What's wrong with the Rebels - seriously!

NOTHING wrong with the Rebels - seriously!!!

Ok, now is the fun part Tell me which one is from 5D2, 400D or 550D :

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/x_tan/563456767​8/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/x_tan/569289248​1/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/x_tan/594240727​5/

Let's get back to the low light samples, great sunlit landscapes shot at small apertures become the equalizers between bodies, you could throw a few point and shoot shots in there too, and nobody would be able to tell. Also going to the full-sizes you provided (1200ish x 700ish), they all look a little bit soft, are these crops or resized from originals? For example, that last picture is very cool, but when I go to the larger size, something is off. Is that an issue with how Flicker deals with larger photos maybe?

http://www.flickr.com …5/sizes/o/in/ph​otostream/

In any case, low light shots, exposed properly and equally, bring out the men from the boys.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #13063426
Let's get back to the low light samples, great sunlit landscapes shot at small apertures become the equalizers between bodies, you could throw a few point and shoot shots in there too, and nobody would be able to tell. Also going to the full-sizes you provided (1200ish x 700ish), they all look a bit soft?

Low light shots, exposed properly and equally, bring out the men from the boys.

But ... but ... only full frame is any good at landscapes!

kcbrown wrote in post #13063433
But ... but ... only full frame is any good at landscapes!

No kidding

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Rebel line, and in fact the last 2 models have really brought that line up to par with many of the other models. The only 2 reasons I no longer shoot with rebels have nothing to do with IQ, it has to do with the size of the body, and the plethora of buttons instead of wheels, I like the ergos of the other lines better.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #13063439
No kidding

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Rebel line, and in fact the last 2 models have really brought that line up to par with many of the other models. The only 2 reasons I no longer shoot with rebels have nothing to do with IQ, it has to do with the size of the body, and the plethora of buttons instead of wheels, I like the ergos of the other lines better.

Yeah, my first DSLR was a 450D. I returned it not because I didn't like the image quality or anything like that, but because it was just too small for my hands -- my hands would get cramped when shooting it for too long. I bought a 30D instead and was quite happy with its ergonomics.

I've upgraded through each midrange crop body over the years until I got the 7D. That's likely where I'll be stopping for a while, because it's just so amazingly good. If I do go full frame with a 5D3, it'll be strictly because I want the extra depth of field control (particularly with zooms), but I won't sacrifice anything significant (responsiveness, burst rate, and most importantly, autofocus capability) to get it. If Canon doesn't come out with a worthy competitor to Nikon's D700 this time around, I'll probably sell my 24-105L (which would have a really nice home on a full frame body but which now hardly gets used since I have a Sigma 17-50 OS and a Canon 55-250 IS in my camera bag) and give up on the idea of going full frame altogether. Either that, or I'll just pick up a 1Ds2 and live with the fact that it's a huge body. Either way, Canon's not getting any of my money for a full frame body unless they get it right.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #13063426
Let's get back to the low light samples...

I was sitting at the same seat, the shoot was heavily cropped:
:

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

NOTHING wrong with the Rebels - seriously!!!

Ok, the same time, 550D / T2i @ ISO 1600, No crop this time.
Much nicer

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/x_tan/601389847​8/

x_tan wrote in post #13063349
Ok, some photos example:

Low lighting:

5D2 + 85L @ f/4, ISO 3200, 1/60s:
Making Syphon, St. Ali, South Melbourne by X_Tan, on Flickr

550D / T2i + 24L @ f/4, ISO 1600, 1/20s:
Making Syphon, St. Ali, South Melbourne by X_Tan, on Flickr

How did you crop these photos? Also were you in the same spot for both cameras or did you move to get the same framing? I'm wondering because the 550D combo is equivalent to almost 40mm, pretty wide compared to the 85L. If you're cropping a lot of the 550D image to get the same framing, then it won't be a fair comparison because you'll be enlarging the noise. Also because the 5D image is a rectangle, while the 550D is a square.

Edit: Ok, I take too long writing as usual :P. The 550D image is definitely nicer noise-wise w/out the crop.

Also, depending on your processing (if you added more contrast or push the exposure), it would also bring out more noise.

To the OP, if you don't shoot low light that much (or if you use flash), then higher isos may not matter to you. To some, it does matter, and the better noise characteristics at the higher isos is reason enough to switch. If you're doing a lot of daytime shooting, where there is plenty of ample light, then the differences may not be so great between bodies.

I think a lot of people upgrade to the higher end bodies for the other features like better AF and burst speed. I don't know if I'd call those "bells & whistles"...those things will allow you to get the shots that may be otherwise extremely difficult to get with a rebel body.

It seems you're only focused on image quality...but image quality isn't the main difference between higher tier bodies...for a lot of the bodies it's the ergonomics and (better) weather sealing, AF and burst speeds.

For you, if image quality is your focus, then the 5D (classic or mark ii) probably would be your next camera. Again, I'm not sure how much of a difference it would be if you don't shoot low light.

I can't answer any of your other questions because I only have 1 DSLR (a 7D from a SX10 IS).

drmaxx wrote in post #13063122
So, here's my question:
Did anybody switched from a Rebel to an xxD or xD and his pictures improved? Why? Or: Did you switched and you improved as a photographer because of the new camera (UI, ...)?

I shifted from a 400D to a 7D; my reason was for 3 things the 7D gave me over the 400D

1) Better AF - I shoot action/moving subjects and I wanted that better AF, not just on the centre point, but also in the outlying points, points that I would hardly ever use with the 400D because they would not be as fast/responsive. The freedom of better and more reliable outer AF points expands what I can do creatively because I can now rely on them and thus don't have to frame every shot with the detail point in the middle (though for many situations I'll still rely upon it as a good default starting position).

2) Better ISO performance - goes without saying really that a boost to this really helps - not so much the higher limit, but more the improved quality in the midranges that will be used far more; being able to get to ISO 800 with minimal degradation - pushing to 1600 are ideal options for when the light is a bit less, the lens needs a stop down and I need a fast shutter speed.

3) Video - though I've honestly not made as much use of this as yet its something I wanted without having to put out the cost for a fully separate video system (simply not a cost I can make at present). So the video is something worthwhile for me to upgrade for (and yes I know lots of people treat video recording in DSLRs like the plague that liveview was when it first game to the DSLR ).

As for improving me as a photographer - eh I've no idea to be honest. I think asking that question is just waiting for a quagmire of different experienced people to flash up yeses and nos and in the end its mostly meaningless. You'll get those that were never confident in the tool they used previously underestimating it and thus missing shots because of invisible limits - suddenly finding that they are free with a better tool that they push more to the limits;
You'll get those who are learning and for whome a new camera slows them up and sets them back as they get used to the new interface
You'll get those who find the new body only helps them along as they learn fast and would have gotten the same place with the previous body, but now have a better one and falsely attribute the improvement to the body
You'll get those who see no difference in the artisty of their work and only in the technical aspects -- who will thus say that a new body makes no difference as they can't see an improvement in the art (and you'll get the opposite from the techy photographers).

In the end I second the notion - work out your weaknesses in your equipment - research your options for improvement and make the choice on the options you can afford that will get you the best possible gain to the technical quality and artistic release.

That might mean more lighting - better lenses - paying for professional models instead of MM freebies/family - tuition - travel to key locations - studio space etc... all before you consider the body.

drmaxx wrote in post #13063122
So, here's my question:
Did anybody switched from a Rebel to an xxD or xD and his pictures improved? Why? Or: Did you switched and you improved as a photographer because of the new camera (UI, ...)?

I didn't really switched from 500D to 5D, I'm keeping and using Rebel after acquiring of 5D. I didn't improved as photographer, but pictures from 5D looks different. And I'm getting better marks for pictures taken by 5D from my friends and visitors on my blog.
I'm using Rebel for sports, birds and hiking. Will upgrade it to second hand 1D body few year from now, to have more keepers on fast moving objects and to be able to take pictures at rain and snow.
Most of the members I knew who switched from Rebels to xD-xxD bodies are taking paid shots and at some point their Rebels starting to show some issues due to extensive use. Because Rebels build for casual consumer use.

Rebels don't have pentaprism viewfirenders and rear scroll wheels.
I moved from a 500D to a 7D an the image quality was much better so was the autofocus and user interface.
I miss alot less shots with the 7D which was one of the major rewasons i starded hating the 500D at the end.

x_tan wrote in post #13063405
Ok, now is the fun part Tell me which one is from 5D2, 400D or 550D :

I have no doubt for the first one - one of the Rebels. Another two were hard to tell.
Was second one taken from the plane?

kcbrown wrote in post #13063433
But ... but ... only full frame is any good at landscapes!

Who ever said that? And why are you seemingly going to every thread about bodies and pontificating about how FF offers no IQ advantage? I don't even shoot a FF camera, but these posts are starting to really annoy me.

x_tan wrote in post #13063405
Ok, now is the fun part Tell me which one is from 5D2, 400D or 550D

2nd one is clearly taken with a 5D. People say what they say about differences in image quality, but I can almost always pick out a 5D shot when I see it ... especially compared to XXXD/XXD shots.

As for which one was taken with a 400D vs 550D ... I'd have to take a guess and say the 1st is 550D, 3rd is 400D.

500D ISO6400