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

Sorry, but MR BIG DUMMY gave the 300D, first gen kit lens, and f.18 50mm to a student photographer...    I might try to pick up one on eBay or Craigslist.

Of course I agree! I might have to go to a low pixel pro camera to get back to that quality again.

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

All of these were 300D and mostly kit lens.  Oh, the first gen kits lens was very good compared to the latest versions.

David zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

There is a more diplomatic way to express that sentiment.

Actually that was the more diplomatic response of the two I was thinking of, LOL!  Kidding aside, once it's taken to heart, then some real progress can be made.

If you've followed Teresa in Fla's other recent threads, you'd see that there have been gobs and gobs of folks trying to help her, but she remains indignant nevertheless.

In fact, in one of her recent postings, she mentions that she wanted the "5Ti" due to its 5-star reviews, but that she could only give it 3 stars.

Well the obvious response (my less "diplomatic" one) would be that many times the rating given by a frustrated neophyte is actually the average (median) between the camera (5 stars) and the user(do the math)! 

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.

Things go much better when you concentrate on getting good Exposure, White Balance, and Focus.  Personally, I like to have control over all threee.  The human brain is so much smarter than the camera brain, still.

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.

They've all had those features.  You just have to adjust to the unique "personality" of each new camera.  You can't be stuck expecting the same and trying to adjust it the same way.  You'll always fail.

Every camera iteration that I've moved on up through the years has been that way.  At first you go "yuck," then you adapt to the camera and start taking wonderful photos.

And once you realize that the camera's not at fault (unless there's some known big issue), then the shift becomes easy, because you realize it's just you that needs the tuning.

In low light situations, or difficult back lighting situations, you will probably get results that are significantly worse than simple models.

Depends on your setup.  The more you rely on the camera to make the decisions the worse your results will be.

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

And miss out on a huge amount of capability.  However if you think that's your solution, no-one here can stop you.  In fact, my recommendation to T in Fla' was to buy a Sony P&S (I've always kept one myself).  They have the best auto modes in the world (Fuji is catching up fast tho IMO).

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

I get More shots by doing just that.

Manual control will bring more understanding and confidence quicker than using an auto mode for a million years.  Just IMHO, but I've seen it time and time again with new shooters.

Put your frustrations, fears, and uncertainty to bed.  Get yourself back to the basics...

Adjust your aperture to give you the look you want.

Adjust your shutter speed to give you the exposure you want.

Increase your ISO if you are getting too much motion blur/camera shake.

Set your white balance to match the light your subject is in.

Focus on the subject you want.

Shoot shoot shoot.

Best of luck!

R2

I liked the Olympus better, just a matter of taste but they look better especially on exposure.

I didn't zoom on them intentionally, maybe that makes a difference.

Thanks for posting!

David zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Of course I agree! I might have to go to a low pixel pro camera to get back to that quality again.

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

All of these were 300D and mostly kit lens. Oh, the first gen kits lens was very good compared to the latest versions.

I had an outstanding copy of the original 18-55 kit lens.  But it pales in comparison to the kit lenses of today.

I repeat again, you won't make any progress until you quit blaming the equipment.

R2

David zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Of course I agree! I might have to go to a low pixel pro camera to get back to that quality again.

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

All of these were 300D and mostly kit lens. Oh, the first gen kits lens was very good compared to the latest versions.

If you believe this last statement, you have either a defective new 18-55 IS lens, or you indeed are not comparing properly. The 18-55 IS was clearly a substantial improvement over the non-IS.

The T3i is overall a better camera than the original Rebel 300D. However, in the hands of an experienced photographer, the 300D can produce very good images. It takes time and practice to find the best settings for a good exposure with any camera. Each camera is somewhat different. Experiment with different settings until you find your liking.

photonius wrote:

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...

Similar path and reaction: It took me sometime w/ pp before I appreciated my shift from C8080 to 350D. For awhile I thought I made a bad move

Thanks again for the tips.

I took some still life pictures with my 70 -300 at 115mm and was very careful about settings, got some good results.

My latest thought is to get 5D MK I for $500 off of eBay and experiment with that.  At 12mp, it should be easy enough to get good results in low ISO settings.

I have thought about going back to Olympus but the cost of the lenses is a factor.  The new 75mm is a great lens but what a pricetag!

Just my personal observation.  When I got the T3i, my first results were really just terrible.

The first gen 18-55 had a big problem with CA in low light.  The purple stripe was noticeable on vertical lines.

However, the first gen lens was pretty sharp and the color was good.

On the last gen 18-55 before STM, I just could not get good results.  Barreling and weird color were noticeable.

That drove me to the 15-85 which has perfect color and no CA that I noticed, but some distortion around the 70mm with off-vertical tilting being the problem.

I guess I was expecting a quantum jump in performance.  I will keep on experimenting, but need to get very good by the summer or will consider a big equipment change.

Forget kit lens. The nifty fifty on my t3i can sometimes pull off a great shot (with much coaxing), but the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 it is so good that I now I only can blame the shooter when I miss or is it mess a shot.  I am wondering if the sigma 50mm 1.4 gives the same results?

18-35 is too restricted a range for me.  As a social or event amateur, I occasionally need to take a portrait and that starts around 40mm and for head shots goes to 70mm.  Sigma makes a good 24-70mm, would like to use that full frame!

Hate to mention the obvious but ... have you tried Magic Lantern?  It is feature dense, and does have its own learning curve. But lets just try a few of these for stills

- Magic Zoom (Pixel in Pixel Zoom) while you Follow Focus (step by step) on Liveview screen?

- Zebras (blinkies), peaks(focus lines) or histograms (RGB, or verctorscope) on the screen before you click.

- Kelvin picture temps, increased fidelty in ISO values, all selectable on the Liveview LCD screen.

- Did you twist the LCD screen during a sunny day so you could actually read it (nice perk when it works)? How about lift the camera above your head using the twisty LCD screen to get the shot.

And oh yes, HDR shots?

And oodles of video features (like rack focus pull on the screen, and HDR video, 3X lossless zoom to expand your video lens focal lengths).

Not sure if mounting on your olympus compares but there is some serious features.  I think of my T3I with ML as the poor mans 70D.