Posted by John Kerr on December 10, 2009 at 5:30 PM
A had two reasons in mind when I purchased my SLR. First in became impossible to photograph my twins with the slow shutter lag on the digital camera I was useing and also I wanted the option to install a Macro lense. So with that in mind I purchased a Canon XT a couple years ago. Since then my interest has sky rocketed and nature photography as became a very enjoyable hobby.
So with that in mind, can anyone that has started with an entry level SLR and upgraded tell my if there's a big difference in photo quality other than pixels. I'm thinking maybe a 50D or 7D.
As I said, it's a hobby, I do very little post processing except for the basic software that came with my camera and the largest prints I print for myself is 13x19. I know the XT well and I feel I use it to it's potential (settings adjustments etc). Can an upgrade produce better quality? I'm not asking it to make me a better photographer, I have a lot to learn.
Thanks for all the great responses so far, they are a big help. As for the lenses: I have the kit lense that came with my camera which is a 18x55 F 3.5-5.6, a Canon 100mm F2.8 Macro (my favorite) and a 70x300 F4.5-5.6 IS. I've thougth about getting a better lense to replace the 18x55 (perhaps a wide angle) and even a nice telephoto but I'm concerned if I would be putting a lense on that the XT body could not handle. Kind of like buying a nice camping trailer and not having a good truck to pull it. Obviously I'm just learning and I want to build my collection in the right order. Thanks in advance for any input.
Posted by Buck Ward on December 10, 2009 at 6:00 PM
Hi John
The best reason to upgrade is that the new camera will do for you something that the old camera won't do. You moved up to the DSLR to overcome the shortcomings of your previous digicam. The reason to upgrade is to overcome the shortcomings of your XT. Your XT is an older model, and the newer generations are improved and have increased capabilities, not to mention you're thinking about upgrading from an entry level body to a mid-level body. The newer cameras have faster auto-focus, more AF points, larger buffers, faster processing, video, less noise at higher ISOs, higher density sensors, and on and on. You will see improvements in all sorts of things, but I don't think improvements in image quality are going to knock your socks off. Unless you have specific complaints about the image quality you're getting now, for small to medium prints your 8 mega-pixels are probably adequate.
I, for one, tend to keep a device for a long time - a computer, a car, a camera - until it's pretty much hopeless. When I do upgrade, I try to get the most, the best, I can afford because I know I'll have it for quite a while.
On the other hand, getting a new camera is great fun, and sometime one is just overcome with gear lust. If that's the case, then you have to scratch the itch.
Good luck
Posted by Glenn Starr on December 10, 2009 at 7:49 PM
John,
I went the same route only with Nikon. Started with a D80 and then moved to the D700. I picked the D700 because I wanted the hi-ISO performance (i.e. indoor shots of my girls running and no flash and no noise. But, the biggest boost in image quality, IMHO, came from the fact that I upgraded to pro-lenses at the same time. Much much sharper images, great color rendition/saturation and, when I don't want to shoot RAW, really nice pics right out of the camera with JPEG. In fact, got the D700 first and used my 70-300 prosumer lens first and when I paired the D700 with a pro-glass 70-200 2.8 the image quality improvement was off the chart. Hope this helps.
Posted by Chris Percival on December 11, 2009 at 7:05 AM
You didn't mention what lenses you had. An upgrade there may make a big difference in image quality.
Posted by Gene Lugo on December 11, 2009 at 9:28 AM
New camera would help, but I would venture to guess that you have not yet invested in pro-quality lenses. Chris is on the right track. A good lens will make a modest camera produce really great results. The advantages are many, but being able to shoot at wider lens openings (faster shutter speeds, better able to separate subjects from backgrounds using depth of field) and just the fact that good lenses are made better and to more stringent design and performance criteria would make them highly desirable. They do keep their value longer, much longer than you are likely to keep any given camera body. Cameras are still evolving and you pay for R&D each time you purchase the latest greatest body, only to regret it a year later when its replacement is announced. Such is the product cycle on these things.
You will also stand to gain a quantum leap in image quality as soon as you start doing postprocessing. At first you might just simply adjust contrast, saturation, white and black points to make your images "pop" a bit. Then you are likely to discover the benefits of shooting your images in RAW format - or, in other words, as the image sensor sees it.
In camera processing, something that happens when you shoot jpg files, has some serious limitations - the settings have limited range - the noise reduction robs sharpness and detail, and the resulting file, due to compression, lacks the depth and smoothness of a properly processed raw file. You will need a piece of software to read and convert the raw file to jpg or tiff format, which is usually available from the camera mfgr or third party. Adobe provides ACR (Adobe Camera Raw), and there are various viewers and simple applications that do simple conversions, and other self contained applications that provide everything you need.
Photoshop, while almost a universal choice among advanced amateurs and professionals, is not an easy program to learn - as is evidenced by the many self-help books, online tutorials, courses etc. If you want to stay with the rest of the crowd, though, you might consider starting with Photoshop Elements. If you don't mind saving some money and keeping the hair on your head, you might want to take a look at Picture Window Pro - it has pretty much everything you need in a simple intuitive user interface, and costs only $89. RAW file conversion, advanced masking, excellent noise reduction and sharpening algorithms, color space management - pretty much everything.
And if you like to print and want to make that easier, take a look at Qimage - its a printing utility that makes short work out of resizing and sharpening images for paper output. Its fast, easy and does things like allow multiple images of different sizes on a single sheet of paper with a drag and drop interface. The output quality rivals anything short of a Raster Image Processor (RIP) used on production equipment. Hope this helps and don't be bashful about asking questions here or offline.
Posted by Chris Percival on December 11, 2009 at 10:40 AM
You didn't mention what lenses you had. An upgrade there may make a big difference in image quality.
Hi John,
My case is probably what you were looking for! I started out with a rebel XT and the cheapo lenses to begin with, before I upgraded my lenses to reasonably good ones, and even an L Lens. Later after about a couple of years, few months after 40D came out, I sold my XT and bought the 40D. The primary reasons were such- much better ISO performances, better lenses performances (My 70-00 f/4 was out performing my XT), better Optical viewfinder (there is a huge difference in OVF of XT and 40D, XT, I am sorry to say is very bad), live view, better auto focusing system, better balance (lens to body balance), and among other things- control of temperature of the shot, and also to scratch an itch for better camera body to go with L Lenses. After I got 40D, I added 2 more L lenses to arsenal, while upgrading the 70-200 f/4 to f/2.8 IS. I really think these lenses need at least the semi-pro quality that the XXD (or 7D) offers, because these lenses consistently out resolve the sensor of XT (may not be the same case with XSi or such). Now I have to itch to jump up to 7D, because I am enamored by even better autofocus system and also HD capabilities.
So if these are what you are looking for, then yes by all means upgrade (and if you are considering 50D or 7D, I say pool in a little more and just go for the 7D). If you are not particular about these aspect, but just have an itch to scratch, then yes scratch it and feel good and get the semi-pro body. But if none of these matter, and you are happy with the performance of your current body, then why waste money!!
Good Luck and Happy Shooting!
Posted by Bill Brennan on December 11, 2009 at 4:46 PM
John, I started with digital point and shoot and continued to use my film slr. Then purchased the Canon 20D and the 17-85 lens. Over a few year period, I invested in lenses: 100m macro, a 17-40 wide angle and a 70-200 2.8 telefoto. Each new investment added to my range of possibilities.
Last year, I upgraded to a 5D mkII + 24-105 and gave the 20D + 17-85 lens to a granddgtr as an upgrade to her point and shoot. Will probably add a 16-35 2.8 lens to arsenal shortly. Again to increase the range of possibilities.
As for software for post processing, consider PS Elements until you are ready to invest in CS4.
if you are looking to upgrade from the 18-55, and still wish to keep the costs relatively less, I suggest you look at Tamron's new 17-50 F/2.8 VC. Its an upgrade of their old and very excellent 17-50, but with Tamron's version of IS. Of course the resident canon 17-55 is brilliant, but nearly $300 more than the tamron!
If you are thinking of going wide your excellent options would be the canon 10-22 or tokina 12-24. But then you would need something to bridge the gap from 22/24 to 70.
Discussion
8 repliesSo with that in mind, can anyone that has started with an entry level SLR and upgraded tell my if there's a big difference in photo quality other than pixels. I'm thinking maybe a 50D or 7D.
As I said, it's a hobby, I do very little post processing except for the basic software that came with my camera and the largest prints I print for myself is 13x19. I know the XT well and I feel I use it to it's potential (settings adjustments etc). Can an upgrade produce better quality? I'm not asking it to make me a better photographer, I have a lot to learn.
Thanks for all the great responses so far, they are a big help. As for the lenses: I have the kit lense that came with my camera which is a 18x55 F 3.5-5.6, a Canon 100mm F2.8 Macro (my favorite) and a 70x300 F4.5-5.6 IS. I've thougth about getting a better lense to replace the 18x55 (perhaps a wide angle) and even a nice telephoto but I'm concerned if I would be putting a lense on that the XT body could not handle. Kind of like buying a nice camping trailer and not having a good truck to pull it. Obviously I'm just learning and I want to build my collection in the right order. Thanks in advance for any input.
The best reason to upgrade is that the new camera will do for you something that the old camera won't do. You moved up to the DSLR to overcome the shortcomings of your previous digicam. The reason to upgrade is to overcome the shortcomings of your XT. Your XT is an older model, and the newer generations are improved and have increased capabilities, not to mention you're thinking about upgrading from an entry level body to a mid-level body. The newer cameras have faster auto-focus, more AF points, larger buffers, faster processing, video, less noise at higher ISOs, higher density sensors, and on and on. You will see improvements in all sorts of things, but I don't think improvements in image quality are going to knock your socks off. Unless you have specific complaints about the image quality you're getting now, for small to medium prints your 8 mega-pixels are probably adequate.
I, for one, tend to keep a device for a long time - a computer, a car, a camera - until it's pretty much hopeless. When I do upgrade, I try to get the most, the best, I can afford because I know I'll have it for quite a while.
On the other hand, getting a new camera is great fun, and sometime one is just overcome with gear lust. If that's the case, then you have to scratch the itch.
Good luck
I went the same route only with Nikon. Started with a D80 and then moved to the D700. I picked the D700 because I wanted the hi-ISO performance (i.e. indoor shots of my girls running and no flash and no noise. But, the biggest boost in image quality, IMHO, came from the fact that I upgraded to pro-lenses at the same time. Much much sharper images, great color rendition/saturation and, when I don't want to shoot RAW, really nice pics right out of the camera with JPEG. In fact, got the D700 first and used my 70-300 prosumer lens first and when I paired the D700 with a pro-glass 70-200 2.8 the image quality improvement was off the chart. Hope this helps.
You will also stand to gain a quantum leap in image quality as soon as you start doing postprocessing. At first you might just simply adjust contrast, saturation, white and black points to make your images "pop" a bit. Then you are likely to discover the benefits of shooting your images in RAW format - or, in other words, as the image sensor sees it.
In camera processing, something that happens when you shoot jpg files, has some serious limitations - the settings have limited range - the noise reduction robs sharpness and detail, and the resulting file, due to compression, lacks the depth and smoothness of a properly processed raw file. You will need a piece of software to read and convert the raw file to jpg or tiff format, which is usually available from the camera mfgr or third party. Adobe provides ACR (Adobe Camera Raw), and there are various viewers and simple applications that do simple conversions, and other self contained applications that provide everything you need.
Photoshop, while almost a universal choice among advanced amateurs and professionals, is not an easy program to learn - as is evidenced by the many self-help books, online tutorials, courses etc. If you want to stay with the rest of the crowd, though, you might consider starting with Photoshop Elements. If you don't mind saving some money and keeping the hair on your head, you might want to take a look at Picture Window Pro - it has pretty much everything you need in a simple intuitive user interface, and costs only $89. RAW file conversion, advanced masking, excellent noise reduction and sharpening algorithms, color space management - pretty much everything.
And if you like to print and want to make that easier, take a look at Qimage - its a printing utility that makes short work out of resizing and sharpening images for paper output. Its fast, easy and does things like allow multiple images of different sizes on a single sheet of paper with a drag and drop interface. The output quality rivals anything short of a Raster Image Processor (RIP) used on production equipment. Hope this helps and don't be bashful about asking questions here or offline.
My case is probably what you were looking for! I started out with a rebel XT and the cheapo lenses to begin with, before I upgraded my lenses to reasonably good ones, and even an L Lens. Later after about a couple of years, few months after 40D came out, I sold my XT and bought the 40D. The primary reasons were such- much better ISO performances, better lenses performances (My 70-00 f/4 was out performing my XT), better Optical viewfinder (there is a huge difference in OVF of XT and 40D, XT, I am sorry to say is very bad), live view, better auto focusing system, better balance (lens to body balance), and among other things- control of temperature of the shot, and also to scratch an itch for better camera body to go with L Lenses. After I got 40D, I added 2 more L lenses to arsenal, while upgrading the 70-200 f/4 to f/2.8 IS. I really think these lenses need at least the semi-pro quality that the XXD (or 7D) offers, because these lenses consistently out resolve the sensor of XT (may not be the same case with XSi or such). Now I have to itch to jump up to 7D, because I am enamored by even better autofocus system and also HD capabilities.
So if these are what you are looking for, then yes by all means upgrade (and if you are considering 50D or 7D, I say pool in a little more and just go for the 7D). If you are not particular about these aspect, but just have an itch to scratch, then yes scratch it and feel good and get the semi-pro body. But if none of these matter, and you are happy with the performance of your current body, then why waste money!!
Good Luck and Happy Shooting!
Last year, I upgraded to a 5D mkII + 24-105 and gave the 20D + 17-85 lens to a granddgtr as an upgrade to her point and shoot. Will probably add a 16-35 2.8 lens to arsenal shortly. Again to increase the range of possibilities.
As for software for post processing, consider PS Elements until you are ready to invest in CS4.
Hope this helps as you contemplate your strategy.
Bill Brennan
If you are thinking of going wide your excellent options would be the canon 10-22 or tokina 12-24. But then you would need something to bridge the gap from 22/24 to 70.