05-08-2007, 06:10 AM

I'm seriously considering this camera, but have one problem. I was reading reviews on Amazon and see a few people complaining about poor exposure. It looks like it's mainly a problem when using the auto setting, but as one who is totally new to manual settings (I'm just jumping into photography) I will probably use the auto setting at least in the beginning.

Do you see any noticeable problems with the exposure in the auto setting?

05-08-2007, 09:32 AM

I can check mine out after work this evening. I've only ever used it in manual

And the true complaint is about inaccurate metering. It's widely accepted that the XTI underexposes(i believe) when metering, but this can be fixed in camera with one of the controls. In the camera's menu, you can choose to use Exposure correction, which will make the camera meter a little higher or a little lower depening on how you set it. No biggie...the XTI is a great camera and you can make some huge prints with it...check out here, http://photography-on-the.net/forum to get some good feed back on it.

05-08-2007, 07:24 PM

Thanks. I wasn't really concerned about it since I know I will be able to make the adjustment, but I just wanted to hear more about it from people I feel I can trust a little more here on M-F.

05-08-2007, 09:12 PM

I've read a few posts that the underexposure problem has to do with a combination of the XTi and kit lens. Appearantly the xti doesn't have any exposure problems with other lenses.

05-09-2007, 01:33 AM

auto settings are just lame all around
if your going to be buying an slr camera, learn how to use manual settings beforehand. they may seem intimidating at first, but they are actually simple.
look around on the canon site and theres a really good tutorial type thing... on beggining with slr cameras.
and if you really need to shoot auto, just shoot in raw and then edit exposure in ps.

05-09-2007, 08:12 AM

Originally Posted by Ruke

auto settings are just lame all around
if your going to be buying an slr camera, learn how to use manual settings beforehand. they may seem intimidating at first, but they are actually simple.
look around on the canon site and theres a really good tutorial type thing... on beggining with slr cameras.
and if you really need to shoot auto, just shoot in raw and then edit exposure in ps.

You can't shoot RAW in full auto, just .JPG from what I recall. Plus if it under exposes, making it brighter will make it extremely noisy

05-09-2007, 10:00 AM

I'll just need to take a little practice at first using manual settings before taking anything I want to keep, like a special event. I appreciate all the help though.

I'm still wrestling with what software to get. I can get CS3 Extended for $300 on academic discount, but I'm wondering if I can get something even cheaper to suit my needs. I doubt I'll need the extra options offered in the Extended version, but I haven't found an academic version of anything else.

As someone who has never used Photoshop before, I'm pretty lost in all the options. If anyone can offer an opinion on what I would need from Adobe for photograph editing, layering, or any other basic manipulation.

05-09-2007, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by fleurya

I'll just need to take a little practice at first using manual settings before taking anything I want to keep, like a special event. I appreciate all the help though.

I'm still wrestling with what software to get. I can get CS3 Extended for $300 on academic discount, but I'm wondering if I can get something even cheaper to suit my needs. I doubt I'll need the extra options offered in the Extended version, but I haven't found an academic version of anything else.

As someone who has never used Photoshop before, I'm pretty lost in all the options. If anyone can offer an opinion on what I would need from Adobe for photograph editing, layering, or any other basic manipulation.

I was too, but manuals and internet forums tend to do wonders when it comes to something like image editing where when you ask a question, you can either get an answer that it can be done or it can't.

05-09-2007, 01:41 PM

XTi is a nice camera, nothing wrong with it.

Like any DSLR system your lens will have a huge affect on your results. Consumer and ameture lenses are not that great despite what reviews say, there is a reason pro glass is what it is. Used pro glass is 10x better than new consumer glass.

If you are using a DSLR don't shoot on auto, that's not going to give you good results. If you want ease of use but still want good results use A or S mode instead. You usually have to tweak exposure settings on them anyway, it's just a fact.

As for software, for basic editing and organizing Lightroom is a great app and quite powerful. PS is the industry for advanced editing, but can be a little complex for new users. Also for anyone shooting digital an app like NoiseNinja is a must have. DLSR's are noisy at high ISO's, 800 and up.

Hope this helps you out some.

05-09-2007, 02:03 PM

Thanks again.

I stopped by my local Best Buy to get a feel for the XTi in-hand. The rep pointed me to the Sony A100 and mentioned the fact that it had image stabilization built in. That caught my attention as IS makes a huge price difference in lenses. But I'm not sure about going with Sony since they're very new to the DSLR market, even with the fact that they inherited Minolta's products. It did, however, get me thinking of upgrading to a 30D, which could save money in the long run when the cost of lenses are considered.

05-09-2007, 02:22 PM

rep pointed me to the Sony A100

Noooo!!! Do not buy that camera...Just a bad camera.

30D or a D80 or even the K10D. If you look hard enough you will find 20D's for great prices and that's a very nice camera.

The K10D is an awesome camera, the only consumer DSLR that is weather sealed and that is a huge thing to consider if you are shooting in dusty or humid conditions.

05-09-2007, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by fleurya

Thanks again.

I stopped by my local Best Buy to get a feel for the XTi in-hand. The rep pointed me to the Sony A100 and mentioned the fact that it had image stabilization built in. That caught my attention as IS makes a huge price difference in lenses. But I'm not sure about going with Sony since they're very new to the DSLR market, even with the fact that they inherited Minolta's products. It did, however, get me thinking of upgrading to a 30D, which could save money in the long run when the cost of lenses are considered.

Sony bought minolta, there for can use most of their older lenses from what I under stand. IS in a camera isn't always good. I think Sony claims it can effectively add one stop when shooting hand held. Canon uses IS in some of their higher end lenses which can add as much as 3 stops when using handheld, which is a huge difference. Plus if the IS were to break, you would have to send the camera in and not just a lens.

Also, Sony is not exactly new to the DSLR market. Nikon uses Sony sensors, so they're tried and true, it's just the body that is new and with Minolta's technology, it's still not like you have a brand new camera with only 3 lenses to choose from.

The only negative, which really isn't that big of a negative, when deciding on a 30d vs a xti is the 10mp in the xti vs the 8 in the 30d. Other than that, every single thing about the 30d is better imo. In fact, my last upgrade was from an XTI to a 30d. It's much larger, heavier, sturdier, and has better features. The jog wheel on the back is much easier to use when navigating than the arrows and if you have larger hands, it just fits better. The 30D also goes up to 3200 ISO which you may never come to appreciate unless you're trying to shoot with no flash in the dark. The other downside is the $400 difference if you're shopping for something cheaper.

The 30D can be found for around $1100 from www.bhphotovideo.com with just the body.

05-09-2007, 04:22 PM

I was considering the 30D over the XTi because I was under the impression it had built-in image stabilizing, but after another look at the specs, I guess it doesn't. Since I'm just getting into this hobbyist level of photography, I think I need the 30D, at least not now.

I'm sure the L-series lenses are worth the money, especially considering resale values are very high, but it will definitely take longer to save up for them!

05-09-2007, 05:09 PM

It's worth the effort and time if you want quality and don't want to second guess some of the things that crop with say having a lens that isn't fast enough to shoot in less than perfect lighting.

It's like golfing with 100 dollar clubs at a public course with range balls, yes you're golfing but try it with 1200 dollar clubs and pro class balls. I thought I was just a really bad golfer, I'm not great now but at least when I swing properly I know the shot has a better chance because at that point I'm the weak link.

05-10-2007, 09:17 AM

Canon will give your the best low light pictures since it uses a CMOS sensor to pick up the light. The sony and nikon use CCD which can get noisy in low light conditions. From the reviews the nikon does give good pictures in low light and is pretty close to the canon. The sony on the other hand does not fair well in low light.