For some years I have had a 500D which i've never really been happy with.
For some reason the exposure always seems wrong (especially in difficult scenes, partly bright, partly shaded), colours bleached out and focus not so wonderful (or is it my shake, or..).
Lately, I changed the default saturation, sharpness setting and exposure setting and I seem a little happier with the results... (slap, why didn't I do this before..)
I am wondering if anybody has "upgraded" from this camera to a later generation (700D, 100D or even 70D) and wondered, purely from the view of perceived image quality, whether there was much of an "improvement"?
I have stalled on changing camera partly because I doubt that buying any new camera will suddenly improve the quality of my pictures (if only..) and partly because I am disappointed in the sensor still being used (effectively) from the 550D (admittedly the generation after mone..) some 3-4 years later.., and have also considered changing to Nikon (D7100) or even am Olympus (E-M10).
I'm really happy with the pictures I get from my "snapshot" camera (an E-PL2) - perhaps more so than my 500D, but I have a few lenses (55-250, 28mm F1.8, 50mm f1.8)for the canon and it'd be a shame to have to sell them and actually I would like to buy the Canon 10-22mm, hence my question above..
I would like a smaller camera (hence the interest in the 100d, it's quite cheap too...) but is it that much different in reality(to a 700d, or my 500d) when a lens like the 10-22 or 55-250 is used?
|Fascia walkie talkie building London by ian herridge|
from Abstract Architecture
|Global Reach by cjf2|