can you help me? i'm very confuse about IQ

I have a Rebel Xti. I look at photos taken with a 50D and see a big difference in image quality. I know the glass is important. I have some pretty acceptable glass. Will I benefit from upgrading my camera? They both have the same sensor so this is why I'm confused on the image quality. Can someone explain it to me. And give me a good reason to upgrade or tell me why it's not necessary? My main goal is bird shots.

Thanks.

Without any examples of your shots to go off of, my best guess would be that exposure and composition are keeping you back more so than your body or glass. Are you comparing your Xti shots against 50D shots taken in the same lighting, with the same lens? Or are they totally different shots?

the photos taken with the 50D may have been taken under better conditions, or a more skilled photographer. I would say its not necessary to upgrade since your question suggests you've not gotten the max out of the gear you have.
have fun out there! upgrade when you feel you've hit the limits of what XTi can do for you... then you need no other argument

Upgrading from a rebel to an xxd of a similar age sometimes doesnt yield a huge upgrade in IQ, as they often share the same or similar sensor. The differences are usually in the control system, the focusing system, the FPS, the better build quality, and some other features.

You do have good glass so that's not the issue. My guess is technique, not your camera.

I'm going to digress and say that if this is your hobby.. and you're not spending the grocery or mortage money; you would probably not feel satisfied if you didn't get that 50D and see what you can do with it.. You may even feel like getting more involved and taking that next step in processing or composition skills.. Nothing helps you take better photos than the knowledge that you're using good gear and are practicing your best skill-set to produce your best images...

I will agree with the others and say that the difference you see is likely a difference in post processing and initial composition/exposure, or perhaps both..

I still think that I take pretty good stuff with an older 8.2mp Canon..

chrisr09 wrote in post #12835217
I have a Rebel Xti. I look at photos taken with a 50D and see a big difference in image quality. I know the glass is important. I have some pretty acceptable glass. Will I benefit from upgrading my camera? They both have the same sensor so this is why I'm confused on the image quality. Can someone explain it to me. And give me a good reason to upgrade or tell me why it's not necessary? My main goal is bird shots.

Thanks.

Bird shots? Sounds like a 1DII or 7D would be in order. Wildlife is one of the areas the AF and viewfinder/responsiven​ess of a rebel are actually limiting.

There is going to be a difference in image quality using the same glass between a XTi and a 50D because they in fact DO NOT share the same sensor. The XTi uses a 10.1 MP sensor which I believe is the same sensor used in the 40D and XS, but the 50D uses a 15.1 MP sensor like the one in the 550D/T1i.

equach206 wrote in post #12835993
There is going to be a difference in image quality using the same glass between a XTi and a 50D because they in fact DO NOT share the same sensor. The XTi uses a 10.1 MP sensor which I believe is the same sensor used in the 40D and XS, but the 50D uses a 15.1 MP sensor like the one in the 550D/T1i.

Yeah, but that won't yield a night-and-day difference in the end result, and in fact you won't even see the difference unless you insist on blowing the results up on the screen or printing very large.


We need a clear definition of what the OP means by "image quality". What is it about his shots that he finds lacking?


When looking in these forums for shots taken with some camera that is somehow "better" than the one you have, it is very easy to find shots that will impress you and make you think that the camera you have is somehow lacking. But the camera is not the reason those impressive shots came out that way, it is the skill of the photographer, both in terms of how he uses his camera and in terms of his postprocessing. The photos that get shown here on the forums tend to be the better ones the photographer took. We rarely see the screwups. As a result, it's very easy to think that the image quality coming out of some other camera is way better than what's coming out of yours, unless you factor these things in or are very comfortable with your own capabilities.


Additionally, as someone grows as a photographer, he tends to gravitate towards more advanced gear. Sometimes that is because the more advanced gear really does have capabilities that he needs, but I would wager that at least as often, it's because he initially thinks his shots will improve with the more advanced gear, particularly if he's coming from a relatively low-end camera. He then discovers that while his shots may have improved slightly, it's not the night and day difference he envisioned, and he then goes on to learn more and his shots get better. End result? The shots taken with the better gear wind up being better, not because the gear is better but because the photographer is better at some point in time after he moves up.


There are a few types of photography where the quality of the gear makes a truly major difference. Birding is, as it happens, one of them. But it also happens that the difference the better gear makes isn't the image quality, it's the number of "keepers". So it's possible the OP would benefit greatly from a more capable body. But if he were experienced enough, he would know that it is the body that limits him. He would know that the reason the shot he took isn't what it should be is that the camera missed focus, for instance. That doesn't appear to be the case here, because the OP is complaining about a general "image quality" issue as opposed to a more specific autofocus issue.

And so, I have to conclude that his best course of action is to stick with what he has and to learn the craft until he knows that it is the gear that limits him and, more importantly, how it limits him.

Unless, of course, money grows on trees for him. In that case, he should clearly get a 1Dmk4.

kcbrown wrote in post #12836194
Unless, of course, money grows on trees for him. In that case, he should clearly get a 1Dmk4.

Or a Nikon D3s!
I have seen some really great shots of birds in flight, in near darkness, taken with a Nikon D3s, and although I have never taken a shot of a bird in flight in my life, that sort of thing just doesn't interest me, I am sure I could take exactly the same shot as the superb ones I have seen if I had a Nikon D3s.

For a while I was using a bridge camera and whilst the shots were ok I felt they lacked in IQ a lot, so I bought a Canon 550d. The IQ of the first few shots I took wasn't that much better, and whereas a lot of people mention a bad copy of a lens, I thought I had a bad copy of a body as shots I had seen from others were so much better. Well after practising with it for a while my shots have got a lot better in terms of IQ, due in part to better metering and exposure but mainly due to improved post processing. And in fact old pictures taken with my bridge camera look almost as good as those taken with the canon when processed differently. I am at the moment experimenting with 'Exposing To The Right', and quite frankly very impressed with the results, but as I am still practising a lot are completely blown out. Back in the days of film I under exposed to get a mean and moody look, but now I can get that same look by over exposing and then bringing it back in post.
So, as others have said, like me it is probably your technique that is leading to you feeling unhappy with the IQ of your shots. A better body might improve your shots a little, but not nearly as much as better technique will improve them.

kcbrown wrote in post #12836194
And so, I have to conclude that his best course of action is to stick with what he has and to learn the craft until he knows that it is the gear that limits him and, more importantly, how it limits him.

Unless, of course, money grows on trees for him. In that case, he should clearly get a 1Dmk4.

Thank you, everyone, for your explanation. Yes, deep down I do feel that it is not the equipment, but my lack of skill at this point. I tend to pull out my camera, go gung ho for a while, and then put it back away until the next urge to go out and shoot. I clearly need more practice to improve my skill level. My glass is more than adequate to accomplish this. No, I don't have a money tree in my yard. I am more or less digging for buried treasure! LOL. You have saved me a bundle. I'll keep at it with my present camera and when I feel that I have finally gotten proficient enough, maybe a money tree will have sprouted and a 7D will be in order for those bird shots!

I was comparing shots on pixel-peeper.com. Of course the 50D shots look so much better than the XTi shots. But I have to factor in that the 50D owners are probably better photographers (for the most part) and the XTi owners (for the most part) are just starting out with their first DSLRs (I'm in this boat) and haven't gained the skill set that the more advanced photographers have.

Practice, practice, practice is in order.

Christine

pixel-peeper.com is a place where anyone can post images.... so you have no idea of the skill level of those posting images. Keep shooting and remember the film is free!

chrisr09 wrote in post #12836677
Practice, practice, practice is in order.

Christine

Yes. Good decision. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "image quality", but unless you are referring to subtle differences in resolution, noise levels, or maybe dynamic range (and I do mean "subtle") spending money on a body will NOT produce any difference in composition, sharpness, or colours.

The 50D should be able to focus a bit faster than the XTi on occasion, but there is no reason a good operator can't get excellent pictures of birds with your lenses and an XTi body. It might be helpful if you could "define" what it is that you are not getting in your pictures that you see in the pictures you like. Maybe someone here can advise you about how to achieve that aspect of "image quality" you seek without spending any money.

chrisr09 wrote in post #12836677
Thank you, everyone, for your explanation. Yes, deep down I do feel that it is not the equipment, but my lack of skill at this point. I tend to pull out my camera, go gung ho for a while, and then put it back away until the next urge to go out and shoot. I clearly need more practice to improve my skill level.

You could always try a 365-project... I'm about to start one, for this reason exactly. It will force me to not put the camera away for several days at a time. Skills will develop with practice and what better way than give yourself incentive to practice EVERY DAY!

rral22 wrote in post #12837035
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "image quality"...

I think deep down if I am completely honest with myself, my reference to "image quality" is misleading. It is more than likely "image composition" and "image focus" that I found to be so much better in the photos I was referring to-- both of which will not be greatly improved with an upgrade in the body.

Again, thank you for the validation that it is not the camera but the experience level of the operator.