Xti is taking better pics than my new t3i? What gives?

John from PA wrote in post #13513408
CU Wader, if you think "...a lens that is four years old is ancient" is true, then you must be in marketing with a lens manufacturer.

Johnny, thanks for the compliment but I'm hardly capable of using my camera properly. How in the world did you come to the conclusion that I'm into marketing, with a lens manufacturer? That is wild!

I am actually having the same issue, only I compared my XS to the T3i. Fore some reason it appears that the T3i is "noisier" even at low ISO. The two lenses I have tried are the 50mm and the 28-135mm USM...both on a tripod, IS off, etc, etc...

I'll post some samples tomorrow during the day with good natural light, then a couple others with flash.

XoZe wrote in post #13520084
I am actually having the same issue, only I compared my XS to the T3i. Fore some reason it appears that the T3i is "noisier" even at low ISO. The two lenses I have tried are the 50mm and the 28-135mm USM...both on a tripod, IS off, etc, etc...

I'll post some samples tomorrow during the day with good natural light, then a couple others with flash.

I only have the T3i so I can't compare the two. I find it surprising that when you obtained the T3i, that you didn't return it when you discovered that the T1i was better. So why did you keep the T3i if it was noisier than the earlier model?

CU Wader wrote in post #13516427
Johnny, thanks for the compliment but I'm hardly capable of using my camera properly. How in the world did you come to the conclusion that I'm into marketing, with a lens manufacturer? That is wild!

He said it as sarcasm. A lens that is 4 years old is far from ancient. As he was implying that only a salesman would say that you need a new lens after 4 years if it's still going strong.

Fricks wrote in post #13520969
He said it as sarcasm. A lens that is 4 years old is far from ancient. As he was implying that only a salesman would say that you need a new lens after 4 years if it's still going strong.

Really? I wasn't aware that he was being sarcastic! Thanks for pointing that out for me. It would never have dawned on me, had you not pointed that out.

CU Wader wrote in post #13520996
Really? I wasn't aware that he was being sarcastic! Thanks for pointing that out for me. It would never have dawned on me, had you not pointed that out to me.

No problem man we people on this forum tend to be sarcastic.

On a real note- the way you responded made you sound like you thought he was being serious...

Fricks wrote in post #13521028
No problem man we people on this forum tend to be sarcastic.

On a real note- the way you responded made you sound like you thought he was being serious...

You mean to tell me he wasn't being serious?

CU Wader wrote in post #13522229
You mean to tell me he wasn't being serious?

hard to break the news but yes.

CU Wader wrote in post #13520923
I only have the T3i so I can't compare the two. I find it surprising that when you obtained the T3i, that you didn't return it when you discovered that the T1i was better. So why did you keep the T3i if it was noisier than the earlier model?

Well I didn't have the two at the same time. And it was not the T1i, it was the XS. When I got the T3i, I figured I would continue to test it thinking it might be the lens, or me not holding the camera properly. After that, I missed the deadline to return it to B&H.

The other thing is, that it could possibly be the lens, as it gets noisier with the Sigma 17-70.

XoZe wrote in post #13522522
Well I didn't have the two at the same time. And it was not the T1i, it was the XS. When I got the T3i, I figured I would continue to test it thinking it might be the lens, or me not holding the camera properly. After that, I missed the deadline to return it to B&H.

The other thing is, that it could possibly be the lens, as it gets noisier with the Sigma 17-70.

Never mind! I made an error. I read your post but I was thinking about the OP. It should have been addressed to him.

XoZe wrote in post #13522522
Well I didn't have the two at the same time. And it was not the T1i, it was the XS. When I got the T3i, I figured I would continue to test it thinking it might be the lens, or me not holding the camera properly. After that, I missed the deadline to return it to B&H.

The other thing is, that it could possibly be the lens, as it gets noisier with the Sigma 17-70.

Uh huh, now who is pulling our collective leg? The way you hold the camera makes it noisier? It gets noisier when you change the lens? Is it also noisier when you wear a pink shirt?

tzalman wrote in post #13522942
Uh huh, now who is pulling our collective leg? The way you hold the camera makes it noisier? It gets noisier when you change the lens? Is it also noisier when you wear a pink shirt?

Sorry, not noisier...I meant to say blurrier. I guess I'm talking about two different issues. One being the noise in the shadows, the other is the lack of sharpness. I have some samples that I can put up in about an hour. I also just came from a workshop and someone else is having the same issues with another Canon model.

One thing to consider here is that it's not a fair comparison to view the images from both cameras at 100%. The reason is that the high-res sensor with their tinier sensor "wells" can capture more detail, but at 100% viewing things will come into play, everything from the effects of the anti-aliasing filter, any camera movement as well as any softness of the lens. These things will show more effect the more you enlarge your view of the files, whereas the lower-res cameras, once you get to a 100% view, that's all they'll show detail-wise and because of the larger pixel wells, more light was collected and so they can appear sharper and likely less noisy compared to the newer high-res images viewed at 100%,

But the reality is that the newer sensors as a rule will hold up to the other bodies if you view them at the same display size that you are viewing the files from the lower-res bodies (in other words not at 100%). Assuming that you used a good technique with both shots, the higher-res images should look just as good as far as details go, and likely a bit better in IQ respects because a bit of "compression" down from a 100% view will help to neutralize image noise and such.

Then, you can go beyond that with the higher-res bodies, enlarge the image to show more detail, keep enlarging it unless and until you start to see difficulties -- softness, noisiness, diffraction, that kind of thing.

Take note of when you reach that point. You can do sharpening and noise reduction zoomed at 100% view, but a "normal" viewing size will enable you to appreciate other image qualities without distraction. And it's the only way to objectively compare these things with another low-res camera.