Need help choosing best camera for $500

LIke already said... the point of focus is not where you need it. When you shoot portraits it needs to be nailed to the eyes. Our brain will generally dismiss other things being soft as long as the eyes are sharp. More depth of field would be nice, as would better lighting to help with contrast (contrast also contributes to apparent sharpness), but those things will not make up for missed focus. And on the first one the shutter speed is a little on the slow side.

For checking front/back focus, read this page, print the target and test the lens.

http://www.peleng8.com​/how-to-detect-back-focus.html

My 2 cents. The first photo (assuming it's about 3 feet distance from lens to focus point on the subject) you have 3.3 inches DOF. If you didn't focus/recompose, the camera likely focused slightly to the right of the microphone on the boy's chest. This is probably consistent with the few hairs that show sharp behind the right ear. Camera shake could be contributing since this is not an IS lens. In theory you should shoot as a minimum SS=1/(FLx1.6) for a crop, which come to 1/54.

I found that learning to shoot with the back button (BBF) helped me take steadier shots at AI Servo.

The second photo, assuming a distance of 4 feet, has a DOF of 1.5 inches... f1.8 can be soft on the nifty (mine is not that soft...) Keep in mind that if you focus with half pressing in One Shot and then fully pressing once you locked the shot, if you move half an inch in between, everything is going to be OOF. Regardles of the subjects being still and your shutter shooting at 1/1000.

Take the recommendation and test

a) Do the lenses front/back focus (done at the proper distances, with tripod and good light).

b) Once you confirm that you do not have a problem, try the same photo with tripod at different apertures, to see the effect of DOF

c) Then try 'freehand' to see whether you can improve your technique.

ISO 1600 in the second shot with the 50 at f1.8 is not going to help your sharpness either, modern DSLR's a way better than film ever was, but they are not yet perfect.

Alan

BigAl007 wrote in post #15913993
ISO 1600 in the second shot with the 50 at f1.8 is not going to help your sharpness either, modern DSLR's a way better than film ever was, but they are not yet perfect.

Alan

Alan, if you are implying that the softness of the photo is due to the ISO1600, here is a ISO6400 with essentially the same sensor. I have literally hundreds of photos at ISO 3200/6400 even some ISO12800 which show more detail... You can click the photo to see a whole day's worth of photos at high ISO.

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i37.photobucket​.com …estival/IMG_299​7a1024.jpg

MakisM1 wrote in post #15913398
For checking front/back focus, read this page, print the target and test the lens.

Why? The t2i doesn't have MA. I guess you could send it in and see if Canon can match them, but I'm not sure it that's even possible with no MA.

In the second shot, why are you shooting at 1/1000 and ISO 1600? I would have lowered the ISO a lot and went with a slower shutter speed like 1/250.

Gregg.Siam wrote in post #15914160
Why? The t2i doesn't have MA. I guess you could send it in and see if Canon can match them, but I'm not sure it that's even possible with no MA.

You guess right no MA. Canon can adjust both body and lens to spec or even match them if the combo is out of tolerance. I have even seen a post/thread on how to adjust a body yourself...

Even if you don't plan to do anything, it is good to know whether your lens/camera is the problem or your technique...

daruuk, second photo: too large an aperture and too high on iso
it seems you need a better understanding of depth of field

http://www.dofmaster.c​om/dofjs.html

edit: i took a second look at the first photo. you definitely have
motion blur on his foot, that is possibly the problem on his face too.

my 4.5 year olds use my tripod as a mic too!

makis, wood grain isn't the same as skin tones and facial details

hes gone wrote in post #15914768
=he's gone;15914768]

makis, wood grain isn't the same as skin tones and facial details

Shot at ISO6400 nevertheless... That photo was the first one that came handy...

Here is a ISO3200 with skin... SOOC

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i37.photobucket​.com …0Monica/IMG_424​0g1024.jpg

I think the main point in this is that the camera did what it was told to do. Better instructions would yield better photographs, in both instances. The OP needs trial & error, and practice & patience a whole lot more than he needs a new camera. That is not a dig. It is a fact related to any skill or talent; you will get better with practice. Basketball, flute, photography: all proof that hardware does not imply skill. OP, put your $500 towards a photography class at the local community college. That will get you a lot more of an upgrade than any new equipment.

Did we scare him off?

Tommy1957 wrote in post #15919268
Did we scare him off?

Ha, sorry! There's some very good advice here... I'll be testing the focus as suggested as well as adopting some of the great technique advice. Thanks everyone!

always good info.here if you are willing to read