to
suit people who aren't likely to post-process, some take the attributes
of the sensor into account in different ways, some avoid blown
highlights, some.... ad infinitum.

Whether or not there is a problem with every XT ever built (and yes,
I've heard a few similar comments), can you tell us *your* opinion
about how flash metering handles reflective subjects in dark
environments, and whether you should use auto mode for that type of
work?

Then, feel free to post a request for a class action/boycott/whatever
against Canon. Perhaps as a separate post to ensure better coverage.
Those images you took will make excellent evidence. No, I'm *not*
being sarcastic - do it!

PS, I'm not a Canon owner or apologist. If I was buying a DSLR right
now, it would be a Nikon, Minolta, Pentax or Olympus - in that order,
and for a variety of reasons.

Today Chrlz commented courteously on the subject at hand

Funny, Lou, but I don't see all that many folk here
complaining bitterly and specifically about the XT having a
serious design flaw. Even mopar is trying the Canon out
*because* he had *similar* problems with other cameras and
flashguns, eg Nikon..

I'll take that as a complement, Chrlz, albeit a left-handed
one. grin

Yet, if I take my Digital Rebel, my digital Rebel XT,and my
old Powershot G1, and put them all in program mode

Which as some here (like me) maintain, is never the same
between camera models..

and use the same Speedlite 430 flash on the same subject
expecially from a distance, the G1 picture will come out
consistently brighter and the flash more bright, than with
the Digital Rebel or Digital Rebel XT.

Yes, I would expect a prosumer to overexpose in dumb-mode,
compared to a DSLR.
Would you care to post the proof of this, by the way, so we
can verify the fairness of the test, and view the exif data
to make a more reasoned judgement? Or link to any page
which shows similar? Because this would be pretty easy to
prove.

But it's a moot point anyway. Different cameras use
different auto-algorithms. Some are better than others,
some are intended to suit people who aren't likely to
post-process, some take the attributes of the sensor into
account in different ways, some avoid blown highlights,
some.... ad infinitum.

Whether or not there is a problem with every XT ever built
(and yes, I've heard a few similar comments), can you tell
us *your* opinion about how flash metering handles
reflective subjects in dark environments, and whether you
should use auto mode for that type of work?

I know of /no/ manufactured product, hardware, software,
clothes, TVs, cameras, cars, Windows, PhotoShop, no-thing that
is without defect, no-thing that never fails, and no-thing
that everybody who buys it is 100.000% happy with. Life ain't
that way.

Even given that the camera du jour is, in fact, doing exactly
what it was designed to do, and is suffering no mechanical,
electronic, or firmware software problems, in /no/ way means
it will perform to /any/ photographer's expectations in even a
moderate size sampling, much less broadly.

Then, feel free to post a request for a class
action/boycott/whatever against Canon. Perhaps as a
separate post to ensure better coverage. Those images you
took will make excellent evidence. No, I'm *not* being
sarcastic - do it!

PS, I'm not a Canon owner or apologist. If I was buying a
DSLR right now, it would be a Nikon, Minolta, Pentax or
Olympus - in that order, and for a variety of reasons.

I'd narrowed my search down to the Rebel XT and D70s. Besides
the good rep the Canon had for what /I/ believed I wanted to
do, and what /I/ believed the XT was good at, what turned the
tide for me was that it was 20% smaller and lighter than the
D70s. I have small hands, am tall and skinny, in poor health,
and tire easily. So, smaller is better. But, the XT is hardly
a /small/ camera, and has outstanding ergonomics and easily
identifiable controls.

Once I home in on what to do when, I'm sure I'll be as happy
of a camper as I would be with a Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Minolta,
or any other popular brands, whether they be in the mid-priced
"pro-sumer" DSLR price range or even the expensive spread, ala
Canon 20D. And, I will actually be much happier with the Rebel
XT than a 20D because "happiness" and "excitement" are not
absolute terms. I will be more exicited and happier because it
will have cost me about $2,000-2,200 by the time I'm done
compared to $10-15,000 for what I'd buy on a 20D, and there
ain't a camera in the world that would make me "happy" at that
price point! No, ain't criticizing, I wouldn't be happy with a
million dollar Ferrari, either, because I'd have to sell
everything I own just to buy it, and have to sleep in it at
night! grin all the way around


--
ATM, aka Jerry

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the
pseudonym Stephen G. Tallentyre

All Things Mopar wrote:
[]
But, Chrlz, if you or anyone has one or more fav Usenet binary
groups that you know work for you, please post their names.
I'm not wed to the PSP site I posted to, that'd David Taylor's
favorite and is seldom seen by most news servers.

Jerry,

I have already explained this. My "favourite" is a Web or FTP server.
When you asked me to select one of three or four which you nominated, I
chose what seemed to be a quite newsgroup so that your pictures would
stand out more clearly, making them easier to identify.

I subscribe to no binary newsgroups as a matter of routine, so I have no
favourites, nor would I know which groups are on which servers.

David

Today David J Taylor commented courteously on the subject at
hand

All Things Mopar wrote:
[]
But, Chrlz, if you or anyone has one or more fav Usenet
binary groups that you know work for you, please post
their names. I'm not wed to the PSP site I posted to,
that'd David Taylor's favorite and is seldom seen by most
news servers.

Jerry,

I have already explained this. My "favourite" is a Web or
FTP server. When you asked me to select one of three or
four which you nominated, I chose what seemed to be a quite
newsgroup so that your pictures would stand out more
clearly, making them easier to identify.

I subscribe to no binary newsgroups as a matter of routine,
so I have no favourites, nor would I know which groups are
on which servers.

David, since you are both Engish comprehension and learning
impaired, I will tell you one last time - I said I don't do
web, and asked /you/ what Usenet NGs you liked. /I/ gave you 3
choices. Now, God Damn it!, /YOU/ picked that silly-ass PSP
NG, not me! Go back and re- re- re- re- re-read my posts,
then, re- re- re- re- re- re-read your own inane, insane, and
insulting replies, then re- re- re- re- re- re-read my replies
to you. You - and everyone else here - should be able to
discern that /I/ gave you the choice, but /you/ picked the NG.

I don't do WWW. I don't do FTP. I don't do E-mail. I do
Usenet. If that don't suit you, tough ****. Now, if all you
have to do is continue to take me on long, long, long after
I've shown what an asshole you are, then keep coming back.
And, I continue to point out what an asshole you are.

Got it yet, troll? Besides, who the F__k gives a tinker' damn
about the 1st 10 images I took with my Rebel XT anymore?

P.S. there is no "u" in "favorites". And, I don't care if
/your/ country uses them. The only country that matters to me
- The United States of America - does not. Chew on that for
awhile...

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the
pseudonym Stephen G. Tallentyre

All Things Mopar wrote:
Today David J Taylor commented courteously on the subject at
hand

All Things Mopar wrote:
[]
But, Chrlz, if you or anyone has one or more fav Usenet
binary groups that you know work for you, please post
their names. I'm not wed to the PSP site I posted to,
that'd David Taylor's favorite and is seldom seen by most
news servers.

Jerry,

I have already explained this. My "favourite" is a Web or
FTP server. When you asked me to select one of three or
four which you nominated, I chose what seemed to be a quite
newsgroup so that your pictures would stand out more
clearly, making them easier to identify.

I subscribe to no binary newsgroups as a matter of routine,
so I have no favourites, nor would I know which groups are
on which servers.

David, since you are both Engish comprehension and learning
impaired, I will tell you one last time - I said I don't do
web, and asked /you/ what Usenet NGs you liked. /I/ gave you 3
choices. Now, God Damn it!, /YOU/ picked that silly-ass PSP
NG, not me! Go back and re- re- re- re- re-read my posts,
then, re- re- re- re- re- re-read your own inane, insane, and
insulting replies, then re- re- re- re- re- re-read my replies
to you. You - and everyone else here - should be able to
discern that /I/ gave you the choice, but /you/ picked the NG.

I don't do WWW. I don't do FTP. I don't do E-mail. I do
Usenet. If that don't suit you, tough ****. Now, if all you
have to do is continue to take me on long, long, long after
I've shown what an asshole you are, then keep coming back.
And, I continue to point out what an asshole you are.

Got it yet, troll? Besides, who the F__k gives a tinker' damn
about the 1st 10 images I took with my Rebel XT anymore?

P.S. there is no "u" in "favorites". And, I don't care if
/your/ country uses them. The only country that matters to me
- The United States of America - does not. Chew on that for
awhile...

Jerry, I was forced by you to pick a newsgroup. Choosing one does not
make it my favourite! The only reason I even look at a binary newsgroup
was in an attempt to help you!

You have no need to use foul language about anyone's preference for Web or
FTP over binary newsgroups. The fact that you have to shows that you have
lost the argument.

English has a variety in its spelling throughout the world. These
varieties can co-exist quite happily together. It doesn't make other
countries wrong and you right. For background I found Melvin Bragg's book
quite a good read:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...615814-5958218

David

Folks,

I will not be responding to further insulting and factually incorrect
e-mails, I am conscious you must all be heartily fed up with the
ping-pong!

I will, of course, continue to help where I am able.

David

In message ,
All Things Mopar wrote:

Lou, I don't see anything yet that is remotely broken on my
camera and not even anything yet that I want to call Canon
tech support about.

Well, the FEC is not well done. You have to set it to +1 to get what
should be 0 on a lot of the recent Canon DSLRs. They only go to +2 on
the FEC, so you really only habve +1, which is ridiculous for a white
wall with a minority of darker things on or in front of it. A true +3
(+4 in recent terms) would be needed for optimal mainly-flash exposure
in RAW mode.

The ambient EC is insufficient, too. +2 is not enough for high-key
subjects (mostly highlight) in RAW mode.

Canon, like may large corporations, it too big, and impenetrable with
reason or logic. Things that would cost almost nothing to implement, to
make the camera much better, are systematically ignored.

The cameras, however, are working "as designed", and can't be "fixed".
--


John P Sheehy

All Things Mopar wrote:
I do /not/, not, not! expect perfect exposures! That just is
never gonna happen. What I /hope/ for is /reasonable/ exposures,
within +/- 1 f/stop, and /reasonable/ exposure consistency. What

If you can get /reasonable/, you can get perfect. First you
need to understand the use of your tools and how it applies to
the situation at hand though...

either the LCD and/or the histogram (yes, Ed, and others, the
LCD will show a small histogram, and yes, guys, I at least know
enough that what I want is a "mountain" and not a sliver of
light at one end or the other).

Use the histogram to get close. Then bracket your shots. Your
film is cheap, don't conserve it.

Iffn my 1st Programmed Auto or full manual exposure is under by
more than a stop or 2, I know in advance that color balance will
be poor tending toward yellow-red from thee incandescent ambient
light, and I know that the background and car shadows will be
noisy. So, with flash, I will up the /flash/ EC (or EV if you
prefer) by 1, 2, or 3 "EV" - i.e., stops - and take 1, 2, or 3
more shots of the same view. Digital is free, I have plenty of
memory and plenty of battery.

Exactly. But don't bracket in 1 stop steps, get within 1 fstop
and bracketed by 1/3 stop, or whatever you find is close enough to
call "perfect". (I'm not familiar with your camera, so I don't
know what can be done automatically. You might consider a
different camera if yours cannot be set up to fire off a
sequence of bracketed shot at the necessary steps. And flash
units with battery packs that can recharge fast enough are also
obviously needed... if work rate is important.)

My goal is typically to get a couple hundred shots in a couple
of hours, and separate the really good ones from the OK ones
that'll need some work, from the unsavable ones. And, my goal
/always/ is to learn from what last worked and what last failed,
so that I can apply that new experience next time and improve my
ability to use judgment to /predict/ how to set the camera and
flash for best possible results.

True.

But, the relatively trivial points I've made above aside, I
don't see any discussion in this article of the fix for your
problem. And frankly it seems *obvious* what it is! Go back
and read all of that discussion about over and under exposure of
variously unevenly light parts of a car. Your problem is not
*camera* adjustment, it's inadequate lighting.

You need at least one more flash (and maybe two or three would
be better). Set it up on a tripod with a remote trigger (either
wireless or optical). (I don't know what kind of crowds you have
to deal with, but this could end up requiring one or more assistants
to hold, or protect, you lights.)

That is a start, but just as significant is that these flash
units need to be greatly diffused in some way. You've mentioned
a virtual lack of walls and ceilings in all locations, so that
cannot be part of the solution (and since it would be
inconsistent, it would be the least desirable solution anyway).

You want to look at diffusion techniques for the flash units.
It sounds very much as if two or three flash units mounted on
tripods, with something like Stoffen diffusers mounted on them
and an umbrella or similar reflecting device, would get
predictable and repeatable lighting that is appropriate.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)