Canon 300D strange image

[nickamado@sbcglobal.net]

Hi all,

Nick from Los Angeles, here. First post. I encountered a very strange problem with my relatively new camera. Has anyone seen this before and what do you think? I was extremely dissatisfied with Canon's response. The email support response suggested I was using non-canon lenses (which I was not, the non-canon lens I used first did not produce the overlay, but was too long a lens.) The phone support guy did a Google search for shooting neon signs and suggested I shoot the same shot with a longer shutter speed than the 2 seconds I was using. (longer shutter speed? are you kidding?)
My complaint to Canon again via email was met with the suggestion that I send in the camera for repairs of an undisclosed amount of time.

Does any of that sound right? Why can't they provide me with some sort of answer? Does anyone know what might be causing this and do I really need to send my camera across the country to have it looked at for god-knows how long?

Thanks a bunch

[Michael Fanelli]

Hi all,

Nick from Los Angeles, here. First post. I encountered a very strange problem with my relatively new camera. Has anyone seen this before and what do you think? I was extremely dissatisfied with Canon's response. The email support response suggested I was using non-canon lenses (which I was not, the non-canon lens I used first did not produce the overlay, but was too long a lens.) The phone support guy did a Google search for shooting neon signs and suggested I shoot the same shot with a longer shutter speed than the 2 seconds I was using. (longer shutter speed? are you kidding?)
My complaint to Canon again via email was met with the suggestion that I send in the camera for repairs of an undisclosed amount of time.

Does any of that sound right? Why can't they provide me with some sort of answer? Does anyone know what might be causing this and do I really need to send my camera across the country to have it looked at for god-knows how long?

Thanks a bunch

My first guess, and it is a guess, is that the neon lights are horribly overexposed. This happened to me many years ago on a slide. You have a very wide range from dark to light here. I'd try to adjust the compensation downwards a bit to see if that fixes the problem (of course, too dark for anything else). If the problem disappears, your camera, like my slide, doesn't have the lattitude. Digital, in my experience, tends to "spread out" extreme overexposure.

[nickamado@sbcglobal.net]

Michael,

I took quite a few different exposures to see which was best and the ones that were more overexposed than this one provided brighter image overlays and the ones that were underexposed produced darker overlays, but regardless of the exposure, the problem was there. Any other thoughts?

[nickamado@sbcglobal.net]

No one else has any ideas about what may have caused this problem? I know many of you are experts. Help a young'un out!

[Franglais]

No one else has any ideas about what may have caused this problem? I know many of you are experts. Help a young'un out!

I've never seen a problem like this before. It's a complete, reversed ghost image. When I saw it I thought "It's the original image being reflected off the shiny sensor onto the rear element of the lens and then back onto the sensor".

Then I couldn't figure out if a reversed image would actually happen in this case and anyway some people say the sensor shouldn't reflect light this way.

The solution as people have said is not to overexpose your neon lights so that the ghost image will not be so bright. I don't think it's a problem with your camera.

Charles

[Sebastian]

Franglais nailed it. It is pretty common especially with Canons. Reflection off sensor.

[mikishots]

Happens in film cameras as well, using a UV or Skylight filter at night with strong highlights. I've seen it enough to not use filters at night, regardless of type. The only one that doesn't seem to do it is my Rodenstock.

[nickamado@sbcglobal.net]

Happens in film cameras as well, using a UV or Skylight filter at night with strong highlights. I've seen it enough to not use filters at night, regardless of type. The only one that doesn't seem to do it is my Rodenstock.

That may well be it. I was using a UV filter on the Canon lens, but NOT on the other lens, which did not produce the odd reflection. I plan on returning to the place to re-shoot and test these theories out, but the sign has some missing neon, so I want to wait until it's returned to it's original glory.

Thanks!

[Digi-Whitty]

That may well be it. I was using a UV filter on the Canon lens, but NOT on the other lens, which did not produce the odd reflection. I plan on returning to the place to re-shoot and test these theories out, but the sign has some missing neon, so I want to wait until it's returned to it's original glory.

Thanks!

I second that. The first thing I thought of after seeing your image is that you were using a filter of some kind. I've seen it, been there, done that. Removing the filter should solve the problem completely. Too bad Canon service couldn't tell you that. It's a common mistake for newbies to make to leave the filter on the camera for nighttime shots.

[Franglais]

I second that. The first thing I thought of after seeing your image is that you were using a filter of some kind. I've seen it, been there, done that. Removing the filter should solve the problem completely. Too bad Canon service couldn't tell you that. It's a common mistake for newbies to make to leave the filter on the camera for nighttime shots.

A filter would give ghosts and I agree its a good idea to leave it off. But what we have here is a full, complete reversed image. I still think this is a reflection from the sensor onto the back of the lens and back onto the sensor. The EF-S lens might be more sensitive to this than an EF lens because its rear element is closer to the sensor.

It would be interesting to know what the answer is but this would mean redoing the original shot with and without a filter.

Charles

[Digi-Whitty]

A filter would give ghosts and I agree its a good idea to leave it off. But what we have here is a full, complete reversed image. I still think this is a reflection from the sensor onto the back of the lens and back onto the sensor. The EF-S lens might be more sensitive to this than an EF lens because its rear element is closer to the sensor.

It would be interesting to know what the answer is but this would mean redoing the original shot with and without a filter.

Charles

The image of the neon lights is reflected on the front element and then a reflection of that is visible on the back side of the filter - that is what the faint reverse image is. This is nothing new to the ef-s lenses and sensor, as you can replicate the same effect on film.