T2i with kit lens vs ...

Hi,

I prefer to ask this question in Canon forum, and although many say that in any forum, ppl are biased toward a specific brand, I do not think so.

I have read that the T2i needs really good glasses to show its advantages. Even some owners say kit lens is horrible.

Regarding this, and considering that probably some of you have m4/3 cameras like E-Pl1 or Lumix G series, IF you ONLY use the kit lens, do you think that the T2i is superior in image quality compared to e.g. E-PL1 with kit lens?

Thanks

1/ Re> Even some owners say kit lens is horrible.

They dion't know what they are talking about.

@/ Compaing to Olympuis -- it's just a silly comparison between two very different cameras and doesn't compute.

Is an F-150 better than a Civic?

BAK

The simple answer: yes. kit lens, 18-55mm f3.5 IS lens is simply excellent. I also have a 15-85mm f3.5 IS. Makes the T2i too heavy. Image quality from both lenses is simply superb. If you enlarged a 12 x 18 taken with both lenses and compared them, you'd never know which lens took which picture. Both great lenses work extremely well on the T2i.

You did not mention which kit lens you wanted to get. I have just bought the T2i with the 18 - 135mm kit lens which is available in my country. Reviews for the kit lens was not encouraging but I went ahead with it as my budget is limited and do not foresee myself buying new lenses soon. So far the lens have taken good photographs and I have not been disappointed. There are also good reviews for the lens from customers on Amazon who have bought the lens.

Even with the 18-55mm kit lens, its pretty safe to say that the T2i will out-image any of the 4:3rds cameras.

Yes, the image sensor on the T2i has more head room over the imaging capbility of that lens than the 4:3rds cameras do, but that's a good thing - it means that the camera has more room to grow. (Though that does not oblige you to give in to Gear Acquisition Syndrome).

The only fly in the oinment is that Olympus has a number of very good $300-$400 lenses while those lenses tend to be $500-$700 on the Canon side. While Canon's three main budget lenses are the best bang for the buck in the industry, there is a pretty big gulf between them and more serious zoom lenses. (Only a few very good but old primes sit in the middle.)

Therefore, I think you can get more for $2000 with the 4:3rds system than you can with Canon, but more for $1000-$1500 with a Canon than with a 4:3 camera. I think the scale tips back in Canon's favor around the $2500 mark.

For example, this is by far the sharpest and most detailed HDR I have ever created (look at the brickwork) - its a 3 shot exposure using the 18-55 IS. (tonemapped twice and blended.) HDRs tend to lose resolution very quickly, so it really is a great testament to the lens and the tripod.

The 18-55 kit lens got its reputation as a horrible lens with the old non

IS version. And I don´t think it really deserved it. Both versions are not particularly sharp at 50mm. The old version ads to this a quite noticeable corner softness at 18mm. But especially the Is version meets or beets the quality of most mid level lenses that people consider as a replacement if they don´t want to pay for the really good and expensive alternatives.

Have had quite a few cameras come through my hands in the last few years. Size and portability is important to me since I love 2-3 week international touring. For that reason the 5DMKII and a ten pound bag of mostly L and DO glass stays home. Tried the GF-1 .. had the 20mm, the 14-45, the 45-200 and the 7-14 + the EVF, the full load basically. Took the setup to South Africa and on Safaris for 17 days.

Let's start with the positives in my opinion, others may vary. The size, ...ahhhh, did I say the size? The 20mm is fast, ... so is the lens on the little S90, the 14-45 is sharp... so is the G10. Notice the comparison is to compact point and shoots. The dynamic range and ISO handling is a bit better than the G10 was, but I can shoot the S90 at ISO1600 and would not push the GF-1 past ISO800. When you are trying to get that lion's image at 400 mm effective, with Lumix image stabilization and a real slow lens life isn't as easy as it could be. The four lens kit covered 14-400 mm.

The T2i is a little (200 gr) heavier than the GF-1, does not have suffer that kind of pathetic viewfinder, has a greatly expanded dynamic range, better ISO handling by far, 4 frames per second against maybe 1, WB and EC bracketing, greatky enhanced movie capabilities and a full and real line up of lenses to use it with. The T2i is a steal..... it is a lighter, much less expensive, slighly less capable little brother to the 7D. I think dpreview said 75% of the performance at less than 50% of the price.

I sold all my GF-1 gear, every bit of it. Many thanks for eBay. With the proceeds I bought a GF-1 kit with the 17-55, which in current form is supposed to be excellent, but is range limited for what I like to do so I sold the 17-55 new out of the box and replaced it with the 15-85 and 10-22. Had enough money left over to buy a second battery and two primo Sandisk 32 gb Pro Extreme cards. Borrowing the 70-300 DO (a travel oriented lens) froim the 5DMKII kit I have a three lens travel set 10-22, 15-85 and 70-300 that has an effectiove comparative range of 16-480 mm, much better image stabilization and 50% more resolution at 18 mega vs. 12. and am back to the Canon colors I love rather than the lumix rendition of reds and grass.

If you want a toy to slip in your pocket get the Lumix.

--
http://www.martindareff.com

Hoi An Vietnam Old City

It's hard to say that one is better than the other. I have both the EPL1 and the T2i. They are both great.

I really disagree with the notion that the T2i kit lens is inferior. I think it is an excellent lens.

Here is a shot taken with the kit lens. Sure there is some softness on the edges, but its pretty good. Most lenses will have some softness on the edges.



Here's another shot with the kit lens. There's nothing wrong with the kit. It is an excellent lens.

sorry, in the text meant bought a T2i kit with the proceeds.
--
http://www.martindareff.com

Hoi An Vietnam Old City

Photo_wiz, You are absolutely right about 18-55 kit lens. I have compared many pictures from E-Pl1+14-42 and T2i+18-55IS, and the only problem that I see with those from T2i, is the softness at corners, which is considerable.

Which Canon lens, with some wide and zoom (not a prime and not an expensive L) has at least equal quality as 18-55 IS, but with good sharpness at corners?

I recently got the 15-85mm Canon. But I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 18-55 mm.

I think that other than L lenses, the 15-85mm is the only real competition by Canon to the kit lenses.

kamisu said:

Photo_wiz, You are absolutely right about 18-55 kit lens. I have compared many pictures from E-Pl1+14-42 and T2i+18-55IS, and the only problem that I see with those from T2i, is the softness at corners, which is considerable.

Which Canon lens, with some wide and zoom (not a prime and not an expensive L) has at least equal quality as 18-55 IS, but with good sharpness at corners?

Click to expand...

Both are more expensive than some "L" lenses, but the two lenses in the Canon lineup that have demonstrably better optical performance than the 18-55 IS but aren't "L" are the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS (really L optics in a non-weathersealed package), and the 15-85mm IS.

If you need maximum resolution, I would probably pair the 17-55 f/2.8 with a 70-200 f/4.

I think 18-55 IS is not bad in resolution, but the corners are really soft and if bokeh is not used, it looks like the corners are out of focus. So if I asked about a better lens, I meant a lens with performance almost equal to the center of 18-55 IS, in corners.

I was comparing some samples from Olympus E-PL1 + 14-42 and Canon T2i + 18-55 IS, and in the center, they were equal in sharpness, and I prefer everything about canon DSLR much more, but the kit lens on T2i, (for me) ruins the image. I prefer sharp images to bokeh, so sharp corners is important for me. I checked Tamron and Sigma lenses too, but it seems that there is no wide-tele lens with good performance at corners, with an acceptable price.

kamisu said:

IF you ONLY use the kit lens, do you think that the T2i is superior in image quality compared to e.g. E-PL1 with kit lens?

Click to expand...

In general, yes, I feel that it is. I prefer my 550D with kit to either my G series cameras (with kit lens) mostly because of the difference in dynamic range. You have to be very careful about exposure on the m43 cameras because the sensors quickly clip highlights, and higher ISO noise is slightly more obvious. The disadvantage is that the 550D needs manual correction for distortion (not insignificant with the kit lens) and CA removal (automatic with the panasonic m43, not with the oly E-PL1).

--
-CW

よしよし、今日も生きのいい魂が手に入ったな

Chez, Is it possible to do anything with the softness of corners in kit lens, say using RAW, etc?

Also the dynamic range problem in m4/3 cameras, is it something that can be handled, like using HDR or as you said careful exposure?

In other words, is it possible to obtain sharpness of m4/3 using T2i (both with kit lenses) and dynamic range of T2i using m4/3?

kamisu said:

Chez, Is it possible to do anything with the softness of corners in kit lens, say using RAW, etc?

Click to expand...

Not really. You can stop down to the sweet spot, and use LV to focus for the corners, but they are still softer than the center any way you slice it. Performing distortion corrections crops out some of the badness, but it blurs the new corners created by warping existing pixels.

kamisu said:

Also the dynamic range problem in m4/3 cameras, is it something that can be handled, like using HDR or as you said careful exposure?

Click to expand...

HDR will work, but proper technique requires a tripod (defeats the purpose of m43 IMO). It is mostly down to careful exposure, and selecting scenes where you neither have to pull highlights or push shadows in post. The 550D is much more forgiving (to at least a stop in photoshop IIRC).

kamisu said:

In other words, is it possible to obtain sharpness of m4/3 using T2i (both with kit lenses) and dynamic range of T2i using m4/3?

Click to expand...

It is a tradeoff in my experience. The images out of the camera on m43 with the 14-45 kit lens are more uniform (geometry, sharpness, and no CA) but with less room for error. The 550D with kit lens gets better looking images if you are shooting high DR scenes and don't pixel peep the edges + don't notice the curving horizon / lines. The 550D can pull ahead completely, but only with the use of specialty lenses: in my experience the 24 TSE II alone is reason enough to get a 550D.

For hiking, I am more impressed with the exposure latitude of the 550D + kit lens than I am by the technical superiority of the m43 results (geometry aberration not so obvious here). Canon AF accuracy however, especially at telephoto ranges, has let me down on more than one occasion (necessitating LV for critical images). The m43 contrast-detect method is - for practical purposes - flawless in comparison.

--
-CW

よしよし、今日も生きのいい魂が手に入ったな

Chez, Thanks a lot for your complete description. Indeed it looks like I can not get best results with just one camera, may be this is why you have 2 or more cameras. I am still confused and do not know what to do. I am not going to buy expensive lenses, probably just a zoom and a prime, not more than 300$ each, and in this way, it is difficult to say whether m4/3 is better or T2i. Wish I could use Zuiko lenses on Canon.

Forget manual correction of distortion in the 550D .. its automatic in LR3 with most lenses.
--
http://www.martindareff.com

Hoi An Vietnam Old City

Kitlens is marvelous. The people that are bashing it either are poor photographer of they have a defective one. Look at my Flickrpage and confince yourself. (Also bought the cheap.ss 50mm 1.8 lens. Also great! Next lens will be the 55-250. Then I'll be satisfied for the time being. In a couple of years I will buy the 7D or its follwup.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/philippemilo/

Micro 4/3 cameras are in many ways closer to the good compact P&S than they are to good APS sensor cameras.





If you want mirrorless go with the Sony NEX or wait for another APS mirrorless camera.

Olympus E-P series always seem better than it is with online comparison photos because they apply much more sharpening than most others at default settings for JPEGs.

The only advantage they could have over larger APS cameras is size and price and they don't have that anymore...with slightly better image than a good compact camera such as Canon S90 or Samsung EX1 only when using prime lens since they have slow zooms and micro 4/3 ISO at 800 or more produces color blotches and other problems. Unpocketable with a zoom lens so might as well have the better, larger sensor which is two steps ahead in real life comparisons.