What's wrong with the Rebels - seriously!

drmaxx wrote in post #13063122
This is a serious question - I am thinking about 'upgrading' to a 'better' body but have a hard time to see the benefit in terms of picture quality.

Reading POTN now for quite a while there are all this quotes about the Rebels: "better point & shoot", "beginner camera", "entry level", "base to move up", ....

I shoot with a Rebel 450D for a few years now. I am comfortable with producing decent pictures even under more difficult conditions. I use most of the buttons on my camera frequently and shoot raw.

Now, I am looking at the other Canon bodies and have difficulties to be able to identify a good reason to switch. And yes, I am aware of the specs (higher ISO, faster shutter speeds, ..). But it seems to me that most of the 'upgrade' are bells and whistles and not much an improvement in picture quality (e.g. like going from a compact to a SLR).

yes, you won't see much improvement in "IQ" with the newer models but if you want video and other features then upgrading may make sense

Darkwand wrote in post #13063728
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.

I had a T1i before as well.

I love the ergonomics of the bigger body, better higher ISO performance and of course the AF system on the 7D.

x_tan wrote in post #13063405
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/
Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park by X_Tan, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/x_tan/569289248​1/
Tasman Glacier Lake, New Zealand by X_Tan, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/x_tan/594240727​5/
Glacier, Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park, New Zealand by X_Tan, on Flickr

Now do the same with three objects per camera.
First a landscape then a surprise encounter of a rare wild animal behind you and "your child" doing something funny on a small hill with just sky in the background.


You're only measuring the images you took you don't measure the images that never could or got taken.

rpaul wrote in post #13063807
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.

You would be wrong. It is the last one taken with the 17-40L, but again, if you go to the full sized image, it is still a bit soft for a resize, unless it is a crop. So your "can almost always pick out a 5D shot" radar was a bit broken here.

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

drmaxx wrote in post #13063122
This is a serious question - I am thinking about 'upgrading' to a 'better' body but have a hard time to see the benefit in terms of picture quality.

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 have the 400D, 50D and 7D and use them all in equal terms. The IQ of all these cameras is really great. Of course the 50D has a better built body and better AF and MFA (which unfortunately, I have had no use of it since all my lenses are OK). The 7D has the best AF, a very nice video and lots of additional gadgets, but all these cameras can take, with an EF-85 f1.8 lens, the same picture, as the examples below show. The first shot is with the 7D and the second with the 400D.

Miguel

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

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

Fabfive wrote in post #13063862
I had a T1i before as well.

I love the ergonomics of the bigger body, better higher ISO performance and of course the AF system on the 7D.

I still use the 500D from time to time as a second body and it drives me crazy because it takes so long to change settings.


Also have you noticed that all the peope who say Rebels are fine tend to own a xxD+ camera as well. I bet my ass they grab their best body when they go out the door and only use the rebel when a small body is more convenient. Then they come on here and rave about how good rebels are to newbies. All the while forgetting they don't encounter the hard moments of a rebel, like the guy with a basic kit who has to use his camera for everything.

Darkwand wrote in post #13063937
I still use the 500D from time to time as a second body and it drives me crazy because it takes so long to change settings.


Also have you noticed that all the peope who say Rebels are fine tend to own a xxD+ camera as well. I bet my ass they grab their best body when they go out the door and only use the rebel when a small body is more convenient. Then they come on here and rave about how good rebels are to newbies. All the while forgetting they don't encounter the hard moments of a rebel, like the guy with a basic kit who has to use his camera for everything.

Whilst other model lines are faster to operate, once you use a rebel on a daily basis, it becomes 2nd nature on how to change everything very quickly. And size and weight are definitely 2 of many factors that go into someone's purchasing decision, they are sometimes as important as ergonomics and IQ. There is nothing "hard" about operating a rebel, just different.

Nothing WRONG...

The Rebels are very good cameras which are fully capable of achieving excellent imagery.

I shoot with xxD cameras and the 7D because I enjoy the controls and the interface of these cameras better than I enjoy using the Rebel (series). After-all, I am retired and no longer shoot for a living and enjoyment of my photography is important to me.

The rear wheel and the top LCD are two features of my cameras that I would miss greatly.

However, I don't think that there would be any epiphany in switching from a Rebel to other cameras. Your image quality will not magically turn from mundane to interesting.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #13063908
You would be wrong.

Figures. And the one I was so sure was the 5d was the 400D. Interesting, to say the least.

I should know better than to speak in absolutes (and to not check EXIF data I thought wasn't there).

rpaul wrote in post #13063981
Figures. And the one I was so sure was the 5d was the 400D. Interesting, to say the least.

I should know better than to speak in absolutes (and to not check EXIF data I thought wasn't there).

You said "almost", so you didn't have an absolute.

I switched from a rebel (300D) to a 7D and my images have improved alot. It was easier to get sharp images with the rebel becasue the pixel density was so low but beyond that, there isn't much comparison. I don't view images on my computer screen to judge which are better. I print them 24x36" and put them on the wall. I got some great shots with the rebel but the 7D obviously gives a bit more detail.

The vast improvements in AF and noise mean I can do things with this camera that I simply couldn't with the rebel (a picture that you get has infinitely better IQ than one that you don't get).

Ultimately I upgraded becasue the rebel was limiting what I could do.

Having said all that, the newer rebels would be a significant upgrade (vast even) from what I had. If I was using one of them prior to my upgrade I would probably be less impressed.

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, ...)?

Absolutely. (details below)

boerewors wrote in post #13063281
The current lineup of 550D, 600D, 60D and 7D all use the same sensor and can all make the same results if used in the right hands.

I agree with this, but some clarification.
With the various cameras on a tripod, with the same lens, lighting, stationary subject -- you are absolutely correct -- the results from each of these cameras will be virtually identical.

The difference between the lines has more to do with improving the photographer's ability to get the camera on subject, in focus and exposed properly; quickly and reliably. Some of the factors:

1. Build quality. If you are tough on cameras, you won't get the sensor on subject if the camera is broken. (this is a minor issue for most as all of these bodies are suitably built for most photographers).

2. AF. For shooting sports, the improved AF of the 7D will help you get better results by getting you on the subject and in focus more quickly. And add the additional AF modes like aiServo, that, at least my rebel, did not have, and it just gets better.

3. FPS. Similar argument as #2

4. Layout of controls. In manual, for example, on a rebel you use the same control to set shutter speed and aperture; on the 50D and 7D, there is a wheel for shutter and a different wheel for aperture. I am much faster with dual wheels than one and a button to switch the functionality.

5. There are other features, like the 60D's flip out screen or the wireless flash, that can help you get pictures that you may not be able to get with a rebel. For example, holding the camera over your head in a crowd, or for ground level shooting, the flip-out screen is indispensable.

Here is a series that I took with the 7D that would not have been possible with my rebel (the 300D). The quality of this sheet is poor, but some of the shots were very sharp. These were taken when I first got the 7D, really just to get familiar with the capabilities.

Darkwand wrote in post #13063937
I still use the 500D from time to time as a second body and it drives me crazy because it takes so long to change settings.


Also have you noticed that all the peope who say Rebels are fine tend to own a xxD+ camera as well. I bet my ass they grab their best body when they go out the door and only use the rebel when a small body is more convenient. Then they come on here and rave about how good rebels are to newbies. All the while forgetting they don't encounter the hard moments of a rebel, like the guy with a basic kit who has to use his camera for everything.

I'm afraid you're getting your ass to jeopardy here.

I have absolutely no problem to change aperture, shutter and ISO speed in no time by viewing only at VW at 500D and 5D.
And I don't encounter any hard moments with Rebel within two years of daily use and something like 30K+ pictures taken.
Yes, if it is special event, rare landscape opportunity or portrait job, I'll take 5D, just because of IQ difference. But body size or controls are irrelevant.

For me I like the bigger and brighter viewfinder, sturdier feel, meatier grip and more control buttons and dials. But really the Rebel's have the same sensor and lens mount and will get the job done just as well in all but the trickiest of situations.

I think part of the problem is that Rebel owners themselves are insecure about their camera. Sure you hear comments about others saying they don't like the feel or the Rebels anymore, but that doesn't mean you have to care. If you like your camera, use it and stop paying attention to what others think. It's only you and your pictures that should matter to you.

I'm actually still faster with my 400D at changing aperture and shutter speed than with my 7D - I always forget which wheel is doing which function - plus my thumb is always ready because the * button is my AF button on the 400D.

I also miss the on-off thing that the 400D had with its LCD as compared to the 7D which is either always on or off unless you press buttons - and I miss the backview showing the settings.

Guess I've still got to get used to the topdown LCD and the duel scrolly thingies