T3i - not really that much better than original Rebel (300D)?

I was reviewing my old 300D photos and comparing them with T3i results, and some of the original rebel photos are better than T3i when it comes to difficult lighting situations.  The white balance is better, and no complaints about focus.  The T3i with a kit lens is sometimes inferior.

Any thoughts?  Here is an example of a tough scene where the old Rebel did well.

I feel like I am fighting to get average results with the T3i unless using telephoto at the long end.

Well i bought a T3i as a cheap second camera body for my 7D, i use it only in RAW, so it maybe the Jpeg ingine that is different.

What did you find that is not good enough in the T3i ?

The exposure system?

I get good results with it mainly with my 15-85mm and 70-200mm.

I got a T3i for my son and he enjoys it.

Using the Kit lens (18-55)

The sigma lens 17-70mm

Sigma 17-70

and one that I took on vacation at SC

I still use my 350D but the T3i is similar to the 7D with its higher iso and sensor. I think the kit lens is fair but put on another lens and it shines.

More detail, for sure, but as far as exposure goes and white balance I don't notice any great improvement.  In fact, the exposure and white balance are not improved enough to see the 600D as a big step forward.

Thanks for posting the photos.

This is my first DSLR , the Canon 600D and these are some of my indoor , high ISO shots . Taken with the 18-55mm kit lens

Miniature plane .

Move over rover let Jimi takeover.

I hear you, the image quality of the T3i is making me crazy.  The original Rebel had white balance that I could control.  One of the posters said my image was over exposed, well maybe, but the color and white balance of the skin tones is accurate.  My ratio of good to bad pictures was very high, now it is very low.

I thought about "upgrading" to the 7D, but based on what you said I might try a different product line completely.  I am currently looking at the Fuji XE-1 and XT-1.

Possibly overexposed but when viewed on the web, "full" exposure is better than murky and overly dark. That photo was taken back lighted and to me looks good for a tricky scene.

Here are some other photos from the original Rebel before I "upgraded" to the 600D.

http://www.dday2014.blogspot.com/

David zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Possibly overexposed but when viewed on the web, "full" exposure is better than murky and overly dark. That photo was taken back lighted and to me looks good for a tricky scene.

Here are some other photos from the original Rebel before I "upgraded" to the 600D.

http://www.dday2014.blogspot.com/

But so far you have offered no samples from your 600D.

How do you expect any one to offer any suggestions on getting better results from your new camera.

Do you do any post production?  Canon supplied you with some pretty good software when you bought the camera.  If you shoot RAW you could vary the White Balance to your hearts content, exposure too for that matter.

But to complain bitterly about the 600D and yet offer us no samples is not really being fair to the camera.

David zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Possibly overexposed but when viewed on the web, "full" exposure is better than murky and overly dark. That photo was taken back lighted and to me looks good for a tricky scene.

Here are some other photos from the original Rebel before I "upgraded" to the 600D.

http://www.dday2014.blogspot.com/

Color and white balance is one of the things that one can endlessly adjust with digital images. You can tweak these settings in camera to your liking. In fact, we don't even know where the problem is in your "production" line, if it is not calibrated. It could also be that your monitor is off, and that's why the old pictures seem better than the new ones. I had the same felling when upgrading from a Olympus 5060 higher class P&S to a 400D, the later pictures which seemed dull in comparison. Now recently I looked at some of these old pictures again, and they suddenly didn't look so great anymore, maybe the new computer monitor...

My best results have been with my 70-300 and my 40mm Pancake, though I do get some okay results from the 15-85. A lot of the images in my Gallery were taken with the 430 Speedlight.

Most of the images have not been processed.

Here is my gallery.  Almost all are T3i except one Sony A35SLT.

My gallery

I take it that these are what you would call the keepers, as I don't see anything wrong with these.

This maybe stating the obvious but have you tried changing the "Picture Style" page 81 of your manual.  I have a T4i  (650D) and I changed the picture style to neutral shortly after getting the camera as I found the factory preset too saturated.

As I stated before perhaps if you did use the software supplied by Canon DPP (Digital Photo Professional) in particular you could attain the images you are looking for with your T3i.  To do this you likely will have to change to shooting RAW.  RAW with jpeg is also an option if you want to stay with some jpeg.

Just some thoughts

Steve

Steve,

Thanks for the suggestion, will try setting the Picture Style.  I was trying to avoid shooting RAW, but that is always a possibility.  If I use Lightroom, I could also correct the "off vertical" distortion of the 15-85.

Anyway, will start with the p.81 suggestion and take it from there.  Thanks!

Teresa in Florida wrote:

I just bought the T5i for $1000 at sams club because it has high def video with auto focus and i am not impressed at all with both video and photos

Hint:  As with the OP, it's not the camera.

R2

There is a more diplomatic way to express that sentiment.

Recent production digital cameras require a much larger investment in time to get results that are on par with first generation DSLRs and / or point and shoots or phone cameras.

If you put a DSLR in P or S mode,  and do not adjust the white balance, picture mode etc you will most likely get results that are inferior to DSLRs with fewer features.  In low light situations, or difficult back lighting situations, you will probably get results that are significantly worse than simple models.

Using that logic, the average person should go no higher than a Nikon 3200 or Canon equivalent...

Unless you are prepared to the read the manual, spin the dials, adjust the ISO, WB etc.... and miss a lot of shots.

The old 6mp CMOS sensor in the D60 and 300D has the most beautiful low ISO output per pixel - ever.