Canon t5 to SL2?

Any thoughts on changing from a Canon t5 to an SL2? I’ve been doing mostly macroish photography, and somewhat lured by the claims of higher resolution dynamic range etc. But am unsure how much of a real world difference i will see and whether this is the best option. Below is an example of the sort of shot I take...so you can see a higher dynamic range would be nice. Using canon 55 250 stm , Laowa 15mm macro and Tamron 90mm macro

thanks!

Chasingbutterflies wrote:

Any thoughts on changing from a Canon t5 to an SL2? I’ve been doing mostly macroish photography, and somewhat lured by the claims of higher resolution dynamic range etc. But am unsure how much of a real world difference i will see and whether this is the best option. Below is an example of the sort of shot I take...so you can see a higher dynamic range would be nice. Using canon 55 250 stm , Laowa 15mm macro and Tamron 90mm macro

thanks!

Cool looking frog. Kiss it?

I vote no to the SL2 being a small incremental improvment.

To my eyes, this photo does not have a lot of dynamic range. I wouldn't mind a little more flash strength on the subject (and more diffuse) or lifting it in post.

24 vs 18 MP. I think I have the same sensor in my 7D1 as your T5 and even lesser in my 16MP m43 gear. The SL2 would give a 15% lineal bump which is nice to have but not a huge jump. Samsung's out of production NX1 at 28MP is 25%. The Nikon D810 at 36 MP is 42% and the Canon 5Ds at 51 MP is 67%. It takes a huge resolution jump to make a significant difference. I've made 30-36" on a side prints from these 16 and 18MP cameras. If I started printing larger I would consider an upgrade.

Noise and DR by the lab/numbers websites appear to be 1/2 and 1.5-2 stops respectively in favour of the SL2. DR by numbers could be a big improvement. Never shot a SL2 so I can't honestly say how that plays out. I have shot a Canon 6D1 which is a little better in DR than the T5/7D1 and my m43 gear. I found for my use in general event and low light, it didn't make a significant impression on me. Noise, the 6D1 is superior being pretty comfortable at ISO 6400 vs the 3200 on my 7D1. 12800 doesn't look too bad either whereas that would be pure BW conversion territory for the 7D1. So, the SL2, if it was halfway between would probably be a good gain. Anything less than that I thing I would personally lose in my exposure errors which breeds noise.

Welcome to the Forum!

Chasingbutterflies wrote:

Any thoughts on changing from a Canon t5 to an SL2? I’ve been doing mostly macroish photography, and somewhat lured by the claims of higher resolution...

Absolutely worth the upgrade IMHO. I too made the jump from the 18 MP sensor through to the new 24 MP Dual Pixel sensor (Canon M5), and am very happy I did. Having that Dual Pixel Autofocus in Live View (and Video) is a real game changer. I now shoot all of my Macros using the back LCD with Servo Autofocus!!! But if you prefer to use the viewfinder it's a step up too.

But am unsure how much of a real world difference i will see and whether this is the best option.

In real world shooting you will get a full one stop increase in IQ. Meaning you can either shoot with a stop higher ISO, or you can use that increase in IQ to crop further into your images instead (a real benefit for us macro shooters! ).

I know some of the testing sites don't put it as high as a stop, but I don't think they take into account the effect that the finer-grained nature of the noise has on IQ (and subsequent noise reduction).

Below is an example of the sort of shot I take...so you can see a higher dynamic range would be nice.

Very cool froggy. Love the colors!

The types of scenes that would benefit from a higher dynamic range sensor would actually be those that had both very bright areas and very dark areas in it. The goal being to maintain detail in both extremes. For instance I had a hard time with this Monarch. That black body (and dark eyes) were very dark compared to the sunlit wings...

(Sorry, DPReview stripped the EXIF from the image upon posting. EXIF can be found in my Gallery if you'd like).

Click on "original size" for a larger view.  (Edit: I re-posted the image and EXIF is now intact)

But shooting in RAW provided the extra dynamic range necessary to tame both the brights and the darks during post processing (I use Canon's DPP software). Highly recommend shooting RAW (if you don't already) if you're looking to extend the dynamic range as much as possible. Sometimes jpegs just fall a little short.

The scene below does indeed exhibit low dynamic range, but it's not due to the sensor having too little dynamic range. (Actually any sensor would be able to record the scene below).

The cause of the low dynamic range below is either the exposure, or lighting, or composition, or camera settings, or processing, or choice of Picture Style, etc etc.

In other words, your choices as a photographer.

I did just a quick edit in Photoshop (if you don't mind) to produce a bit contrastier image.

I didn't see any EXIF, but you could increase the exposure some (in camera), and also increase the contrast (either in-camera or in Post) to add some of that punch (dynamic range) that you seek.

Well good luck with your decision. Be sure to try out the camera(s) before you purchase!

R2

You will get better shooting performance on the SL2, especially with live view.

You will get better IQ for the higher resolution and better high ISO performance.

Dynamic range benefits are negligible and in the real-world there's not a huge difference with most modern cameras. Your frog shot is exposed fairly well without deep black or blown-out whites and any DR benefits wouldn't be noticeable.

The screen is better on the SL2 and you'll like that it's articulating.

Overall, it's a worthy upgrade for macro.

Chasingbutterflies wrote:

question is weather moving forwsrd or laterally would be better. Some of the older Canons are down almost to the level of the new entry level ones.

Start by analyzing exactly what it is you need to gain. And what you are willing to give up.

If you are considering an older full frame body, is it higher (clean) ISOs that you need most? Are there other work-arounds available to you? Such as using a tripod, or utilizing image stabilization (you don’t mention which version Tamron you have). Can you use another flash to light the background? Can you use more available light? Do you shoot RAW? How good is your post processing? Do you have effective noise reduction software? Do you mind spending the extra time doing PP? Might you benefit from Multi Shot Noise Reduction mode?

With FF, keep in mind that you lose the crop sensor’s extra “magnification.” If you are into true macro, you will then have to move closer to your subject (and focus closer), thus losing both working distance and a full stop of light. You’re probably pretty darn close with the 15mm macro already! Plus half of your ISO advantage just disappeared (when shooting macros). You might try using the Raynox DCR-250 (+8 diopter) close up lens on your Tamron to increase “magnification” (it acts as a doubler, but doesn’t lose any light in the process, only working distance). Remember too that you will lose use of your 55-250 (on a FF body).

I shoot a Lot of macros, and have always felt that (for the macro shooter), the benefits of a crop sensor outweighed the benefits of FF. HOWEVER, if you are shooting a lot of close-ups (in low light), then the cleaner ISOs of a FF may indeed benefit you more.

This is only scratching the surface, and there are a ton of other considerations regarding your upcoming choices. You’ll need to do a lot of soul searching in the meantime. Know Thyself!

Best of luck,

R2

Chasingbutterflies wrote:

i guess the frog was more an example of one of my better shots rather than a scene with lots of dynamic range.(due to the shot being taken at dusk, so your photoshopped image, while nice, to me conveys daytime)

Hi CB,

I realize you didn't post the frog pic asking for critique, but if you'd like my take I can provide a quick critique for you. 

If not, that's absolutely fine too.

R2

Chasingbutterflies wrote:

At least with the 15mm macro, an issue I continually run against is ISO. I was told not to go over 800 by a friend, I actually tried some shots in 1200 yesterday and it was quite nice to do, though indeed a bit grainy.

ISO 800 was the (max) upper end of my comfort zone with that sensor too. That has been bumped up to ISO 1600 with the new 24 MP sensor. A lot depends though on your noise reduction skills, and output requirements.

With even an older FF body (6D, 5D3) you could easily push that up yet another notch. Again, you'd lose the crop factor, but maybe you don't need that so much with the subjects you shoot?

i keep the 55/250 around for bird vouchers. Id rather not get into the ratrace that is bird photography with long lenses, so happy that sell it.

Yup, birding is a bottomless pit! And an entirely different challenge. It's said tho that Macro shooters are the happiest bunch of all.

see to increase the DOF, i need a small aperture with this lens....there is no point in taking wide angle macros if the background is totally blurry(and yes, the frog is as close as I could get without throwing shade)

DOF is such a huge challenge. Fortunately most macro subjects can tolerate copious amounts of sharpening (to counter the effects of small-aperture diffraction).

And if your subject isn't moving, you might try focus stacking. It can be very effective (Zerene Stacker is excellent). Even a 2-image stack can be just enough. For those, I just use the Clone Stamp tool in Photoshop. Quick and easy.

A technique I often use is to shoot bursts (even with flash) as I sway slightly. When using manual focus, this gives you nice slices through the subject that can be stacked in post. And even if you don't end up stacking, you can pick the exact focal point/plane that you want from the bunch. Plus, shooting high speed bursts can be used as a sort of quasi image stabilization (just cherry pick the sharpest).

If slow shutter speeds become problematic (and other techniques aren't an option) there are some pretty ingenious low angle camera support devices available out there (minipods, PlatyPods, "Frying Pan" pods, etc).

but then with this the background often gets too dark.

Back to fighting those slow shutter speeds. Here again, higher clean ISOs might be the ticket.

sunlit steam started to billow out right by the butterflies. In hindsight I should probably have cranked the iso up to increase dof/shutter speed for clear steam, but all i managed was faint haze. Maybe you could help me put some steam in in photoshop haha, as it was pretty epic.

Interesting. That would have been cool!

i shoot raw when i can. I have basically zero knowledge of post processing other than using the basic editor to bring back highlights, shadows, and fix warmness issues.

That's all I do in Canon's DPP. I get the images as close as possible, then convert to 16-bit TIFFs to be finished off in Photoshop (with a quick pit-stop in Noise Ninja if needed).

The 15mm is manual aperture and focus, and since I often cannot raise my head to look at the aperture ring without scaring the subject sometimes it is a bit of guesswork.

Here's where that articulating LCD on the SL2 would come in very handy. Plus Live View can be set up to display "Exposure Simulation" (you can see on the LCD exactly what your image will look like). And you can use image magnification or focus peaking to help with manual focusing.

If you are using an autofocusing lens (like your Tamron), with cameras like the SL2 you can use that great Dual Pixel Autofocus in conjunction with the excellent touchscreen to select your AF point (DPAF is a wonder to behold). You can also use Touch Shutter if you'd like, or disable it entirely.

I couldn't live without at least a tilting LCD. They're a godsend for us macro shooters. Plus using the LCD lets you keep your head/body further away from the subject. Easier to sneak up on the critters!

Well, lots to chew on. Good luck to you!

R2

Chasingbutterflies wrote:

I’d love criticism on that photo btw.

I love that you got down to eye level with your subject. This is a technique that works so wonderfully with subjects ranging from kids to cars to critters. Approaching your subjects as though you were taking their portrait (from pose to lighting to timing) is extremely effective.

When I initially looked at the image, the first thing that popped into my head was "underexposed" though. On my monitor it looked dark and muddy, with very little dynamic range. One of the defining characteristics of Ansel Adam's work was its great depth (as you prefer also), but another just as important aspect was its tremendous tonal range. He made sure that there was one completely white point in the photo, as well as one completely black. It's not a strict rule that we must always adhere to, but keeping it in mind can usually help to add impact and vitality to a photo.

You mention that this was shot at dusk (and that's what you wanted to convey), but the viewer really doesn't have the benefit of knowing the artist's intentions or circumstances surrounding a photo. And there are no real visual cues that help us here either (besides an overall dimness). Perhaps a more pronounced "golden" reflection of the "sun" in its eye (I know, it's your flash), or even just a brighter eye alone might be all that this needs...

My eye just initially wanted to see a more detailed and lighter-exposed subject (I did like the way you balanced fill flash with the ambient light without overpowering either). I also loved the frog's colors very much, and I think your mono-colored overall scheme (esp the background) really sets those colors off.

Perhaps one thing you could do to help communicate your intent is to add an appropriate title to your image, which would give the viewer a better indication of the message (or idea) that you wish to convey. This is in itself a very effective technique, and can boost an image's "score" substantially.

I occasionally Jury contests and exhibitions, and to be honest, an image has about 3 seconds to make an impression, and avoid the first sweeping cut. No matter what other (sometimes substantial) merits a photo might possess, it's often the technical issues that keep it from achieving the next level. Initial impact is very important.

A couple of minor points. I'd tone down a few of the specular (flash) highlights on the skin, and eliminate that bright leaf at the top, as it creates one of those distracting "edge mergers." On the plus side, the background vegetation has just the right amount of detail in it to give the viewer a good sense of the environment, yet not be too busy or distracting. Well done.

I’ve been being serious about photography for about 8 months now so still relatively new.

Setting aside everything I've said above, let your Eye and your Heart guide you. It's the path to true artistry. If you like something, keep after it. Your "eye" will mature and improve the more you shoot and the more images you evaluate. You'll just keep getting better and better.

May the good light be with you! Even if it's flash.

R2

All I can say is I went from the super high specced D5300 sensor and AF (for the time) and the sensor still is class leading or close to it and it's from 2014 - to the 2013 18MP SL1 with it's supposedly poor DR and AA filter etc....

OOC JPEGS much better, AWB MUCH better, RAW files much better and less work.... Just as much clarity and sharpness etc with similar lenses and Canon Colours to me are like Fuji's - real nice - Nikon is always too cool for me and needs working in post... Always clips too much with the highlights....

Spec sheets tell 5% of the story is what I learned...

Nikon APS-C Cameras usually always have higher specs than Canon ones and DXO ratings etc, but what I see when I load my SD card from my SL1 does not lie...

TLDR = You'll be just fine but do not expect much difference bar a half stop better low light.

My d5300 at 3200 is like my SL1 at 6400 basically and I'd imagine t5 would be compared to a SL2 also.

18mp vs 24mp is nada. Print a tiny bit larger at 300ppi....

Don't expect much IQ difference essentially

Though the SL2 should operate / shoot faster (continuous FPS), have a better buffer and write speeds etc due to newer processor. And Live view I believe is better due to dual pixel AF

But as for IQ - outside of low light you'll likely notice not much difference.  I've shot with 6d, 5d II, Nikon D5300, Fuji X-100 T and SL1 - most shots you would not be able to tell. except for if you want bokeh or supreme low light clean high ISO

One photographer I follow used an Fuji 16MP XT-1 and now an XT-2. Photos look the same. Likewise my D5300 24mp photos and SL1 photos look the same (but I prefer the SL1 files.)

Peace.

Chasingbutterflies wrote:

Very cool Raja Birdwings.  Nothing like that around here!