Canon should be totally ashamed of this (and some others too) HP got this basic and absolutely essential thing right in their little digicam that's cheap even for a P&S, so why can't Canon?!! Yes, I know, there's more to the Canon 20D, but w

"Dave Martindale" wrote in message
...
(Sabineellen) writes:

As a result, with the little lowly HP, I can expect that in most cases
I'll look at the images and see a white balance that I won't disagree much
with, but with the Canon I can expect that many images in varying lighting
situations will need to be corrected, and that's too much unnecessary
work.

So you're saying that the HP makes a better point&shoot camera than the
much more expensive 20D, at least with respect to auto white balance.
That's your complaint, right?

It's not necessary to repeat it over and over again. You seem to expect
the 20D to be better at being a P&S camera than the HP (which is
designed as a P&S), while a variety of other people either don't expect
that or don't care. Nobody seems likely to change their mind.

Dave

He only keeps up his trolling because people keep responding to him. I made
the mistake of contributing, but he likes these posts that try to show him
he is misguided. He is trolling, pure and simple and needs to be ignored.

DDDD

end of an era m8

Now if we could see into the future who'd have thought that digital cameras
would re-invent photography on such a grand largesse scale

(I'd have bought shares just in the lowest slump)

Aerticus

"Bryce" wrote in message
...
Oh.... the T90!

I still have my T70 body from highschool days. The T-90 and T-70 were
great
cameras. Still are!


"Aerticus" wrote in message
...
I ain't no expert on Canon's (my one is a T90 :-) but what I do know is
that as the number of variables increases so does the complexity of using
the device - any device whether it be software or hardware.

This IMHO seems to be part of the learning curve with any equipment.

On mission critical shots and assuming the shoot is in RAW I nam sure
that
RAW support allows tweaks to AWB and WB settings.

If I had a Canon (hint hint) I am sure I could be more specific.

Perhaps the consolation is that digital images may be post-processed?

Although the point is, I suppose, to use settings to get as close to the
finished output you desire as it cuts down on repeat work and post
processing

My 2c

Aerticus

This is one of those things in which (IMHO) you are both correct.

However, satisfaction at one end of the balance is automatic where at the
other end it is an aesthetic

Be happy - you are both spot-on

As a philosphical aside - one danger of mathematics is conditioning that
encourages single point answers

Of course the real world is far more complicated and many answers (some
conditional) are all equally valid

Aerticus

wrote in message
news
Kibo informs me that (Sabineellen) stated that:

Nonsense. Just how do you think an autosetting works?

How is it nonsense?

It's trivial for the camera to correct for a preset WB, because it
merely requires a fixed adjustment to each colour channel. Figuring out
the temperature of the dominant light source in a given shot is quite
difficult, & can even be impossible in a scene with mixed lighting,
because it's possible that there *isn't* a dominant light source, & even
if the camera can detect multiple sources, it would have to be able to
read the user's mind to know which one to work from. (That said, the
highest temp light source in the shot is likely to be the best choice.)

I actually sat down with two cameras and tested them against each other,
one
with a competent AWB, and the other with a poorly performing AWB; the one
with
the poorly performing auto white balance got it a little better with its
incandescent preset than with its auto setting, but still, compared to the
other camera with the competent AWB, the preset was still quite poor, and
that's not surprising, as there's no univesral incandescent that a preset
will
always meet. You may say it's tunable, and I'll say that doesn't change
the
fact that the AUTO setting is poorly performing and the person would have
to do
work with nearly every image to get it right.

Of course, you're assuming that the output of your HP on AWB /is/
correct - I wouldn't be greatly surprised if the results of AWB on your
HP would be completely unacceptable to someone like me. I often see
consumer digicam photos on websites that the owners think are fine, but
are clearly shot with the digital equivalent of daylight film.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

"Sabineellen" wrote in message
...
....
I have a jewel and you have a piece of junk. Also, I'm not the
one who's seemingly upset and being defensive or a canon apologist. I'm
being
objective and clear about it; Canon cameras have a poorly performing AWB,
and
....

Disregarding whether the test is valid or not, if you are truly "objective
and clear",
the most you can say is that the *Canon 20D has a poorly performing AWB*,
not that "Canon cameras have a poorly performing AWB". Perhaps you are
not quite as objective as you might imagine. }

that shouldn't be the case, especially when a low-budget camera has an
excellent one.

Yes, I too would expect that the AWB of an expensive DSLR like the 20D would
perform excellently for all the usual light conditions. On the other hand,
this is
an easily surmountable problem, so at most I think it warrents a warning to
potential buyers. Something like: "Be aware that AWB of the 20D does not
work well under Incandescent lighting. You will likely need to use manual
WB
or the Tungsten preset."


--
Dan (Woj...) [dmaster](no space)[at](no space)[lucent](no space)[dot](no
space)[com]
===============================
"I need a sign to let me know you're here
Cause my tv set just keeps it all from being clear
I want a reason for the way things have to be
I need a hand to help build up some kind of hope inside of me"

"Sabineellen" wrote in message
...
....
I have a jewel and you have a piece of junk. Also, I'm not the
one who's seemingly upset and being defensive or a canon apologist. I'm
being
objective and clear about it; Canon cameras have a poorly performing AWB,
and
....

Disregarding whether the test is valid or not, if you are truly "objective
and clear",
the most you can say is that the *Canon 20D has a poorly performing AWB*,
not that "Canon cameras have a poorly performing AWB". Perhaps you are
not quite as objective as you might imagine. }

that shouldn't be the case, especially when a low-budget camera has an
excellent one.

Yes, I too would expect that the AWB of an expensive DSLR like the 20D would
perform excellently for all the usual light conditions. On the other hand,
this is
an easily surmountable problem, so at most I think it warrents a warning to
potential buyers. Something like: "Be aware that AWB of the 20D does not
work well under Incandescent lighting. You will likely need to use manual
WB
or the Tungsten preset."


--
Dan (Woj...) [dmaster](no space)[at](no space)[lucent](no space)[dot](no
space)[com]
===============================
"I need a sign to let me know you're here
Cause my tv set just keeps it all from being clear
I want a reason for the way things have to be
I need a hand to help build up some kind of hope inside of me"

Disregarding whether the test is valid or not, if you are truly "objective
and clear",
the most you can say is that the *Canon 20D has a poorly performing AWB*,
not that "Canon cameras have a poorly performing AWB". Perhaps you are
not quite as objective as you might imagine. }


Hi, before I posted I had checked a few Canon cameras. The Canon 20D just
happened to be the last one i checked. I came to the conclusion it's
symptomatic of Canon cameras. Here's what C|Net said in its review of the A95
(I know, C|Net are not a good source of photographic reviews, but this is a
basic enough thing and there's almost a consensus in the reviews from other
sources)

"As usual for Canon, the A95's auto white balance failed miserably under our
difficult tungsten lights."

Yes, I too would expect that the AWB of an expensive DSLR like the 20D would
perform excellently for all the usual light conditions. On the other hand,
this is
an easily surmountable problem, so at most I think it warrents a warning to
potential buyers. Something like: "Be aware that AWB of the 20D does not
work well under Incandescent lighting. You will likely need to use manual
WB
or the Tungsten preset."

Easily surmountable it may be, but it's simply a timewaster if you have to do
it for too many shots. When a person puts something on AUTO, it's not
unreasonable to expect a competent AUTO function; not perfect, but at least as
good if not better than a much, much cheaper camera.

Disregarding whether the test is valid or not, if you are truly "objective
and clear",
the most you can say is that the *Canon 20D has a poorly performing AWB*,
not that "Canon cameras have a poorly performing AWB". Perhaps you are
not quite as objective as you might imagine. }


Hi, before I posted I had checked a few Canon cameras. The Canon 20D just
happened to be the last one i checked. I came to the conclusion it's
symptomatic of Canon cameras. Here's what C|Net said in its review of the A95
(I know, C|Net are not a good source of photographic reviews, but this is a
basic enough thing and there's almost a consensus in the reviews from other
sources)

"As usual for Canon, the A95's auto white balance failed miserably under our
difficult tungsten lights."

Yes, I too would expect that the AWB of an expensive DSLR like the 20D would
perform excellently for all the usual light conditions. On the other hand,
this is
an easily surmountable problem, so at most I think it warrents a warning to
potential buyers. Something like: "Be aware that AWB of the 20D does not
work well under Incandescent lighting. You will likely need to use manual
WB
or the Tungsten preset."

Easily surmountable it may be, but it's simply a timewaster if you have to do
it for too many shots. When a person puts something on AUTO, it's not
unreasonable to expect a competent AUTO function; not perfect, but at least as
good if not better than a much, much cheaper camera.

It's trivial for the camera to correct for a preset WB, because it
merely requires a fixed adjustment to each colour channel. Figuring out
the temperature of the dominant light source in a given shot is quite
difficult, & can even be impossible in a scene with mixed lighting,

In general it is impossible to figure out the WB just by analyzing a
scene. Different objects reflect light differently, and when the
camera only has the reflected light (as it does), any WB setting will
be a guess.

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please feed the 35mm lens/digicam databases: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's trivial for the camera to correct for a preset WB, because it
merely requires a fixed adjustment to each colour channel. Figuring out
the temperature of the dominant light source in a given shot is quite
difficult, & can even be impossible in a scene with mixed lighting,

In general it is impossible to figure out the WB just by analyzing a
scene. Different objects reflect light differently, and when the
camera only has the reflected light (as it does), any WB setting will
be a guess.

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please feed the 35mm lens/digicam databases: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------