40d trouble with exposure

I shot an Elan II for 10 years and did OK, but always struggled with my budget for film. 4 years ago I bought to a Nikon Coolpix 4100. I planned to use it just for birthday parties, etc..., but it eventually became my only camera. It took some great images for what it was.

I just upgraded to a 40D and I LOVE it, but I'm finding that its tempermental with exposure. Its harder to get a well balanced shot...that exposure that makes the image just pop. Partly, I'm not liking my lowest ISO being 100. I was used to ISO 25 or 50.

Nikon 4100 P&S:
http://inlinethumb63.webshots.com/20...425x425Q85.jpg
http://inlinethumb08.webshots.com/41...425x425Q85.jpg

An image from the 40d is attached. I shot this with Tamron 100-300 at 300mm 5.6 @ 1/180. With all of the earth tones, the image is somewhat Blah. What would you have done differently?

For starters, I would have boosted my ISO to at least 200, if not 400. You could have then shot at F8, which would have given you a little more dof, and a sharper image. Pretty much any lens will give you a better image when stopped down some. The one leaf at the top of the photo, is the sharpest point. With any living creature, you should concentrate the focus on the eye. If this photo was sharp, you would see a tremedous difference. A soft image will never "pop".

A smaller aperture will certainly increase your Depth of Field (DOF) and make your photos pop but there is another factor at play in these or similar comparisons. The smaller effective focal length of a P/S lens gives them greater DOF at all equivalent apertures(f/x) as it is a smaller lens.

Without getting extremely techinical, the shorter focal length of the P/S provides an identical effect to a shorter focal length in any size/format of camera. The P/S may have as its center focal length one that cannot be acheived in a larger camera other than at great expense. Look a gallery of photos taken with digital P/S and you will see lots of 'in focus' photographs, but closer examination will also show lens flaws or abberations from the lower cost and smaller lenses. The longer the focal length or the greater the zoom the less depth to the plane of possible focus that exists.

I do not know what focal length you shot the ducks at, but with a 100-300mm zoom at the aperture (f/5.6) the depth of field may be less than an inch. Real hard without a tripod to get that to encompass all you need to make the photo work.

Also, the P/S ISO numbers are not always fully translatable to equivalient film or other cameras numbers due to in camera processing and actual sensor response.

mn_shutterbug advice concerning uping you ISO with modern cameras is a good idea. This is not like using faster film alone. Yes, there is some potential for change but with proper exposure (check the histogram) at these (100,200, 400) ISO there is little real change and minimal post or in camera processing is going to eliminate the noise.

A Canon 40D at these levels produces virtual no noise at all even in JPEG mode.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StormGirl_LP

...but I'm finding that its tempermental with exposure. Its harder to get a well balanced shot...that exposure that makes the image just pop...

---

I don't think it's the exposure (the 40D image looks OK in that regard) rather the sharpness that you're describing.

Many P&S tend to oversharpen images. I think this is the case - especially with your butterfly shot - and if you have come accustomed to this type of shot, you will need to increase the in-camera sharpness setting on the 40D or sharpen it later in post processing.

The 40D is a very, very fine camera. However the learning curve for new owners/operators can be rather long.

You now have control over so many, many aspects of capturing the image that were not available on your little P&S.

Take your time and enjoy the benefits the 40D brings to you.

Thanks. I am familiar with manual photography. I shot with a Rebel and then an Elan for over 10 years. But I took 4 years off and only used the P&S camera during that time.

I'm having to relearn how to shoot manual--like riding a bike I hope--as rethink assumptions that only apply to film photography, like ISO limitations. For instance, I would never have shot 400 ISO for certain nature and wildlife images because it would negatively impact color saturation.

storm - the difference between P&S Cameras and SLR's as far as image noise and sensor sensitivity goes, is extraordinary (particularly comparing with CMOS). SLR's produce printable shots even up to ISO 1600, and in many cases ISO 3200 can even work (I've had a handful of interesting 6400 shots!). On a point and shoot, you have to stay under ~400, and only do 800 very grudgingly (and usually with sub-par results). Some point and shoots push their limits, but they are still very distant behind slrs in this regard.