Canon Digic Image Processors

SafeTripHome

Member
Messages
35
Reaction score
14
I have a beginner level camera, Canon T3i. I understand a higher Digic processor helps improve higher ISO with lower noise, and faster continuous shooting. Would upgrading to a higher Digic processor help produce more authentic color?
 
I have a beginner level camera, Canon T3i. I understand a higher Digic processor helps improve higher ISO with lower noise, and faster continuous shooting. Would upgrading to a higher Digic processor help produce more authentic color?
You can't upgrade that without upgrading your camera body. Sure, newer camera bodies offer a lot more tech, but if you shoot your camera in RAW and then post process, you can get just about anything you might want. What are you lacking?
 
I have a beginner level camera, Canon T3i. I understand a higher Digic processor helps improve higher ISO with lower noise, and faster continuous shooting. Would upgrading to a higher Digic processor help produce more authentic color?
A faster processor can contribute to things like faster AF computations, better tracking algorithms, automatic digital lens corrections, faster burst rate, better SOOC jpg noise reduction, improved video processing and quality, etc.

But it can't really pull any extra information out of the sensor that wouldn't be read normally. Also, you can't upgrade just the processor in your camera, you would need to just get a newer camera at that point.

.

For your question about noise, your computer has a much more powerful processor than any camera (and it is not limited by needing to instantly process things in order to be ready for the next shot). If you are not happy with the jpg results from the camera, just use raw and develop the photos on your computer.

For example, DPP is free from Canon and will let you fine-tune noise reduction settings. There are also other raw developers as well. DXO is payed (or pirated) and has one of the most advanced noise reduction algorithms out there but it can take seconds or minutes to process depending upon your settings and computer specs. Obviously that does way more than any camera processor, even the newest ones.

.

A major thing about "authentic color" is going to be getting your white balance correct. If it is off, the whole image may be tinted or biased towards a different shade. Your camera will have several white balance modes (auto, shade, tungsten, Kelvin scale, etc.) to choose from as appropriate. If you are outdoors, generally auto or one of the weather presets will get you pretty close. If you are indoors and know the kelvin rating of your light source, you can just set your camera to that.

If you have time to set it up, you can also do the most accurate option which is to set a custom white balance. This is where you photograph a grey card (or a white wall) under the same lighting as your subject and then calibrate the camera to that light temperature or color cast specifically. This needs to be done separately for different light sources, so if your light changes or you walk somewhere else, you would need to redo the process.

If you manage to mess up somehow but still have the raw files, you can set your white balance in post by either choosing a weather preset, kelvin value, or the eye-dropper tool to pick a pure white object (or neutral grey) object in your scene. You can also adjust color cast with a jpg, but it doesn't work as well and is a bit more work. Typically it is better to get your white balance right on-site though so that you don't have to guess later.

.

The other part of "authentic color" has to do with the sensor itself and the camera's firmware. There are several color/tone presets that you can set depending upon your goals. These are described here:
https://global.canon/en/imaging/picturestyle/style/index.html

Generally speaking, "faithful" will try to capture colors and tones as accurately as possible while the other modes will punch stuff up biased towards various subjects (ex: portrait, landscape, etc.). Be aware that "faithful" may have less saturated colors or lower contrast than "standard". Most cameras will also let you fine-tune or adjust these picture styles in the menu settings (ex: contrast, saturation, etc.).

Bear in mind that there is nothing unique about each Canon preset that you couldn't achieve on your own playing with curves and color balance, it's just a preset to save you time. If you wanted, you could also use Canon's picture style editor to create your own preset to apply either while editing raw files on your computer or possibly add directly to your camera (not sure if the T3i supports this). https://global.canon/en/imaging/picturestyle/editor/index.html

.

One final thing to note (and probably less important or relevant to you) is that different lenses can have warmer or cooler color casts or various levels of contrast. So if you have a a preset all configured how you like for one lens and then you switch to a different lens, it might not look exactly the same or might require different editing depending upon taste.
 
Last edited:
Thanks. I shoot in RAW and post process. I'm thinking of perhaps buying a new camera all together. One of my main problem is shooting sunsets/sunrises, the light is all distorted. Perhaps I'm over exposing or need a stop filter. But I believe I'm lacking a better lens. I'm not sure EF lenses are the way to go for my needs.
 
Thanks. I shoot in RAW and post process. I'm thinking of perhaps buying a new camera all together. One of my main problem is shooting sunsets/sunrises, the light is all distorted. Perhaps I'm over exposing or need a stop filter.
I have always found that dynamic range and white balance have been the main problem with my sunset shots. An ND filter can help with blown highlights and a newer sensor will give you better dynamic range. I found that a mirrorless camera with an EVF helps with white balance because, with both eyes open, you can see the colours directly and through the viewfinder simultaneously as you cycle through the white balance options.
But I believe I'm lacking a better lens. I'm not sure EF lenses are the way to go for my needs.
A better lens may help some shots, but it probably won't help significantly with sunsets. There is a huge range of lenses available for EF mount cameras. So, there may be good reasons for choosing a new camera, but lack of EF lens choice is very unlikely to be one of them.

What lens do you have at the moment?
 
Thanks. I shoot in RAW and post process. I'm thinking of perhaps buying a new camera all together. One of my main problem is shooting sunsets/sunrises, the light is all distorted. Perhaps I'm over exposing or need a stop filter.
I have always found that dynamic range and white balance have been the main problem with my sunset shots. An ND filter can help with blown highlights and a newer sensor will give you better dynamic range. I found that a mirrorless camera with an EVF helps with white balance because, with both eyes open, you can see the colours directly and through the viewfinder simultaneously as you cycle through the white balance options.
But I believe I'm lacking a better lens. I'm not sure EF lenses are the way to go for my needs.
A better lens may help some shots, but it probably won't help significantly with sunsets. There is a huge range of lenses available for EF mount cameras. So, there may be good reasons for choosing a new camera, but lack of EF lens choice is very unlikely to be one of them.

What lens do you have at the moment?
Thanks Chris,

I have a low quality EF-S f/3.5-5.6 18-55 IS, I think my larger lens is about 50-300mm. 300mm for the most part is useless for my landscapes in my opinion. I have seriously been considering a mirrorless camera instead of updating my lens or body. I'm sure some would fight me saying DSLR is the better way. But I like the idea of shooting a photo and seeing the exact frame you have taken except a cropped version although it not be cropped much, and an exposure simulation seems like a plus. I know exposure simulation would be a sin to some but at least it would reduce big mistakes of exposures. With landscape I find the lower apertures uses-less, unless it's something I consider for those shots. I use a relatively high aperture say f/22 and adjust my shutter/iso on a tripod.

I always do post processing of raw and I've done HDR image stacking. HDR combination is painful, but does serve a purpose but a single shot gives a different feel. A higher dynamic range in camera is something more I'd like to have.
 
Thanks. I shoot in RAW and post process. I'm thinking of perhaps buying a new camera all together. One of my main problem is shooting sunsets/sunrises, the light is all distorted. Perhaps I'm over exposing or need a stop filter.
I have always found that dynamic range and white balance have been the main problem with my sunset shots. An ND filter can help with blown highlights and a newer sensor will give you better dynamic range. I found that a mirrorless camera with an EVF helps with white balance because, with both eyes open, you can see the colours directly and through the viewfinder simultaneously as you cycle through the white balance options.
But I believe I'm lacking a better lens. I'm not sure EF lenses are the way to go for my needs.
A better lens may help some shots, but it probably won't help significantly with sunsets. There is a huge range of lenses available for EF mount cameras. So, there may be good reasons for choosing a new camera, but lack of EF lens choice is very unlikely to be one of them.

What lens do you have at the moment?
Thanks Chris,

I have a low quality EF-S f/3.5-5.6 18-55 IS, I think my larger lens is about 50-300mm.
The 18-55mm is a cheap but it has reasonable optical quality. If your other lens is 70-300mm, that is also a lens with reasonable optical quality. However, if you have the 75-300mm, that is a lens with poor optical quality.
300mm for the most part is useless for my landscapes in my opinion. I have seriously been considering a mirrorless camera instead of updating my lens or body. I'm sure some would fight me saying DSLR is the better way. But I like the idea of shooting a photo and seeing the exact frame you have taken except a cropped version although it not be cropped much, and an exposure simulation seems like a plus. I know exposure simulation would be a sin to some but at least it would reduce big mistakes of exposures. With landscape I find the lower apertures uses-less, unless it's something I consider for those shots. I use a relatively high aperture say f/22 and adjust my shutter/iso on a tripod.
Just be aware that at smaller apertures, say f/16 or smaller on your APS-C camera, another factor called diffraction comes into play which reduces sharpness. So don't use these very small apertures unless you really need them for depth of field.
I always do post processing of raw and I've done HDR image stacking. HDR combination is painful, but does serve a purpose but a single shot gives a different feel. A higher dynamic range in camera is something more I'd like to have.
Having a pre-shot exposure simulation and white balance simulation is the main advantage of mirrorless for myself and many others. It is certainly not a "sin" to make use of the simulation if you have it, just common sense.

Moving to mirrorless is complicated because you have so many choices. The Canon EOS-M series is one option if you want to stay with Canon and APS-C, but it might be worth looking at Fujifilm as well. If you want to move to FF, there are lots of options between Canon, Nikon and Sony.

What is your budget?
 
Thanks. I shoot in RAW and post process. I'm thinking of perhaps buying a new camera all together. One of my main problem is shooting sunsets/sunrises, the light is all distorted. Perhaps I'm over exposing or need a stop filter.
I have always found that dynamic range and white balance have been the main problem with my sunset shots. An ND filter can help with blown highlights and a newer sensor will give you better dynamic range. I found that a mirrorless camera with an EVF helps with white balance because, with both eyes open, you can see the colours directly and through the viewfinder simultaneously as you cycle through the white balance options.
But I believe I'm lacking a better lens. I'm not sure EF lenses are the way to go for my needs.
A better lens may help some shots, but it probably won't help significantly with sunsets. There is a huge range of lenses available for EF mount cameras. So, there may be good reasons for choosing a new camera, but lack of EF lens choice is very unlikely to be one of them.

What lens do you have at the moment?
Thanks Chris,

I have a low quality EF-S f/3.5-5.6 18-55 IS, I think my larger lens is about 50-300mm.
The 18-55mm is a cheap but it has reasonable optical quality. If your other lens is 70-300mm, that is also a lens with reasonable optical quality. However, if you have the 75-300mm, that is a lens with poor optical quality.
300mm for the most part is useless for my landscapes in my opinion. I have seriously been considering a mirrorless camera instead of updating my lens or body. I'm sure some would fight me saying DSLR is the better way. But I like the idea of shooting a photo and seeing the exact frame you have taken except a cropped version although it not be cropped much, and an exposure simulation seems like a plus. I know exposure simulation would be a sin to some but at least it would reduce big mistakes of exposures. With landscape I find the lower apertures uses-less, unless it's something I consider for those shots. I use a relatively high aperture say f/22 and adjust my shutter/iso on a tripod.
Just be aware that at smaller apertures, say f/16 or smaller on your APS-C camera, another factor called diffraction comes into play which reduces sharpness. So don't use these very small apertures unless you really need them for depth of field.
I always do post processing of raw and I've done HDR image stacking. HDR combination is painful, but does serve a purpose but a single shot gives a different feel. A higher dynamic range in camera is something more I'd like to have.
Having a pre-shot exposure simulation and white balance simulation is the main advantage of mirrorless for myself and many others. It is certainly not a "sin" to make use of the simulation if you have it, just common sense.

Moving to mirrorless is complicated because you have so many choices. The Canon EOS-M series is one option if you want to stay with Canon and APS-C, but it might be worth looking at Fujifilm as well. If you want to move to FF, there are lots of options between Canon, Nikon and Sony.

What is your budget?
I'd like to keep it within $1,000. But I've been considering the EOS RP around $1,300. I don't know if there's a reasonably priced mirrorless in that range of $1,000-$1,300. Many are rapidly going out of stock. I assume because of the chip shortage. I know what camera fits one person might not another. I'm thinking of moving away from APS-C to mirrorless. I'd like to have at least a maximum of 150mm focal length and at least 18mm on the low end.

I wonder if there's any benefit to swapping out two lenses. For example why have a 15mm-45mm lens and a 55mm-200mm. On the other hand you could have a 18mm-150mm lens and not have to swap out two lenses. Obviously it would take longer for you to turn the lens for your desired focal length. (I'm intentionally not considering the aperture in this instance).
 
Last edited:
Based on the focal lengths you mention, it sounds like you’re looking at the M system.

The M50 MK II with the 18-150 would probably fit in or close to your budget. My wife has the M6 MK II with that lens and we’ve been quite pleased with it. I’ve heard overall it’s better than the 15-45 kit lens (but that has some copy variation). However the 55-200 is better at the long end. That’s not to say the 150 is bad. Without an adapter, there’s nothing longer than 200 for the M system. Tamron does make an M mount 18-200 for a little more range. I know nothing of the optical quality on that one though.

Anyway, with the 18-150 we bought the EF-M 32 f/1.4 for low light and indoor. Very pleased with those two lenses. I’d like to get her the EF-M 11-22 for landscape stuff, but she doesn’t like to change lenses and is happy with the indoor / outdoor setup as is.

My camera is the RP. If cost is an issue, M is the way to go as no single lens in the M system is more then $500 whereas there are only a couple RF lenses below $500. All primes (16, 35, and 50) and one shorter/slower zoom (24-105 f/4-7.1 STM). Even in their consumer non-L lenses most are over $500. The closest to the 18-150 for example is the RF 24-240 at $900 for the lens alone. The RP sensor is 1.6x larger, so the picture you get at 240 is the same as 150 on the M50 MK II.

M50 MK II would get you the same sensor as the 80D at 24 megapixels, the same processor (DIGIC 8) as the M6 MK II, the R, the RP, M200, and the 90D. It has face and eye recognition AF. The same EVF as the RP and M6II. It’s not the best EVF, but you do get a level in the viewfinder and a live histogram, both of which have dramatically improved my ability to get it right the first time.

The big compromise is fewer external controls and customization (one wheel vs 2 plus control ring on the RP or 3 wheels on the M6II). For any of the Canon’s, you can use your existing lenses with an adapter. But with the RP, it would crop the 18-55 to about 11 megapixels since it’s an EF-S lens.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to keep it within $1,000. But I've been considering the EOS RP around $1,300. I don't know if there's a reasonably priced mirrorless in that range of $1,000-$1,300.
RF lenses for that platform are going to be quite expensive, don't forget to budget for that.
Many are rapidly going out of stock. I assume because of the chip shortage. I know what camera fits one person might not another. I'm thinking of moving away from APS-C to mirrorless.
APS-C is just a sensor format and it comes on both mirrorless and SLRs.
I'd like to have at least a maximum of 150mm focal length and at least 18mm on the low end.
In terms of APS-C (like your T3i sensor) or in terms of 35mm (like the RP sensor)? Those focal lengths will give different framing on different formats.
I wonder if there's any benefit to swapping out two lenses. For example why have a 15mm-45mm lens and a 55mm-200mm.
You are probably overthinking it. Generally though, lenses that cover wider focal ranges need to be more complex and may have more compromises at certain focal lengths. That's why it can more sense to break it up into multiple lenses that prioritize different ranges (or for size/weight). It really depends upon the individual lens though, it's not a hard rule.
On the other hand you could have a 18mm-150mm lens and not have to swap out two lenses. Obviously it would take longer for you to turn the lens for your desired focal length.
Not necessarily true, it depends upon the lens design.
(I'm intentionally not considering the aperture in this instance).
A few points not in any particular order:
  • Like others have said, it hardly makes sense to drop EF only based on your experience with some of the cheapest kit lenses. Some of the highest quality photographic lenses are in the EF lineup which is quite extensive.
  • When you say that "the light is all distorted" with your sunrise/sunset shots, do you have a sample that you could post?
  • Sunrise/sunset scenes generally have both very bright and very dark areas and require careful manual exposure (often times the meter will be fooled). In this case, it would be advantageous to use either the rear screen or an EVF to preview your exposure.



    Typically, you want to expose for the highlights. This is because shadows generally have more room to be brightened up in post, but highlights will clip easily and just be left as pure white without a smooth gradient.



    Depending upon if your scene has movement, you can also try exposure bracketing where you take several brighter and darker exposures and then combine them in post to increase your dynamic range (as in HDR).



    Newer cameras will probably have a wider dynamic range, but the difference is small enough that it is unlikely to make a mindblowing difference in single non-bracketed shots if they are exposed carefully. It may give you a little more wiggle room if you mess up an exposure though.
  • The aperture values that you are using are waaaay to small for most uses. Typically on APS-C, you get the best sharpness and contrast somewhere around f/5.6 or f/8. Stopping down further than about f/11 just leads to losses in sharpness. For most landscape use, you are focused at least a few meters away, so stopping down won't help with depth of field either.



    I can see why you would do that if you were trying to go for a long exposure to smooth out water or something but getting an ND filter is the better long-term solution.
 
Based on the focal lengths you mention, it sounds like you’re looking at the M system.

The M50 MK II with the 18-150 would probably fit in or close to your budget. My wife has the M6 MK II with that lens and we’ve been quite pleased with it. I’ve heard overall it’s better than the 15-45 kit lens (but that has some copy variation). However the 55-200 is better at the long end. That’s not to say the 150 is bad. Without an adapter, there’s nothing longer than 200 for the M system. Tamron does make an M mount 18-200 for a little more range. I know nothing of the optical quality on that one though.

Anyway, with the 18-150 we bought the EF-M 32 f/1.4 for low light and indoor. Very pleased with those two lenses. I’d like to get her the EF-M 11-22 for landscape stuff, but she doesn’t like to change lenses and is happy with the indoor / outdoor setup as is.

My camera is the RP. If cost is an issue, M is the way to go as no single lens in the M system is more then $500 whereas there are only a couple RF lenses below $500. All primes (16, 35, and 50) and one shorter/slower zoom (24-105 f/4-7.1 STM). Even in their consumer non-L lenses most are over $500. The closest to the 18-150 for example is the RF 24-240 at $900 for the lens alone.

M50 MK II would get you the same sensor as the 80D at 24 megapixels, the same processor (DIGIC 8) as the M6 MK II, the R, the RP, M200, and the 90D. It has face and eye recognition AF. The same EVF as the RP and M6II. It’s not the best EVF, but you do get a level in the viewfinder and a live histogram, both of which have dramatically improved my ability to get it right the first time.

The big compromise is fewer external controls and customization (one wheel vs 2 plus control ring on the RP or 3 wheels on the M6II). For any of the Canon’s, you can use your existing lenses with an adapter. But with the RP, it would crop the 18-55 to about 11 megapixels since it’s an EF-S lens.
Good points, I love my M cameras.

Only potential catch is that we may not get any new releases, but that shouldn't matter for OP if the currently available lenses match what they want.

It's a great light-weight system to carry with you and is pretty affordable too, especially used.
 
Good points, I love my M cameras.

Only potential catch is that we may not get any new releases, but that shouldn't matter for OP if the currently available lenses match what they want.

It's a great light-weight system to carry with you and is pretty affordable too, especially used.
Yeah. Considering the OP is using a camera released in 2011 with the same two kit lenses it came with, I expect they could get a lot of mileage out of M with the existing choices. I know that’s where I’m at with the system. I don’t need new lens releases every year. My wife is fine with two. I could see getting a couple more. But they exist with the current choices. The only thing I’d like to see them do is an EF-M 100-300. That would be a lot of reach in a very compact system. Even f/6.3 or f/7.1 at the long end would allow them to stay in their 61mm barrel diameter tradition.

I expect in another decade the whole photography world will change again by the time I’m seriously looking for a new camera body.
 
Last edited:
Good points, I love my M cameras.

Only potential catch is that we may not get any new releases, but that shouldn't matter for OP if the currently available lenses match what they want.

It's a great light-weight system to carry with you and is pretty affordable too, especially used.
Yeah. Considering the OP is using a camera released in 2011 with the same two kit lenses it came with, I expect they could get a lot of mileage out of M with the existing choices.
100% agreed. I just wanted them to be aware so it doesn't come as a surprise.
I know that’s where I’m at with the system. I don’t need new lens releases every year.
I think most people don't, I'm there too. While new releases are fun to see, I would never buy into any system if it didn't already have what I wanted.
My wife is fine with two. I could see getting a couple more. But they exist with the current choices.
I have acquired the 22mm, 28mm, and 56mm over the last 6 years or so counting the initial purchase. I also got a few adapters for manual lenses that I already owned. I very rarely carry more than one lens at a time though.
The only thing I’d like to see them do is an EF-M 100-300. That would be a lot of reach in a very compact system. Even f/6.3 or f/7.1 at the long end would allow them to stay in their 61mm barrel diameter tradition.
A longer autofocus prime (85/100/135/200) would be cool but I can live without it.
I expect in another decade the whole photography world will change again by the time I’m seriously looking for a new camera body.
Yeah, pretty much.
 
A RAW file means it’s the data which came from the image sensor. The Digic CPU might give it a better white balance or colors, but nothing you can’t do with your RAW editor. The Digic adds a header to the RAW file, like “open the file with 5800K white balance,” but you can change that without losing any image quality. So it’s not the Digic unless you’re shooting JPEG

When you upgrade the body, you upgrade everything: Faster Digic, faster AF, more accurate AF, more pixels in the sensor, more dynamic range in the sensor, better image processing by the Digic, faster frame rate, more control buttons, more video modes, higher ISO (less noise) etc, etc. it’s a big package, especially coming from a T3.

If you’re shooting landscapes and not fast moving things, an EOS R would be amazing for you… no need to jump all the way to R5 or R6, which have the ultra fast AF. Or buy a used 5D Mark IV, they are amazing.

I always liked my 18-55 back when I shot crop, but in full frame, personally, I’d go with 2 or 3 inexpensive primes, like a 35/50/85 combo, or maybe 24/35/50, something like that. I like small primes and you don’t really need every focal length in between. With primes, you get faster aperture, light weight, more compact, usually sharper, and lower cost.

By the way… I really liked your question. You’re asking the right things. A lot of beginners don’t seem to understand or desire to understand. You’re a real photographer. I hope we see more of you and your photos.
 
Last edited:
A RAW file means it’s the data which came from the image sensor.
No, it doesn't:
  1. Sony never offered proper raw files in its APS-C mirrorless cameras - they all use lossy compression, with all that it entails (loss of data, as the name suggests).
  2. Raw files for long exposures above 30 seconds on Sony's full-frame cameras are also not raw - Sony applies heavy noise reduction on those.
  3. Low ISO raw files from Canon R6 have noise reduction applied to them.
  4. Pentax has always applied noise reduction to its raw files at higher ISO settings.
There's probably more similar examples.
 
A RAW file means it’s the data which came from the image sensor.
No, it doesn't:
  1. Sony never offered proper raw files in its APS-C mirrorless cameras - they all use lossy compression, with all that it entails (loss of data, as the name suggests).
  2. Raw files for long exposures above 30 seconds on Sony's full-frame cameras are also not raw - Sony applies heavy noise reduction on those.
  3. Low ISO raw files from Canon R6 have noise reduction applied to them.
  4. Pentax has always applied noise reduction to its raw files at higher ISO settings.
There's probably more similar examples.
 
A RAW file means it’s the data which came from the image sensor. The Digic CPU might give it a better white balance or colors, but nothing you can’t do with your RAW editor. The Digic adds a header to the RAW file, like “open the file with 5800K white balance,” but you can change that without losing any image quality. So it’s not the Digic unless you’re shooting JPEG

When you upgrade the body, you upgrade everything: Faster Digic, faster AF, more accurate AF, more pixels in the sensor, more dynamic range in the sensor, better image processing by the Digic, faster frame rate, more control buttons, more video modes, higher ISO (less noise) etc, etc. it’s a big package, especially coming from a T3.

If you’re shooting landscapes and not fast moving things, an EOS R would be amazing for you… no need to jump all the way to R5 or R6, which have the ultra fast AF. Or buy a used 5D Mark IV, they are amazing.

I always liked my 18-55 back when I shot crop, but in full frame, personally, I’d go with 2 or 3 inexpensive primes, like a 35/50/85 combo, or maybe 24/35/50, something like that. I like small primes and you don’t really need every focal length in between. With primes, you get faster aperture, light weight, more compact, usually sharper, and lower cost.

By the way… I really liked your question. You’re asking the right things. A lot of beginners don’t seem to understand or desire to understand. You’re a real photographer. I hope we see more of you and your photos.
Thanks MarshallG. My major was photography, I guess some of the newer digital aspects are confusing since I learned without digital in my major. I've done the classic darkroom, developing my own negatives, 4x5s, B&W, etc. Most beginners don't understand ISO, Aperture, Shutter, and Focal length. Obviously they are your meat and potatoes. I'm going to go with the RP, as I'm on a budget. I'm sure most are right now. I mainly do landscapes; so a fast AF isn't an issue. The higher dynamic range is a plus.
 
Last edited:
A RAW file means it’s the data which came from the image sensor. The Digic CPU might give it a better white balance or colors, but nothing you can’t do with your RAW editor. The Digic adds a header to the RAW file, like “open the file with 5800K white balance,” but you can change that without losing any image quality. So it’s not the Digic unless you’re shooting JPEG

When you upgrade the body, you upgrade everything: Faster Digic, faster AF, more accurate AF, more pixels in the sensor, more dynamic range in the sensor, better image processing by the Digic, faster frame rate, more control buttons, more video modes, higher ISO (less noise) etc, etc. it’s a big package, especially coming from a T3.

If you’re shooting landscapes and not fast moving things, an EOS R would be amazing for you… no need to jump all the way to R5 or R6, which have the ultra fast AF. Or buy a used 5D Mark IV, they are amazing.

I always liked my 18-55 back when I shot crop, but in full frame, personally, I’d go with 2 or 3 inexpensive primes, like a 35/50/85 combo, or maybe 24/35/50, something like that. I like small primes and you don’t really need every focal length in between. With primes, you get faster aperture, light weight, more compact, usually sharper, and lower cost.

By the way… I really liked your question. You’re asking the right things. A lot of beginners don’t seem to understand or desire to understand. You’re a real photographer. I hope we see more of you and your photos.
Thanks MarshallG. My major was photography, I guess some of the newer digital aspects are confusing since I learned without digital in my major. I've done the classic darkroom, developing my own negatives, 4x5s, B&W, etc. Most beginners don't understand ISO, Aperture, Shutter, and Focal length. Obviously they are your meat and potatoes. I'm going to go with the RP, as I'm on a budget. I'm sure most are right now. I mainly do landscapes; so a fast AF isn't an issue. The higher dynamic range is a plus.
My advice is to shoot in RAW and use a RAW editor. RAW editing is completely lossless. You can apply any white balance you want, and you can take advantage of the dynamic range by pulling up the shadows and cutting down the highlights, however you desire. There are other edits you can make as well, but those are the big ones.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top