What am I looking for??

[ALittleDisneyFan]

I had a d50, and decided to get the d80. I had some focusing issues with the d80 (lots and lots of blur issues.. as well as not being able to shoot over ISO 320 without having a ton of noise).

So I returned it and got the 40d. My issues now are that I have no choice but to shoot in raw (which is not always great when I'm just snapping everyday photos of DD). The LCD screen does not show a true representation of what the actual image looks like. The WB is very frustrating and a big reason for having to shoot in raw, all the time. I recently had a maternity shoot and had perfect images with this camera. A few shots indoors (which I had to adjust later on...) but all of the outside photos (all in a nicely shaded area) were perfect. What gives?

This camera fiasco has been going on for a month now and I'm so sick of it. I need to decide whether or not to return the 40d (which I was going to keep until I just shot a few indoor photos using kelvin temps, and they came out awful).

I'm looking to be able to shoot in a mid-high ISO with little to no noise, an LCD screen that shows somewhat of a true representation of the photo, and a WB that isn't going to drive me to drinking.

Thanks.

 

[Quicklabs]

It is really strange that you would have noise issues and blur over ISO 320 with the D80. I wonder if you got a bad copy of that camera? I'm shooting at ISO 800 with little trouble with my D80. I think that with the D80 and the D40, your LCD will show only 95% of the shot. Other folks here with loads more experience than I can be of more help, but I think you are having a run of terrible luck with those cameras. If I'm not mistaken, though, the only way you're going to get a true representation on your LCD screen is to go as high as the D300. Hope others can provide better assistance than I, and wishing you well.

 

[ALittleDisneyFan]

What I mean about the LCD screen not showing the true representation is.. on my canon it is verrrrrry yellow/bright. when I upload it is somewhat normal color tones and dark. I've tried adjusting the darkness/brightness on the LCD screen and it's no help. When I shot with my d50, I was able to get an accurate view on the brightness/colors on my screen.

 

[dr_zero]

Can I ask why get rid of the D50?

I would take it back and get a D80 and before you leave try it out in the store and see how it does it sounds like you may have had a couple of odd ones.

The blur could have been a lense issue not the body.

 

[YesDear]

Ashley... I want to pose a different question to you? I went to your website and looked at your pictures. I have always been taught that the best thing to have as a photographer is a good eye. There are some people that naturally have a good eye. Particularly with the children, you have a great eye for the image.

My question is that as seriously as you take your photography, why are you looking at D50's D40's or even a D80. You do not have to have an expensive camera to take great pictures, but as you advance you will want more control over the image. You will not find that control with those camera's.

I would seriously look at a D200 or D300. Now that the D700 has been announced there are some good deals out there for a slightly used D300.

It sounds to me like you got some bad individual cameras.

I am sure that money can be a serious issue, but if you are doing this seriously, the cost gets more tolerable.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Never mind.

 

[Chikabowa]

You have a great eye with children. Just beautiful - loved flipping through your blog.

I have to agree with the pp about your choice in cameras. The D80, as much as I love mine as a family camera, does get a noise with anything over ISO 400 and it really becomes bothersome at ISO 800. It's a nice little camera though... but definitely not pro quality. A lot of my friends shooting on the D300 have been somewhat disappointed with their images when it comes to noise in the ISO 1000 range. I personally shoot with the D3 and don't find any issues... until I get into the insane range of ISO! The D700 is supposed to be a great little camera and I can't wait to get my hands on one here in the upcoming months.

As for your problems with the 40D... my understanding from my friends who are Canon users (both on the 5D and 40D) is that the Canon LCD is VERY inaccurate when it comes to color and exposure. Are you familiar with how to read your histogram to help mitigate that problem? Anyway, since I'm not a Canon shooter, I can't tell you for sure, but this is what has been reported back to me from my photographer friends.

If you can afford it... upgrade to a higher line of camera. If not, that's totally ok, I'd still probably pick the 40D over the D80... even with the LCD color issues.

Oh... and I agree with you in shooting personal stuff in RAW. I only shoot client work in RAW and then all my personal stuff in JPEG.

 

[DizzyV6P]

I think you need to post your questions to the POTN folks (www.photographyer-on-the.net/forum) to get some answers from the Canon pros. In addition, posting samples of what you think came out wrong would also help us see what's going on.

I take what I see on my LCD w/ a grain of salt. I got my 40D for the fancy new RGB color histogram feature. As far as RAW is concerned, all my pictures are in RAW except for some sports ones.

If you're not familiar about setting Kelvin temperatures for indoor shots in a studio setting, you might be better off leaving it in Auto WB. Most studios I've been in have all their lighting calibrated with the exact temperature, they recheck w/ a handheld meter, and set that into their cameras....Nikon or Canon. With RAW, I've been able to fix or adjust almost 100% of any pictures WB when its set to Auto WB on my 40D.

As far as noise is concerned, I can shoot all day in 800 to 1600 ISO w/ my 40D w/o any issues. The D300 issues w/ noise and its over-compenstated noise-reduction software is well known among the Nikon forums. But, its still a great camera.

The fact is, you're not going to find a perfect LCD camera. One simply doesn't exist. Some are better than others, but if you want perfection, the histogram is the way to go. If you don't have to to fiddle w/ the histogram, leave it on Auto WB and shoot RAW and post-process later. I always end up post-processing everything anyways...even JPEG, so now I just show RAW 98% of the time. With the high FPS of the 40D and a 2gb or 4gb memory card, its very easy

Also, what lens are you using w/ the Canon 40D? That makes a huge difference as well.

Mark: come'on Mark...lol what were you going to say? LOL. oh..forget it, I just found your Studio lighting thread! LOL. Great stuff!
http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1884724

Sample Prom Pic
Canon 40D w/ Tamron 17-50 f/2.8

Auto WB
f/5.6
1/50
ISO 200
580 EX flash Fired using Gary Fong Whaletail diffuser
RAW
I made the usual adjustments (sharpening, noise ninja, saturation, etc...) using Bibble Lite

 

[jann1033]

couldn't find any references to bad color rendition for the 40d LCD ( found one that referenced an old article then refuted, the shots she took of the screen looked great and very clear colors.... but not the originals) but did see it has a larger color gamut. could that be fighting with what you are used to maybe? personally i don't really use the LCD screen to do much but look at the histogram and make sure i haven't blown out highlights so i couldn't really say how accurate my LCD is color wise now or every has been.

 

[drcandon]

Well, I would suggest going to the D300 then, the only criteria you are not going to get is the true represetation - the 300 is not a full frame , it is, like all its predecessors 1.5x crop or DX format - so what you see is not what you really get. The new D700 is the first prosumer affordable ??? full framer.


Friend of mine just got his D300..soooo

We found the grain at mid range ISO from 200 - 800 to be very good and we could see little grain even at high magnifications at 800....now once we got into 1600 or so a bit more - but nothing to complain about..even at 8x10 or higher finals..

As far as the WB went - we tried everything from outdoor mid day to indoor and those disgusting sodium lights at Costco etc..Only under those crappy lights did the 300 have some problems - even setting it manually did not help..Only shooting in RAW and then serious post processing in Photoshop cleaned it up..however that being said my tried and true D70 could not even come close under those conditions and no amout of post processing returned decent greens..

I have not been able to play with the D700 yet...so no comments..

Our shooting buddies had 2 D40's and a D80...they had none of the problems you described..really sounds like bad cameras...the store you bought it from would not like it but did you try to upgrade the firmware overtop of the existing?? I am not an expert on these Nikon's..but on my D70, the second round of firmware upgrade did not go so hot and the camera acted like a $50. point and shooter - everything was junk...I re-applied the firmware and it cleaned up..

I guess it comes down to what you can afford..

Personally I am passing on the D700 ..I have some DX format lenses and FX format as well and even though the 700 can accept both ..bugs me...maybe the d400???

 

[Experiment_626]

Well, I would suggest going to the D300 then, the only criteria you are not going to get is the true represetation - the 300 is not a full frame , it is, like all its predecessors 1.5x crop or DX format - so what you see is not what you really get.

I'm confused ... whether you're using a DX- or FX-format camera, you're still looking through the lens. You will get what you see either way -- plus a little extra; as far as I know, pretty much all SLRs don't give you quite the entire image in the viewfinder.

SSB

 

[Groucho]

I swore I was going to stay out of camera recommendation threads, but I glanced quickly at this one, and will point out that there is a DSLR out there that lets you tune the color on the LCD if you aren't satisfied with how it looks out of the box...